gudaulin

Mary Poppins was certainly a great film in its time, a high-budget ambitious musical shot with versatile studio support, star-studded, and very solidly directed. However, one cannot overlook a certain shabbiness given by the theme and execution. If I set aside its role in cinematic history, then I have to say that I'm no longer at an age where such a subject appeals to me. It is primarily a story intended for children after all. I also feel that today's children have been raised on different things and this is, after all, too much of an old-fashioned, slow spectacle with naive special effects and a bourgeois atmosphere for them. Today, it's more of a film for nostalgia and fans of film history, although it is very high-quality in many respects. Overall impression: 65%.

One of the key Soviet war films of the 1960s, in which the time of its creation is very important. It was 1964 and the peak of the Khrushchev thaw. Just a few years before and shortly after its completion, it would not have been possible to make a similar film. The film depicts the first half-year of the Great Patriotic War, a period of heavy retreat battles and great disillusionment. On the other hand, even here, the creators did not dare to tell the truth about this war, and the film remains in many ways obedient to the official line. It is characteristic that although many things are hinted at in the film, in the most intense moments and most intimate testimonies of individual characters, things and events are not called by their proper names. A high-ranking military commander who survived the purges in the officer corps only vaguely describes that he lost a certain period of his life, and the paranoia of the time is portrayed only through a series of hints. The reality was incomparably worse. The filmmakers worked with a limited budget, and this war drama is far from as spectacular as, for example, Ozerov's epic war films. A real battle appears in the film only once and is shot rather schematically. Most of the time, the film moves forward through dialogues, in many cases pathetic and strongly marked by ideological phrases. Soldiers from the besieged units, who for several days fight their way back to the front without rest, meet their commander and light up like sunshine after rain. Some commanders or soldiers loudly proclaim slogans to the camera. The propaganda character of the film, so typical for Soviet filmmaking, cannot be overlooked despite some positive changes. Overall impression: 45%.

I read beforehand that this was a considerably controversial film, but after watching it, I have significant doubts about that. The film was shot in 1980, and at that time, there already existed a numerous and essentially prevailing group of sufficiently emancipated women in the Euro-American world who had long ceased to be dependent on men. The plot of the film is very simple and strongly resembles an old anecdote when a young author rushes to the theater director and exclaims that he has a sensational subject for a play. He starts explaining that in the first act, he loves her, she loves him, in the second act, he loves her and she loves him, and in the third act, he loves her and she loves him. "So, where is the dramatic conflict?" the director asks. "It lies in the fact that only she remains the same person, he is someone different each time." The protagonist of the film is a beautiful, confident, and demanding woman who longs for passionate love. However, since none of her partners is capable of providing her with it in the long run, she gets bored, seeks satisfaction from lovers, and ends the relationship each time. The success of the film was guaranteed by the beautiful Catherine Deneuve, already a mature and experienced actress at the time, but still a very charming woman with undeniable French charm. Director Berri complicated the simple plot with a fragmented narrative structure, intertwining several temporal planes of the film, as the main character remembers all her love affairs. The director does not provide any resolution and simply describes a certain model of a romantic relationship. Overall impression: 60%.

I can't help but say that despite its attractive topic, the film had too many TV-like qualities and was unable to utilize all the possibilities that the topic offered. Overall impression: 50%. A group of mountaineers exposed to extreme conditions and fighting for survival should be an appealing TV program even today.

The genre of gangster and noir films has a long tradition in the United States, and Brian De Palma is an experienced matador of film studios and has a wealth of experience with this genre. In his old age, he wanted to prove that he was not yet past his prime, and he made an ambitious film that may not be able to compete with his famous works such as The Untouchables, Scarface, or Carlito's Way, but it is still a watchable film that will please genre fans. De Palma definitely did not experiment, he played it safe, and the conventionality of the film is evidenced by the fact that out of the two femme fatales, the provocatively dressed one who looks like she just stepped out of a brothel is a real bitch, while the angelic-looking one is truly innocent. This film is not surprising, but there are still a few scenes where De Palma's talent shines through. In terms of acting, it is decent, and the male part of the audience will undoubtedly be pleased with the casting of Scarlett Johansson and Hilary Swank. Overall impression: 55%.

