gudaulin

I don't consider J. Edgar to be the worst Eastwood film, but to make such a below-average spectacle from such an amazing concept and with such an amazing cast is deserving of a few slaps. And when I consider the difference between the result and the ambitions, unfortunately from my point of view, it is Eastwood's biggest directorial failure. Eastwood disappointed me as a storyteller, his direction lacks ideas, and the script is also no masterpiece. When I compare J. Edgar to Il Divo by Paolo Sorrentino, Eastwood embarrassingly fails in the field of biographical films. Maybe it could work as a TV movie, but not as a great story about a great legend of American politics and criminology and the founder of one of the most famous institutions in the USA. Overall impression: 40%.

Švankmajer's work has played a significant role in shaping my cinematic taste, and to this day I have a great fondness for it. Perhaps no other director has received as many five-star ratings and praise in reviews from me. I considered his feature films to be one of the few exceptions in the dullness and stagnation of Czech productions. This is the first case in his long filmography where I shrug my shoulders and say that the chosen form is disturbing to me and the result is simply boring in some passages. I have never before found myself looking at my watch during a Švankmajer film. I usually saw his feature films in movie theaters, and the only reason that didn't happen with this one was because it was ignored by movie theaters in southern Bohemia. The Czech master of animation can actually be glad to have a large group of loyal fans who, in this case, I believe have supported him somewhat. This is a tired film where even the visual aspects do not hide the meager budget. Overall impression: 55%.

Among film fans, it is a well-known fact that Ben Affleck is a much better director than an actor. But he is apparently not such a good director that he realizes the limits of his acting skills and adjusts the casting of the main character accordingly. That is unfortunate. What Ben Affleck builds in the director's seat, the same Ben Affleck tears down in the lead role with his bloodless performance. It's certainly not embarrassing, but it needed to be cast with a top-notch character actor. Ben Affleck's ability to create and maintain tension, his meticulousness in capturing the atmosphere of the 70s, as well as the revolutionary conditions in Iran after the fall of the Shah, still remain. In the field of political thrillers, it's not at the absolute peak, because Ben Affleck couldn't avoid a few unnecessarily melodramatic moments or getting emotional in family scenes, and the viewer's suspense is further marred by the fact that a film based on a true story has nothing to surprise you with and you simply know from the very beginning how it will end. On the other hand, it is a strong above-average film and it is a joy to watch such a well-executed screenplay. Overall impression: 75%.

The formation of this documentary game, dictated by life itself, was influenced by chance. The talkative married couple decided to show the world the power of their wealth and status by building the most expensive family home in the United States. This decision came shortly before the collapse of the economy and the subsequent downfall of the previously unshakable empire of a real estate magnate. It was supposed to be a documentary about a triumphant success, about the creation of a modern-day Versailles as a symbol of power for modern billionaires. However, the director took advantage of the unique opportunity provided by the change in the social position of the observed family and captured the inevitable economic decline of multimillionaire Siegel and his family in a live broadcast. The Queen of Versailles can also be perceived as a peculiar reality show about how a millionaire family suddenly has to deal with situations they were not prepared for. After all, the remarkable openness of the lady of the house and her spouse probably stems from a desire to be visible and penetrate television screens. For me, however, The Queen of Versailles is primarily a time-lapse documentary about the inability to accept reality and adapt to a changing world. It is characteristic that the entrepreneur eventually sells the company that brings him a certain profit in order to maintain an unproductive and oversized building as a symbol of social status. The reality of the Siegel family surpasses many times over what Woody Allen expressed in his film Blue Jasmine. Overall impression: 75%.

I personally divide Allen's filmography into four periods: the lively comedic beginnings, when Woody utilized his stand-up comedy experience, a more serious era, when he dropped the clownish facade and attempted to delve into psychological dramas and complex characters, and the audience subsequently rewarded him with indifference. Then came Allen's golden creative period, framed by The Purple Rose of Cairo and symbolically concluded with Hollywood Ending. During this time, I could have given around 4 stars to his films every time, and Woody brought me joy with every new piece. Since 2002, he has been in a period where it is difficult to find a unifying element and generalizing assessment cannot be used. I have had a love-hate relationship with Allen since then. Sometimes he can surprise me, and for example, I rank Match Point and Cassandra's Dream very highly among his works. However, there are also titles where I shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, you've made your regular yearly film again, but I've already seen this, albeit better, in pale blue from you several times. You're getting a little tiresome, despite all your merits." The above perfectly applies to You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. Similar Woody films quickly fade from my memory and leave nothing behind. This time, Woody surprisingly stumbled in an area that is traditionally his strong suit - casting. Sir Anthony Hopkins as Allen's alter ego doesn't work, and I also consider Josh Brolin's casting a misstep, as he suits different genres and characters. This is a case of a film that is teeming with famous names and faces, but the end result is lackluster. I consider this comedy as evidence of a trend where Woody increasingly relies on templates, flattens them, and presents banalities. Overall impression: 45%.

