gudaulin

Despite all efforts and good intentions, films like this are about the most boring thing that can appear on a movie theater screen or television, outside of the circle of fans of the person. It is simply a biographical film, which is shot without proper distance with a certain amount of pathos and idealization of the character it focuses on. The person disappears and the institution of the papal throne is worshipped. Catholics will naturally be satisfied, but others have no reason to waste time with it. Karol Wojtyla was truly an exceptional person, and if the screenwriter and director could have humanized him, it could have been a truly interesting work. Overall impression: 40%.

When it comes to the Disney style, then I'd rather see the original because this is just a pale imitation, even worse with the fact that the quality of the dialogue is terrible. Overall impression: 25%.

I accepted Otakáro Maria Schmidt as a somewhat eccentric moderator, but after this feature film, I wouldn't trust him with directing even a stupid soap opera. this was a completely mishandled experiment that looks like its creator was tripping... Overall impression: 15% for the colors and Zuzana Stivínová...

It's worth a decent three stars, but I have to say that this time, Zdeněk Svěrák's "bitter" humor seemed a bit "tired" and unremarkable to me. Czech cinema is currently in decline and among various nonsense, the professionalism of the Svěrák family tandem naturally stands out, but seen from a broader perspective, it's nothing to boast about. The song by Jaroslav Uhlíř, underlining the nostalgic mood, will probably stick in my memory the most. Overall impression: 60%.

Openly speaking, I have a real problem with this film... Francois Truffaut is my favorite director and his direction is not a disappointment in this case either. The cast is luxurious, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve are first-rate stars and their mere presence on the screen is beneficial. Moreover, they don't even act badly. What bothers me, however, is the script, or rather the basic premise. This melodrama with a crime plot has a significantly unreliable outline, and it is fabricated to the point of misery. The film is clearly set in the time of its production, the late 60s, when the sexual revolution was at its peak, technology rapidly shortened distances and connected people from the other side of the planet, consumer society was booming, and at the same time, a successful businessman exchanges several letters with a completely unknown woman and arranges marriage with her without ever meeting her before. They don't even call each other to hear how their voices sound? If the story took place in the year 1900, I wouldn't have a problem with it, maybe in the 30s, but this? After the man learns that he has been robbed of all his savings and his fiancee murdered, by an incredible stroke of luck, he meets that fraudster, and then a short conversation culminating in the sentence: "I still love you," is enough for him to forgive that woman and plan a life together despite her criminal past, and what's more, he is willing to murder for her and lose all his standing. It just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a second. Three weak stars for the direction and performances. Overall impression: 50%.

This is one of those evergreens that I always come back to and it never disappoints me. The five stars are not so much for the film, but rather for the theatrical source full of amazing dialogues, great lines, and bizarre characters. Adding a quality cast was enough to ensure the film's success. As many others have noted, the final form of the film is perhaps too faithful to the theatrical version. It definitely wasn't an expensive film, but that's not really important for the result. Cary Grant is great and the others helped him out nicely. Overall impression: 95%.

A typical product of the 1970s studio system - a conversation comedy about relationships with a recognized star in the lead role, which was supposed to guarantee commercial success. Walter Matthau is truly excellent and it is worth seeing the film simply because of his acting. Another plus is the quality of the dialogue and subtle ironic humor. Overall impression: 80%.

For fans of mainstream entertainment, it is slightly unsophisticated and lacking artistic ambition. For fans of B-movies, on the other hand, it is unattractive and essentially boring with a bizarre storyline. However, Brian Helgeland tried to handle the problematic script as best as possible, and I wouldn't deny the film its atmosphere. Overall impression: 35%.

In the 1960s, imitations of American westerns, called spaghetti westerns, became very popular in Europe (and saved the stagnating film industry). Although Barboni is not Sergio Leone, folk comedies and parodies were his strength. He was an experienced routine director who could rely on the popular comedic duo of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. Man of the East, arguably his best film, only featured Terence Hill, but it was richly compensated by a screenplay full of parody humor and subtle irony. The dialogues, casting, music, and the scenery of the Plitvice Lakes together create an enjoyable spectacle that I like to revisit. Overall impression: 80%.

Undoubtedly a great film of its time, but it was marked by the director's attempt to portray the "Russian soul" and the persistent flaw of Soviet cinema, namely excessive length and generally slow pace. It is balladlike, with captivatingly beautiful shots of nature. I would say that Tarkovsky's influence is evident in this historical saga. Overall impression: 75%.