gudaulin

A series of modest ratings and critical comments led me toward skepticism and low expectations, which fortunately were not confirmed. To criticize the theatricality of this piece, which is truly based on a play and moreover takes place entirely indoors, is like criticizing a film set on a ship for having an excess of water. Compared to the original version, the remake is less playful, and the original film drew inspiration from classic detective stories written by authors such as Agatha Christie and respected the concept of the game. Both players were fascinated by the game and were willing to sacrifice a lot for its principles. Additionally, the element of traditional social division was also present. These two men were deeply divided by societal class and the plot was driven forward by their unwillingness to acknowledge the abilities of the seemingly stronger intruder and thus jeopardize their aristocratic social status. Here, the crime comedy is suppressed and instead, a psychological drama between two men from different social groups emerges, in which the wealthier one tries to manipulate the other. As a whole, it is colder, and the idea that everything can be bought is reflected in the cold lighting that dampens emotions. On the other hand, the cat and mouse game is preserved, and above all, we do get a showcase of excellent acting from two great actors of different generations. However, what fit perfectly together in the original version feels slightly off in the modern version. The final shot adds a bit too much compared to the first film. Overall impression: 75%.

Emmerich as a director cannot be surprised, because he is essentially monothematic. His strengths and weaknesses are intimately known to the audience, so even his latest film should be avoided by anyone expecting something more than bombastic effects and action. His conception of the end of the world can be immensely attacked and ridiculed from intellectual positions. As is traditional for him, he resigns on even the most basic logic in his storytelling, boldly using the most cliched genre schemes, unabashedly stuffing his film with all possible pop-cultural symbols from Princess Diana to Mona Lisa. The dialogues are stupid, and as is customary for him, it is heavily American patriotic, permeated with family values, the plot is predictable, and the characters are clearly readable. From the very beginning, experienced viewers can infer which characters will survive and which will be deservedly punished for their "sins." On the other hand, if one looks at his film with detachment, despite all its stupidity, it is entertaining, decently ticking along, and well cast both in terms of types and acting performances. It's definitely not a film I would have the slightest desire to revisit in the future, but as a popcorn treat, it is bearable in one viewing. Overall impression: 50%.

War blockbuster, which has a generous budget with nice exteriors, crowd scenes and additionally set in a filmically unexplored attractive environment of war conflict in the Far East. However, it suffers from a number of flaws, such as sentimentality, nationalism and insufficient detachment from the subject. The war, as portrayed by the director, is about heroism and dying in the traditional samurai style, less about brutality and the tragedies it inevitably brings. Overall impression: 50%.

I have long had a problem with East Asian cinema, and in the case of the film 2046, which was preceded by the reputation of a "megafilm" or at least a big festival film, it is no different. It must be said that the genre definition of sci-fi, or fantasy, is purely confusing in this case, although the opening titles create the impression of a futuristic blockbuster. However, this is not essential for my review. What is important is what the film is actually about. Love? Seriously? Visually, it is certainly an extremely impressive matter, but it is as far from Tarkovsky's spirit, or rather his depth of soul, as I am from being an astronaut. The film is dominated by beautiful women's faces dreamily gazing into the distance or uttering banalities. Beautifully dressed people, meticulous hairstyles, evening makeup, bright red nails, and beautiful piano tones accompanying it all. Slightly decadent characters, a somewhat dreamy atmosphere, and a mysteriously acting game with numbers. It left me with the impression of carefully created kitsch. It is not a cheap, loudly painted plaster gnome, but an ambitious attempt to reach the highest goals in the realm of kitsch. Unfortunately, it is a damn boring attempt... Overall impression: 10% for the female cast.

