gudaulin

I first saw Apocalypse Now practically at the same time as the similarly famous film Platoon. While Stone impressed me, I had a reserved attitude toward Coppola's war drama. I couldn't help but feel a certain disappointment, which partly came from exaggerated expectations - according to many movie fans, it should have been the greatest war film of all time. The execution is undoubtedly luxurious - Coppola showcases cunning filmmaking full of suggestive scenes, the camera works wonders, and the visual compositions send shivers down your spine. Everyone interested in film direction could learn from the effective use of double exposures and crossfades (the opening scene is characteristic, where the camera focuses on the detail of a helicopter propeller and then transitions to a hotel room, where we observe the spinning fan propeller). The gloomy jungle, the fascinating panoramic shots of tropical landscapes - it all creates what we call atmosphere. The quality actors portray intense characters exposed to extreme conditions. At this juncture, everything was fine and the reputation of Apocalypse Now was not a lie. However, I have a problem with the story. Coppola took it from Joseph Conrad's novel "Heart of Darkness." Its plot takes place in Belgian Congo and anyone familiar with the history of the Congolese genocide and bloody wars of the 20th century regarding the local natural riches will understand that the story of a deranged officer who escapes any control fits perfectly. The same narrative set in the Vietnam War, combined with an American officer, seems inappropriate and exaggerated. Not to mention that Coppola is so carried away by his artistic vision that it seems like he is not shooting a war drama, but rather staging a theater. This theatrical overexertion culminates in the execution of a rebellious officer, reminiscent of a pagan ritual, and it disturbs me to such an extent that the film didn't even come close to a five-star rating from my perspective. Overall impression: 75%.

A lavishly filmed animated feature film that can be considered a perfect example of the steampunk genre. The director goes to its roots and there are all sorts of steam clouds, gear mechanisms, crankshafts, and complex mechanisms. Visually, it is stunning, and Steamboy would definitely look much better on the big screen than on a TV. In my eyes, Steamboy is slightly undermined by the simple story, excessive pathos, noble phrases, and overly straightforward depiction of the conflict between greed and militarism on one side and humanistic ideals on the other, and I would have appreciated more shades of gray in the characters and their conflicts. Overall impression: 75%.

There are films that keep their genre a secret for a long time, whereas Kouf's film reveals everything with just its title. It is a crime comedy, where a group of criminals wants to rob a bank branch in a small town, but bad teamwork and a series of coincidences cause the heist to turn into a nightmare for its participants. The screenplay is quite transparent but surprisingly works without any problems, and the mainstream humor never stoops to primitive slapstick. It has decent casting and non-offensive direction, and it is a film without any glitches, which may not belong to the top tier of its genre, but this time I'll round up from 3.5 stars. Overall impression: 70%. By the way, Disorganized Crime is in no way part of the action genre, as some film fans tend to think. Genre classification here simply missed the mark.

I grew up on Sheridan le Fanu's book, and his collection of short stories, "In a Glass Darkly," still holds a place in my library. After all, the story that served as the basis for Bohumila Zelenková's screenplay is part of this book. Le Fanu is one of the founders, or rather predecessors, of modern horror, and his mysterious stories full of ominous premonitions derived from the gothic novel are ideal material for film adaptation. Eva Sadková relied on experienced actors who do a good job, and the television adaptation also rests on their performances. The set design is modest, but it doesn't detract from the impression of the production. However, I feel that the director could have worked with surprises, as it is too literal and the viewer sees everything before they should. In the story, the narrator describes the story from the perspective of the main character, who is manipulated and until the last moment does not suspect the trouble he is maneuvered into. Overall impression: 70%.

I can say for myself that I really enjoyed The Box, and if the director and screenwriter in-one had waited a little longer with the point and the tension had increased, my satisfaction would have been maximum. I realize that even many famous films often don't work at their core. Here, the mysterious atmosphere and omnipresent tension work very well. Actually, the only significant criticism I would have is towards Cameron Diaz's casting. Sweet Cameron, may she not be mad at me, has always been and remains just a typecast actress with limited range. In a film like The Box, the viewer's impression primarily depends on the performances, and it requires someone from among the best character actresses. I don't know, maybe Cameron Diaz was involved in the film as a co-producer, or the production demanded a famous face, but in any case, it was a mistake. Overall impression: 75%.

