gudaulin

To give this film a Boo! rating is actually quite unfair - not only does it degrade other films falling into this category, but at times, the film provides such unintentional charm. Creating something so systematically bad is actually quite remarkable because if anyone were to attempt the same deliberately, they'd probably fail. Absurd editing, choreography, casting, and dialogues. My overall impression of 10% is truly for the unintended humor. Who on earth put this bunch together...

An average American comedy with no significant strengths, but also no outright blunders, relying on the star-studded female half of the cast. It's probably not surprising that Jennifer Aniston and Amanda Peet effortlessly outshine Cameron Diaz, who scores with her charm. The film offers several witty dialogues, but also a few dull moments. Going to the movie theater for such a film might not be a very wise investment, but watching it on TV is an acceptable option. Overall impression: 50%.

A typical modern Bond film packed with technology, digital effects, and dynamic action. I find it challenging to review similar productions because I'm not a fan of the genre. On one hand, it's a high-budget film with plenty of visually appealing scenes, and both the direction and acting are decently executed. There are charming moments in the film, such as the verbal showdown between Pierce Brosnan and John Cleese. On the other hand, the same criticism applies to this film as to most Bond films. In terms of the screenplay, it's utter nonsense, although thankfully it doesn't take itself too seriously. I can't give it four stars, but it certainly deserves no less than three. By the way, they're a decent three stars. Overall impression: 65%.

A run-of-the-mill film about a passionate blind love, where the main character forgets everything else. It's unoriginal, and moreover, Luke Perry didn't seem very convincing to me. Overall impression: 45%.

I have absolutely no intention of claiming that this is an exceptional film, as I don't think it is. However, in its genre (and considering that it is a TV film), it is nonetheless above average, and compared to the flood of family melodramas and sappy romantic films of American and German productions, it is a masterpiece. The story of random infidelity, the breakdown of a family, and the subsequent search for a new relationship are believable (who among us hasn't seen something similar?), and even though the director works with sentimentality, they never slide into kitsch.  Ioan Gruffudd and Elizabeth Mitchell are perfectly cast and likable. Considering that only a small sample of productions can match films like As Good as It Gets, Man and Boy deserves its 65% overall impression.

It is not explicitly a bad film. Strictly objectively speaking, it is a slightly above-average genre affair that in a different case would deserve a weaker four stars and relatively friendly reviews. The problem with the film is that it was based on a very high-quality science fiction novel, and back when it was made it was a film with great ambitions, budget, and a star cast. However, the result simply does not correspond to all of that. The screenplay does not match the quality of the source material, but the main problem is the unremarkable direction, which at times makes the high-budget film feel almost like a television film. The actors themselves cannot save it. Dustin Hoffman and Samuel L. Jackson act quite decently, but they are hardly half as good compared to other films they are in. Unfortunately, the plot is mostly predictable, as well as who will survive. This novel deserved a more dignified film adaptation. Overall impression: 55%.

The basic problem of this documentary is revealed to the viewer right from the beginning - if two people tell the same story, their accounts can differ significantly, and even if they are not intentionally lying, both can be very far from reality. This film is a personal confession of Robert Evans, who was a significant figure in American cinema (and tabloids) in the past half-century. The role of a producer is immensely important, even more important than the role of a director, because without production, there is no film, and the producer influences the production and final form of the film. Evans enabled the creation of a number of interesting films and could provide many interesting testimonies. Unfortunately, like many others who have decided to make it big, he suffers from considerable self-centeredness, and this is noticeable in the documentary. The film simply lacks opposition. For example, Evans describes the breakdown of his family caused by his wife's infidelity, but he doesn't mention how many women passed through his bedroom at the same time. After all, Evans was known as one of the biggest womanizers in Hollywood. In the second half of the film, where he describes, for example, how he had to sell his luxurious mansion for millions of dollars after a cocaine scandal, and temporarily lost the roof over his head, his self-pity becomes rather embarrassing. The most amusing part of the film is the final scene, where Evans imitates the acting style of the temperamental intellectual Woody Allen. Overall rating: 60%.

I hadn't played the video game, but I had high expectations before the movie, followed by somewhat conflicting reactions, so I was appropriately excited. The result was pleasantly surprising. In horror movies, the atmosphere is extremely important and Silent Hill is an example of a film that stands or falls with a well-established atmosphere. The depressive environment of a destroyed city, where ash constantly falls to the ground and black smoke rolls, accompanied by the wailing sound of a siren, dark shadows appearing, and people's faces covered with gas masks all serve to evoke a feeling of claustrophobia, and dark premonition. As it is well known, people are most afraid of the unknown, and the film is logically strongest in its first third when evil still has an abstract form. If the director didn't try to explain anything, my final impression could be 100%. The twist itself didn't impress me, but fortunately, it was not decisive for the result. In its category, Silent Hill has had no competition in the past two years. Overall impression: 75%.

I have always liked East Slavic fairy tales influenced by Byzantine and Tatar-Mongol influences, and it's a shame that so few good movies have been made based on their motifs. During the Soviet Union era, there were mostly building films, today there is a lack of money, enlightened producers, and a social demand for their production. In its time, this film was something like a revelation among the Soviet non-consumable film productions. Many quotes from the fairy tale have become popular, and I still consider it to be more than acceptable and a funny cinematic spectacle. Overall impression: 80% - considering a bit of nostalgia.

A slightly below-average thriller where a traditional psychopath seeks revenge for (perceived) past wrongs on unsuspecting victims. A similar plot, with minor variations, has been used in dozens, if not hundreds, of films, and They Shoot Divas, Don't They? does not stand out in any way. The only allure and merit of the film is the mature charm of Jennifer Beals in the lead role of a singer going through a midlife crisis and confronted with the realization that her career has peaked. While the acting performances and direction are not exceptional, they maintain a certain standard, but the film truly suffers from being composed of recycled material. Overall impression: 45%.