gudaulin

The most interesting thing - actually, the only interesting thing - is where Ivo Trajkov found the money for such a mess, because any producer who supports something like this clearly demonstrates their incompetence. It's also interesting to ponder where the actors' judgment went, as the cast is above average. It's a waste of time on every level. Overall rating: 0%.

Considering his previous merits, Jakubisko does not have to be afraid of filming this perversion of hell, but he definitely deserves purgatory... Such an experienced director must recognize how bad the script is in front of him. But even the execution is rushed. Stupid dialogues, zero plot. Brr! Overall impression 5%.

I definitely do not claim that Norbit is the dumbest and most tasteless film of all time, however, in the competition for such a primacy, it would not fare poorly at all... This rudeness is not worth a dumber commentary, I just note that participating in such failures froze Eddie Murphy's promising acting career. Overall impression is zero...

Giving this piece a rating of "trash" is actually quite unfair - not only does it insult other films that fall into this category, but the film is also enjoyable in certain moments with that charm of the unintended. Creating something so purposely bad is actually a remarkable matter, because if anyone were to attempt the same intentionally, they most likely wouldn't succeed. The insane editing, choreography, cast, and dialogues. 10% of the overall impression is truly for unintended humor. Who on earth put this group together...

For me, Temné slunce is the worst work from Vávra's filmography, and considering the qualities of the crew and the resources invested, it is one of the worst films of the decade... A propagandistic piece that formally imitates the original Krakatit, but completely alienates itself from its idea - it is effectively a manipulative film that was politically favored and had an appropriately exaggerated budget. The actors did not want to be involved in the project twice, for example, Magda Vašáryová played the most embarrassing character of her film career and she played it poorly, by the way. Overall impression 10%.

These are times when predictability prevailed in both domestic and world politics, and politicians could be put in drawers with their respective labels. The phenomenon of populism and "illiberal" democracy with strong authoritarian features directly calls for artistic mapping, but after the first attempt, I feel like it will miss its goals and the audience. The series aims to be satirical but lacks moderation and refinement. It is often superficially silly and over-stylized, a test that few creators can withstand; perhaps Wes Anderson or Terry Gilliam in top form could handle this. In the first episode, I see clear limits, and Stephen Frears is long past his prime. If there is a reason to pay attention to Victory Day, it is Kate Winslet in the lead role. I believe in her psychologically unstable dominatrix character, as she enjoys playing the chancellor and lets her acting type shine. Just because of her, I'll give one more episode a chance and we'll see...

Homeland managed to create a brand new genre of spy fantasy. While the Israelis, who were behind the original idea, made an authentic thriller, the Americans detached themselves from reality and started creating alternative modern history. The series has always been naive and detached from the actual work of secret services and the functioning of the American state administration: a CIA agent who revolves around several American presidents and significantly influences world history simply cannot be taken seriously. However, the creators never transitioned into the mode of a female agent 007. Watching the series was possible thanks to the use of perspective and primarily due to the casting, led by the excellent Claire Danes, but there were always other acting aces nearby, thanks to whom you could survive anything that would otherwise make you raise an eyebrow and shake your head. As time went by, I had the feeling that the series became a victim of its own success and started deteriorating dangerously. The writers' imagination expanded dangerously wide. I won't rate it with stars, but it's good that there won't be any more continuation of this series...

The film is cold, remote, and impenetrable, as if created for eternal seekers of hidden meanings, allowing them to engage with an infinite number of interpretations. The film definitely has significance for film theorists and cinephiles due to the wide range of film elements that the director worked with, whether it be choreographic visual compositions, camera movements, or narrative structure based on repetition and variations of the same situations. The average viewer will most likely avoid the film - and rightly so, as Resnais has nothing to offer them. I assumed that I would not watch this film, and my intuition was correct, but as they say: I at least tried. I will not rate it with stars, as it is simply an encounter with extraterrestrials from Aldebaran for me.

In my comment about the 3rd season of The Bridge, I wrote that I have enough strength and desire to watch the 4th return of the peculiar Swedish-Danish crime-solving duo, but after two episodes of the 4th season, I felt that my interest was quickly fading and all the project's shortcomings were being revealed to the core, which I had generously overlooked before. The catalyst for changing my perspective on this type of Nordic crime construct based on absurdity, coincidence, and completely detached from reality was the Midnight Sun series, where I realized how foolish crossing a certain boundary can be. I only endured half of the season and then gave up. It doesn't differ much from previous seasons, I just got tired of this type of production and decided to focus my interest on a more realistic and objective line of the genre. I won't rate it with stars, it would be too harsh for a project that I once liked so much. The only thing I can appreciate is the motive of Saga Norén's stay in prison, which unfortunately the creators quickly abandoned...

Umberto Eco was part of the generation of European intellectuals who were shaped by their resistance to television as a medium, which they saw as the foundation for the cheap entertainment of the widest masses of consumers. Based on principle, they were convinced that any work had to be chewed up and spat out in order to satisfy a large enough target group. Therefore, Umberto would not be surprised or disappointed by the result of the work of the TV team that embarked on the adaptation of his cult novel. He probably would have enjoyed it instead and claimed that this was exactly what he expected. Personally, influenced by the novel, I once had a hard time fully accepting the film version because it seemed stripped of its philosophical and spiritual dimension. Meanwhile, Annaud's film stands out alongside this series as an excellent atmospheric affair with great casting. John Turturro ranks fourth on my list of favorite actors, and that says it all. However, I will forever remember him as the lawyer from The Night Of, not as the Franciscan from The Name of the Rose. He lacks the charisma under the veil of his beard, which radiates from Sean Connery's masculine character. The same is true for Christian Slater and Damian Hardung comparison. Annaud also discovered a distinctive face for cinema in Ron Perlman, and so on. His film was filled with atmosphere, which cannot be said at all about the series. It has nice set pieces, but they lack any real life. It is evident that the creators aimed to shift the plot toward an adventurous and romantic genre, which is the last thing Eco strived for. This is not about developing certain motifs, but about violating the literary source. I won't rate it with stars because I stopped watching after two episodes. But I'm sure that with each passing episode, I would suffer more and more.