In these types of anthology films, which are directed by several different directors, the most common problem is the different quality of individual stories. In the case of Paris, I Love You, this critical point is even stronger because there was a whole army of directors and the space for their expression was therefore very limited. Not everyone was able to create a meaningful story with a point in such a small space. Some creators did not offer the viewer more information about their characters than what they could learn from the presented photograph. Several of the stories were really nice, whether they were filmed anecdotes like vampire stories or the story of the unfortunate Steve Buscemi, who was properly tormented by his friend Joel Coen. The strength of the film is definitely the cast, which is luxurious, but it is a pity that the individual actors did not have the opportunity to show more in their performances. The only thing that connects this chaos of micro-stories is Paris, but even that does not play the main role because most of the stories could take place almost anywhere. Overall impression: 65%.

Screamers can be used as a typical example of a B-movie. The film has all the basic characteristics, i.e., low budget, a simple screenplay that doesn't count on a demanding viewer and that has to do everything to fit within the mentioned limited budget, as well as mostly unknown average actors. On the other hand, with its straightforwardness and energy, it can appeal to a genre fan and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Although the sets are simple and there are minimal effects, the director managed to create a decent atmosphere. However, during the film, I was bothered by how superficially the literary source material was treated. Philip K. Dick usually creates a multilayered story, where the protagonist is a victim of both his own paranoia and a real conspiracy of his surroundings. The screenwriter couldn't transfer this multilayeredness to the screen, so the viewer is confronted with a series of twists, which can be predicted soon enough and the film doesn't surprise. Adapting Philip K. Dick means dedicating an exceptionally large amount of work to the screenplay and the selection of actors who can sell his sophisticated game to the audience. Meanwhile, the story of a soldier who gradually realizes that he fought a completely useless war and became a victim of a complex game contains traces of a Shakespearean drama. Readers familiar with Philip K. Dick's work can clearly recognize who is behind the film's source material. All the ingredients typical for Dick's work are present. Nobody knows who is who and what game they are actually playing. It's a shame about the inconsistencies that diminish the final impression of the film. Overall impression: 45%.

The majority of people know this scenario: they come to a party where everyone is already at a certain level of alcohol intoxication and jokes are being told that everyone finds extremely funny, but if you are sober and not in the party mood, you perceive them as incredibly awkward. This film cannot even be consumed sober and without a forgiving mood given how unbelievably dull and cheap it is. It has distanced itself even further from the original version toward absolute simplicity, so it's best to use it as a backdrop for a party where a group of enthusiastic teenagers of both genders gathers. Overall impression: 0% (unfortunately, I wasn't at the party).

A strongly romanticized affair, which has little in common with the harsh life of nomadic Roma at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is actually a costume film that, in addition to a love story in the style of "Carmen," relies on traditional Roma folklore and the thought stereotypes that Gadjos have about Roma. On the other hand, it is a decent film with quality camerawork, editing, and atmosphere. The girls are beautiful, passion exudes from individual scenes, and the vocal and dance performances are attractive. Overall impression: 60%. It is one of the few Soviet films of that time that has not aged thanks to its topic and does not show the ideological baggage that Soviet productions were characterized by for a long time.

The spectacular success of Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction sparked a wave of movies that tried to either copy or at least imitate it and exploit the audience's interest to the max. Go falls precisely into this category of films, and its inspiration from Pulp Fiction is obvious from the fact that it copies its structure. It is also divided into several separate stories of individual characters that intertwine with each other. Once again, there are interesting stylized characters who utter memorable lines, engage in illegal activities, and live a life far removed from ordinary bourgeois ideals. There are basically no positive characters in this world, everyone is somewhat tarnished. The humorous exaggeration is also important, where violence and crime are presented as a form of entertainment. On the other hand, the weakness of Go is the screenplay, which partly imitates some past films too much and is not as polished. In addition, neither the screenwriter nor the director had enough courage, so they did not go to extremes, and it is characteristic that at the end of the film, nothing really happens to anyone - the characters simply experienced a wild weekend that left no consequences except for something to remember. At the same time, there is an apparent effort to target young audiences with this film, a tendency toward teenage comedy that was so popular in the 90s. Overall impression: 65%.