A straightforward action affair called 96 Hours, with a kitschy plot and screenplay, which, except for the protagonist, does not contain any characters and adores violence, celebrated an unprecedented commercial success and has become the most successful French film of the last decade. So it makes sense that we now have a whole series of imitators, i.e., films based on action coming from the American film school, a criminal environment, and an uncompromising battle with a pile of corpses on the way to the protagonist's revenge. This time the creators cast the legend of French action, Jean Reno, in the main role, but I feel that he is a bit old for this type of character and his performance feels like a template of dozens of previous similar roles. Additionally, the screenplay is quite hastily put together and the direction couldn't save it either. Richard Berry is a respected and popular actor in France, but this profession obviously suits him better than directing, which requires a lot more from a person. I also resent the familiar conflict between a good and bad gangster, which turns universally accepted ethical norms upside down. The good gangster only murders, steals, bribes, smuggles, and cheats, while the bad one wants to distribute drugs. Well, we certainly haven't seen that in a film yet - it's a brand-new idea! But then why do a couple dozen film titles, including The Godfather, come to mind? Overall impression: 40%.

I have only seen the first two seasons, then I got a bit tired of this format. The series was preceded by a generous advertising campaign that set the bar of expectations very high. 24 hours is a regular commercial product, its advantage being dynamic editing and a screenplay that revels in dramatic twists, as well as the cast led by Kiefer Sutherland. On the other hand, the series is accompanied by a number of scripting flaws, such as the nonsensical and overcomplicated motif of a destroyed airplane in the first season. There are also plenty of genre clichés from action movies and the indestructibility of the main hero. If they have Jack Bauer, then I don't understand why Americans have difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The second season clearly shows the superfluity of the plotline with Bauer's daughter, and more similar criticisms could be found upon closer examination. Nevertheless, the dynamic plot and the twists and turns of the script place the series slightly above average. Overall impression: 60%.

Monty Brogan had his whole life ahead of him, offering him plenty of tempting opportunities. Unfortunately, he chose the fastest shortcut to making money and transitioned from a promising student to a school marijuana dealer. The profession remained, only he smoothly transitioned from light drugs to the hard ones. But as they say, what goes around comes around, and one day, the police are invited into his apartment. Explaining a kilo of heroin and a generous amount of cash was quite difficult. So difficult, in fact, that you leave the court with the perspective of 7 years behind bars in an environment far from the standards you were accustomed to. Spike Lee decided to film the farewell of his hero to freedom, and it must have truly pained him because he did his utmost to humanize him and gain the sympathy of the audience. The film contains a lot, to the point of the ruined existences of Brogan's customers, their broken families, undermined health, suicides, overdoses, AIDS, and much more associated with drug users. Many people in the world have come to their misfortune blindly, but that can't be said about Monty. Where Lee expects sympathy from me, I shrug my shoulders and say: Your Monty only reaped what he sowed. Moreover, Spike Lee looks like someone who has been silent for too long and suddenly desires to get a lot of things out of himself, things that would be cool, but in a different genre, a different film, and with different main characters. The film simply slips through his fingers. Spike does have a way with the camera, relying on top-notch actors, and some scenes have an atmospheric look, but considering the above, I can't give it more than 3 stars - and he should be glad I'm not dissecting the final cheesy sentimental outpouring of the main character's father, which would not fare well on the chart of film embarrassments. Overall impression: 55%.

Danny Boyle has gained a following with his Shallow Grave and confirmed his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Therefore, something grand was expected of him and unfortunately, it's not as amazing as one would hope, although from my perspective, it's still enough for a 4-star rating. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is uncertain, sometimes talkative, and above all, it has an awkwardly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but I simply expected more from the director of Trainspotting. Overall impression: 70%.

Typically American story, which can evoke a lot of positive emotions, but for me as a sober-minded, skeptically inclined, and pragmatic Czech, it is an unrealistic educational tale that will not be saved even by a star-studded cast. It is simply a romantic fairytale for adults. Overall impression: 45%.

The film has a nice visual aspect, but the rest is sterile or conceptually problematic. I once invested an incredible 50 bucks in Miller's comic book, influenced by the claim that it is one of the most significant works of comic creation. There is no doubt that it was the worst investment I have ever made in the world of books. Ideologically, it felt like a guide for a young fascist through the world of life values, not to mention the lack of historical credibility, only the visual concept stood out... Overall impression: 40%.