gudaulin

A lesser-known film of French cinema from the 70s, which is interesting with its sepia color scheme, in that by using shades of brown it tries to imitate black and white films from the 40s and 50s, and create the impression of a retro style. This is also supported by the chosen directorial approach, which does not choose modern film techniques, but rather more conservative storytelling methods typical of the previous decades. The film tells the story of three desperados who embarked on a criminal path in the 30s and their opponent, Inspector Bruno Deschamps, excellently played by Bruno Cremer, joins the side of the collaborating French government in Vichy after the occupation of France. When the main protagonist's lover falls into the hands of the police, she is subjected to torture, which leads the criminal gang to join the ranks of the anti-fascist resistance. Ironically, Inspector Deschamps is subsequently deemed unreliable by the Nazis as well, so after certain twists and turns, the thief Simon and the inspector meet in a German prison and after the war, both are awarded the Medal of Merit. The film maintains a romantic-nostalgic view of this French past and is characterized by several charming scenes and wit. However, the film is too long, which leads to certain plot errors and imbalances. Ironically, the least prominent portrayal is that of the main protagonist and leader of the gang, Simon, because Jacques Dutronc simply lacks charisma. On the other hand, Marlène Jobert and Jacques Villeret are typologically precise and excellent in their acting. Overall impression: 80%.

Practically everyone has experienced it to some extent - the movie has great reviews, festival recognition, and enthusiastic fan reviews - but when you finally watch it, you feel like you're a victim of a conspiracy and that the others can't be serious. While I'm not a typical fan of romantic films, I can still enjoy many of them. However, reason and emotion cannot be attributed to them. The problem is not in the cast, the performances of the actors, or the directorial concept and set design - they are mostly highly professional. The problem lies in the literary source. Comparing Jane Austen's work to the pulp fiction style is too cheap; her work has higher ambitions and a significantly better literary style. Nevertheless, her novel is penny-dreadful, with all the negatives associated with this genre. All the typical character types, plots, and the necessary and easily predictable happy ending can be easily found there. All of this could still be forgiven if the author used lively language and humanized her characters. Artificiality and contrivance oozed from the dialogues, which you don't often see, and the characters were more like caricatures. Thus, in moments of fervent confession, I bit my lips to avoid laughing and ruining the emotional scene. Perhaps, and probably, people behaved like this at social gatherings and official occasions, but never in private. The constant use of consistent literary language, big words, and ideas is very unbelievable. Overall impression: 35% for the grandiosely filmed and acted boredom.

An unknown and exceptional war film, which is interesting primarily because of its perspective and depiction of the environment of defeated fascist Italy. The war is captured from the viewpoint of an Italian officer, who experiences disillusionment and the loss of his values upon his return home after the Italian surrender and the dissolution of the regular Italian army. The soldiers of his unit disperse, leaving only a few men heading in the same direction. The screenwriter embodies certain experiences typical of that time in their characters. Despite the chosen lighter tone of storytelling, it is essentially a tragic anti-war film, where practically all the main characters gradually perish, with the exception of the main protagonist, who is, however, very close to it during the final clash in the chaos of war when we leave him. The film is shot with an ethos typical of post-war Italy and France, explaining the political situation of the time from the perspective of the victorious anti-fascist coalition, and glossing over certain unpleasant aspects of the reality of the time. The screenplay therefore employs some simplifying techniques, such as the scene of the Jewish woman being discovered by German soldiers, which is not credible. If the screenwriter were honest, he would have let the passengers on the bus expose her for her share of the loot hidden in the trunk. The revelation of an American prisoner hidden with an anti-fascist family would naturally not just lead to the execution of the man as the head of the family but to the annihilation of the whole family, and especially the brutal rape of the wife, which incidentally was commonly committed by both fighting sides. It is highly probable that a high-ranking Italian officer would not immediately join the partisan resistance organization controlled by the Communists after the Italian surrender... I could go on. Despite the mentioned minor screenwriting flaws, it is an excellent war film that has a great cast and performances. Overall impression: 80%.

To speak openly, considering that this is a revered classic of its genre, I am at a loss, even though I didn't have high expectations. The initial problem is the subject itself because zombies simply don't appeal to me - neither in literature nor in film. Even worse in this form, because George A. Romero's film does not work as a horror movie in my eyes, not even a little bit. It includes several disgusting scenes of eating internal organs, which may still be repulsive today but certainly not scary. Slowly, clumsily moving undead simply did not evoke a sense of danger in me, and I didn't really understand their growing dominance. Throughout the entire movie, a scene from the battle with the terrifying rabbit in the parody film Monty Python and the Holy Grail kept coming to mind. It simply triggered this association in me. That's why the movie couldn't work for me. If Dawn of the Dead doesn't come across as a horror movie, it is possible to somewhat accept it as an allegory of a post-apocalyptic world and a critique of consumerist society. The movie started a tradition where the story takes place in a large supermarket, which was later used by several other successful movies. However, there is also a problem with the overall length, silent passages, and character psychology. Overall impression: 40%. I consider Snyder's recent remake to be a significantly more functional and impressive piece of cinema.