I understand Luis Buñuel and he regularly receives good reviews from me. This time won't be as good, even though I think that The Milky Way is among his very best films, and it is a joy to watch his surrealistic games while two tramps travel across France and Spain to the pilgrimage site in Santiago de Compostela. Paradoxically, I will not give the highest rating because Buñuel is floating at intellectual heights this time and I do not always understand his theological games. This film will probably be enjoyed by someone who has theology at their fingertips, but they might consider some of Buñuel's provocative thoughts heretical. This is what The Name of the Rose would have been if the director had not gone down the path of a medieval detective story, but followed the venerable William of Baskerville in his theological debates and reflections. Monty Python took on what is universally known in Life of Brian and therefore had a much easier task. Buñuel embarked on a more difficult path, which is far from suitable for everyone. But that applies to his filmmaking in general. Overall impression: 85%.

Music as opinion, as revolt, anarchy, as an element, as a geyser of erupting emotions that mercilessly sweep away the wall of conventions and civilization habits. Sometimes I feel that everything has already been made and nothing new can be invented even in cinema, only changing perspectives and retouching what others have done before. But then films like this crazy Swedish comedy appear and shatter my expectations. Sound of Noise is an original film that is difficult to compare to anything else. The screenplay is somewhat unfinished, one can somehow feel that the point should be treated more thoroughly. But still, the film is worth seeing. Especially for those who appreciate experimentation and madness of all kinds. I really enjoyed this bombastic provocative music show played illegally. Overall impression: 80%.

An impressive mix of British social drama and crime comedy that is superbly cast, acted, and directed. It's a bit of a fairytale, but far from the escapist style in which similar films are made by American studios. Ken Loach looks at his losers with understanding, but he is not so naive that he does not know how things are and what chance these robbers of all virtues have to leave the world of the galley and break free from the lifestyle they lead. It is at times touching, at times suspenseful. Personally, I can say that this style suits me perfectly and the film just narrowly missed out on a fifth star. Overall impression: 85%.

Those who choose films based on famous directorial aces will probably avoid Serial (Bad) Weddings. Those who seek the presence of movie stars also have no reason to waste time with this film. However, it is the most successful film of 2014 in terms of the audience in France, which was rare agreement by the audience and film critics alike. At a time when almost every third French person chooses right-wing radicals, when smaller armies can be assembled from French Muslims fighting for the extremist Islamic State in the Middle East, when anti-Semitic attacks engulf the country, it is simply nice to see a film that handles the burning issue of coexistence in a multiethnic society, clashes, and the search for religious and ethnic identity with comic detachment and aims for mutual understanding and a classic happy ending. The four charming sisters, although they have their differences, are able to find their way to each other through all the quarreling. There's nothing really deep here, as it is instead a matter of pure relaxation, a popular comedy that does not have ambitions to conquer the festival scene and attack the rankings of prestigious titles compiled by recognized critics. However, it is tastefully made and I cannot say anything bad about it. It's pleasant to watch, although it certainly isn't anything essential. Overall impression: 75%.

Those who are not familiar with the phenomenon of Gervais' most successful project should first watch the original. It is extraordinary thanks to the dedication and charisma of its creator and it discovered the phenomenon of the aesthetics of awkwardness for television. On the other hand, in my opinion, the Czech version does not deserve the ritual execution demonstrated by the reviewers just a few minutes after the first episode was aired. The complaints about the absence of English dry humor or the inability to come close to it are somewhat out of place. The British version of The Office is everything but traditional dry humor. It is an original that turns the classic sitcom upside down and attacks its most fundamental principles. By the way, the Czech version is not as good as the original, because it is not as cynical, cruel, and ruthless as Gervais' humor, which pulls no punches and is filled with vulgarisms. Kopta steers it into a more jovial position, which breaks the spikes of conflict. Overall, however, I have a better impression of the Czech version so far than of the American one, even though the production approaches are completely incomparable. The Americans quickly slipped into the form of a classic sitcom and Ricky's The Office was unrecognizable to me. Here, the gags work and I don't have any significant issues with Kopta despite the aforementioned problems. Criticizing the copying of a famous original in the case of a franchise doesn't make any sense. This is an intention fully supported by the rights owner, Ricky Gervais. I have some trouble with the casting of certain supporting roles. Sára Venclovská is not a good enough actress, and she doesn't fit the type as a substitute for Lucy Davis. The Czech version of The Office is not a literal copy of the famous predecessor, although logically it must adhere to the basic scheme and style. However, it differs in the portrayal of individual characters, dialogues, and atmosphere. So far, I would give it 3 stars, but I will reserve my overall review for the end. Postscript after the airing of the 6th episode: actually, it wasn't bad at all and my certain hesitations have dissipated over time. The fourth star is somewhat opportunistic in response to the extremely negative judgments of the series from some critics, but I can confirm that the positive impressions prevail and, within the context of Czech TV series production, it is a decent above-average show. Kopta approached the character differently than Gervais, and his self-centered, selfish, cheeky, and sexist guy is, in a twisted way, actually likable. I can imagine another six-episode series and I would actually be quite grateful for it. Overall impression: 70%.