gudaulin

Honestly speaking, I never quite understood the cult around this film in the Czech Republic. Even upon first watching it in the movie theater, I classified it as above average and since then, I haven't found a reason to change that assessment. The film scores points by having a decent cast, which has always been Jiří Menzel's strong suit. Few films can boast such a stellar ensemble of actors. The character of the country doctor played by Rudolf Hrušínský is well-written and well-acted, and this was where Marián Labuda got a significant film role for the first time. However, from a script perspective - which I consider decisive for a film - it's nothing special. I value at least four other films by Jiří Menzel more, and in the context of Czech cinema as a whole, My Sweet Little Village doesn't even belong at the top. A weak four stars and an overall impression of 70%, considering the cast.

One of Jiří Sequens' average films, based on the play of the same name. Decent casting and corresponding performances, especially from the male members of the cast. Several scenes are genuinely good, the dance choreography is decent, and the songs are enjoyable. However, the overall tone feels awkward and cold. It's simply filmed without personal enthusiasm. Overall impression: 50%.

One of the most original Czech films and also a successful comedy, utilizing time travel paradox elements long before the Back to the Future trilogy. Great actors (it's hard to single out anyone because even the smallest roles were filled by top-notch actors like Marie Rosůlková and Otto Šimánek in the roles of American tourists). However, Petr Kostka simply shines in his dual role of identical twins. Perhaps only the resemblance of Hitler and his suits could have been closer to the originals. I dare to say that if something similar had been made in a major American studio, it would have made a significant mark in film history. Overall impression: 85%.

A black slapstick on the absurdities of World War II. A Finnish deserter - a university-educated intellectual - and an uneducated Soviet soldier facing a military tribunal due to Stalinist purges, manage to escape certain death and meet in a hut belonging to a young Lapland woman whose husband disappeared in the chaos of war. They don't understand each other a bit; the only thing connecting them is the desire to live. High-quality performances, especially from Ville Haapasalo, who seems to belong to Rogozhkin's world organically. An intriguing, intelligent script about events and places that have so far escaped filmmakers' attention. Quality direction, and only the overly idyllic ending spoils the overall impression. Overall, it deserves 90%.

An exceptionally strong premise based on a gripping literary source - a suspenseful clash of polarized characters and value systems over a chessboard. Top performances by Rudolf Hrušínský and Luděk Munzar, in the lead roles - it's entirely possible to say that the casting, alongside the premise, is the main reason for the five-star rating, as the script could have extracted much more from the material and could have played more with the characters and dialogues of the supporting roles. Overall impression: 90%.

Essentially an unassuming film, which upon its release had below-average attendance, and only survived box office failure due to its Oscar nomination. For me, it's one of the best films ever made and undoubtedly the best adaptation of a Stephen King literary work. Excellent performances and casting, wonderfully crafted atmosphere, and plot progression. Besides the actors, the prison environment itself contributes significantly to the impactful experience, with the film crew having to search extensively for the right location. A beautiful story about human hope and an incredibly strong character. I have practically nothing to criticize, so my overall impression is 100%.

The relationship between an aging man and a young girl is a highly common theme in world cinema. From the many films of its kind, A Housekeeper doesn't particularly stand out. It's a film more suited for the television screen than the big screen. The story is presented in a modest manner, and its resolution is not surprising. However, the faces of the actors are somewhat fresh, and Jean-Pierre Bacri, in particular, delivers a decent amount of character acting and experience, making his character believable. Furthermore, the screenplay avoids any illogical Hollywood-esque twists. So, overall, it deserves a 50%.

The film is quite a pleasant deviation from the current mainstream and is certainly a successful debut by director Artem Antonov. However, the film shows creative inexperience, and if I compare it to a film in a similar vein, such as The Cuckoo, the latter clearly wins in terms of execution. The screenplay is somewhat unfinished, resulting in flat characters that the viewer learns very little about. On the other hand, the cinematography is excellent. The film features several great scenes, such as the fall into the frozen river or the carnival. Nevertheless, I can't shake the feeling that more could have been extracted from the given material. My overall impression ranges between three and four stars, ultimately leaning towards 70%.

Undoubtedly the weakest of John Carpenter's films that I've had the chance to see. Frankly, I don't understand how the director of The Thing or In the Mouth of Madness could have been involved in this creation at all... That one star is basically for his previous merits. The acting performances are, to put it diplomatically, uneven, the direction uninspired, but the crown jewel of it all is the screenplay, for which the author should probably roast in hell. Similar botched films are occasionally saved by grand production design, but that's not the case here either. So, all in all: a complete waste of time. Overall impression: 20%.

From a genre perspective, the film hardly functions as a horror at all. It might be somewhat acceptable as a weaker thriller with fairly earnest acting performances. However, it's dragged down to the depths by an appallingly amateurish screenplay and impotent direction. If the studio was banking on Kim Basinger, which was a mistake because - judging solely from this film - she peaked earlier in her career. Since effort alone isn't sufficient, my overall rating is a mere 25%.