A somewhat academically coldly directed psychological drama about social and cultural differences that create an insurmountable barrier leading to a tragic resolution. The director subjected the inner struggles carried by his two main heroines to a detailed examination. Cynical, superficial, and somewhat antisocial postwoman Jeanne envies the wealthy business family for their wealth and social status, while illiterate Sophie, accepted into the family as a maid, feels her inability to read and write as a huge trauma and desperately tries to hide this weakness. The higher-class family may seem noble, but they never offer their servant a work contract with certain securities, and the fact that they have others serving them is taken for granted by the family members... in all stages of the story, an invisible social barrier between the employers and their servant is felt, which only the daughter, played by Virginie Ledoyen, tries to cross. The final crime is depicted in a small space, and the director does not give it much attention. The film is powerful due to the outstanding performances of Isabelle Huppert and Sandrine Bonnaire, who perfectly embody their characters. The film is a conflict between the plebeian and patrician worlds, which ends tragically in this story. Overall impression: 80%.

Welcome to Collinwood is just a remake of a successful film and it also navigates in considerably overused waters. Within its genre, it certainly does not represent anything groundbreaking, but the current rating on FilmBooster is somewhat harsh and I think this film deserves better. To be honest, compared to the much better-received Coen brothers remake, The Ladykillers, I enjoyed Welcome to Collinwood much more. At the very least, Welcome to Collinwood hamuch more believable human characters and dialogues compared to The Ladykillers. But the Coen brothers are the Coen brothers and the Russos are the Russos... The movie's big advantage is its cast and the performances. George Clooney, usually cast in roles of smooth gentlemen and playboys, is irresistible in the role of a tattooed safe-breaker confined to a wheelchair, and William H. Macy is similarly appealing as a weak loser who seeks shelter behind his child in intense situations. The underused Sam Rockwell maximized the potential of his role. The film's weakness lies in the script, which completely gave up on the socially critical aspect compared to the original and lacks impactful plot twists. Some characters don't utilize their potential, for example, the unfortunate thief Luis Guzmán unnecessarily disappears from the story. Furthermore, toward the end of the film, there is some cheap sentiment and a romantic element. The ending could have been more intense and a pinch of black humor at the end would not have hurt. Despite the mentioned reservations, I give it a solid 65%.

The King of Marvin Gardens particularly surprises the community of Jack Nicholson fans, as Nicholson, to the director's surprise, chose the role of the more subdued of the two brothers, David. It is a very unconventional role in Nicholson's filmography, where he is extremely reserved and employs understated character acting. The film is a psychological study of two different life approaches, with David representing a factual and rational perspective, whereas Jason offers an emotional view of the world. The criminal plot is not crucial and primarily serves to intensify the dramatic conflict between the brothers. It's not an exceptional film but a decently watchable psychological drama. Overall impression: 60%.

As a thriller, Paranoid sadly fails, and what's worse, it belongs to the worst kind of films that I know. There are bad movies that you recognize within 5, at most 10 minutes, and then you give up on them and turn to something more useful. Paranoid manages to evoke certain expectations for a long time, but these are not fulfilled in the slightest. Halfway through the film, you might start to get restless, but by then you figure since you've lasted this long, you might as well wait for the end, which promises a reward but also turns out to be a letdown, leaving only beautifully wasted time as a result... Yes, Jessica Alba is charming, but that's essentially all that this film can offer. Overall impression 25%.

In the romantic comedy genre, Overboard doesn't present anything exceptional or even innovative, but it is a decent functional matter for the widest audience with the usual star-studded cast of the main couple. Both Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell act reliably, and Garry Marshall as a director proves why he was able to create the commercial hit Pretty Woman several years later. The plot revolves around a very popular motif used by American studios in the 80s - the improvement of fundamentally good people under the influence of their surroundings and their difficult experiences. It only takes a few weeks for the spoiled millionaire to stay in a poor family full of spirited children to completely change her value system and accept an ordinary carpenter as her partner. It is sentimental - especially with its sweet ending, typically Hollywood, but nevertheless effective. Overall impression: 70%. It would be foolish to expect more from this film than non-demanding entertainment, but I still enjoyed it.

With each subsequent Kurosawa excursion into Japanese history, my aversion to his exaggerated theatricality grows. It manifests itself in unnatural gestures, rolling eyes, and pathos in speech. Regardless of cultural differences, people in medieval Japan certainly did not speak or act in this way. It is too disruptive for me, a distracting element in the film that otherwise boasts a powerful story inspired by Shakespearean drama. The film's merit lies in its lavishness typical of Kurosawa's historical films and several atmospherically evocative scenes from the mysterious Spider's Web Forest. On the other hand, the direction is static, and the individual shots are, at the very least in some cases, excessively long. Overall impression: 45%.