I admit, I don't like films made in the style of Dogme 95 - just like any other dogma, they limit possibilities and narrow the space for cinematic expressions. The Hunt represents a rare case where it works, and thanks to its exceptionally strong theme, we don't have to deal with the set or the language of cinema. For the movie experience, only he, his work, and his friends are enough. Nothing is and can be the same as before. Apparent certainties collapse like a house of cards, and an uncertain future remains, along with the certainty that one can only rely on oneself. Thomas Vinterberg carefully constructs his drama, building it on solid foundations and portraying his characters convincingly psychologically. From the heated clash in the church, where one would expect the scene to end with an uncompromising fight behind the church gates, the previously flawlessly functioning machinery begins to stutter somewhat. I don't believe in miraculous happy endings, even tainted by a lonely avenger. Public opinion is much quicker with its judgments than justice, and it doesn't care about the presumption of innocence. It doesn't carry out the rehabilitation of its victims, and it doesn't shy away from spreading the wildest rumors extensively. If it goes that far, there is no way back. The more passionately you defend yourself, the more suspicious you will appear to those around you. Guilt can be proven, but innocence cannot. In real life, the only solution is burning bridges and moving to an anonymous foreign environment. Sometimes retreat can mean a bitter victory. To elaborate on the fact that Mikkelsen represents one of the greatest acting talents of the current European scene would be to state the obvious. Despite certain shortcomings, I don't hesitate to give this film the highest rating. Overall impression: 90%.

Veber's situational comedy usually relies on the contrast of mismatched pairs, and A Pain in the A... does not deviate from this definition. It is precisely the foundation of this film that allows its humor to work so well, that Veber returned to it in his old age and filmed a remake of the film for which he once wrote the screenplay. Before him, Americans also used the same material and commissioned the famous Wilder to improve the studio's budget and get the most out of the meeting between a cold-blooded killer tasked with a key mission in his career and an ambitious troublemaker. It is customary to praise the original version and criticize - as film fans say - unnecessary remakes. However, I will not do this in the case of A Pain in the A...; over time, I have seen all three versions and do not consider any of them to be artistic failures. Not even A Pain in the Ass, although film critics and fans ritually shot it down. Each version has its strengths and weaknesses. The combination of the best elements from all three films would result in a great action movie. Lino Ventura's presence is amazing in A Pain in the A... He was not a comedic actor, but the role of a cold-blooded killer suits him perfectly. He does not overact, and you simply believe in his character. The desperation in his eyes looks authentic and creates even more amusement. On the other hand, there is Jacques Brel. I do like him as a chansonnier - although he is essentially trying to play a comic character seriously, it comes off as rather annoying here. I have a fixation on Pignon as a likable character, but in Brel's performance, he represents such a bothersome individual that I would gladly punch him. Overall impression: 80%.

The success of a film or series largely depends on the ability of its creators to evoke a sense of identification with their heroes and their actions. Even seemingly highly controversial characters are molded according to the same rules. Today's screenwriter has no problem giving even a serial killer cool qualities, humanizing him with humor, and since he is assigned to kill other much less agreeable villains and on the other hand helps the weaker, the viewer has no problem liking him. Such an approach fits perfectly with the story of Walter White from Breaking Bad. His psychological transformation from an exemplary citizen, caring father, and husband into a dangerous manipulator and cynical criminal was not understood by everyone. The Paperboy evokes negative reactions from many viewers after watching and receives hesitant comments from movie fans - more critical than one would expect from a film of these qualities. It is certainly not an exceptional film, even within its category, but it is an above-average genre film. Its most valuable aspect is precisely what repels so many viewers - the violation of genre conventions, unpleasant characters that provoke you, and whose actions anger you. The film does not strive for likability in any way and I appreciate that. This is also related to its ability to surprise. Daniels' thriller is not made according to a template and I consider that a significant plus. Overall impression: 75%.

Even simple stories that have been told a thousand times can be made in an original way, and In Search of a Midnight Kiss belongs to the minority of films that can pleasantly surprise. It is unconventional and provocative like Kevin Smith's early films, it chose a black-and-white camera and can depict an interesting atmosphere with it, and it is able to offer unfamiliar actors who can captivate. And most importantly, it is not artificial and shallow. I believe in the thought processes and decisions of these characters, even though Sara Simmonds exudes such dominance and self-centered arrogance in the first few minutes that I would have left immediately had I been in Wilson's place. In Search of a Midnight Kiss is a bittersweet romance about emotional maturity in the shadow of Hollywood studios, filmed in the spirit of the best traditions of the American independent scene. Overall impression: 80%.

Brendan and the Secret of Kells had already convinced me that Tomm Moore is a creator whose work is worth following. It is a joy to see a film that can work with fairytale motifs and appeal to adults without relying on pop culture references. The film, which cleverly combines Irish mythology with the present, manages to avoid cheap sentimentality while telling stories that directly invite emotional manipulation. A bonus is the original visual design, which not only surpasses what Disney has achieved in animated films but also defies the standards of contemporary American animation and computer graphics. Personally, I give it a thumbs up and I would just add a warning: Song of the Sea is not suitable for young children due to how it is made, and not just because it is shown in its original language. The ballad-like story and philosophical depth will appeal more to older viewers. Overall impression: 90%.