gudaulin

The comic book of the same name became a literary event of the year in its genre, not thanks to its average script that relies on a single clever idea, but thanks to the blurred original artwork of Ben Templesmith, which elevated the work to art. His graphic style is economical, and surrealistic, relying on readers' imagination and focusing on striking, unpleasant details that evoke a sense of hopelessness and cruelty. I have the comic book at home, and it is one of my favorites. I was curious about how its film adaptation would turn out, especially since the book can be read almost like a film script and has great film potential. Thus, my disappointment was even greater when I saw the result. True, a certain visual resemblance can be traced between the film vampires and the ones from the comics, as well as the original idea and basic story being adopted. However, while the comic monsters exude sinister majesty and demonic characteristics, the film ones resemble sick creatures infected with Ebola and rabies at the same time. The villains from the comic can be brutal murderers in one second, only to transform into polished companions in the next moment, who perversely play with their next victim with an elegant smile on their faces. The film versions emit only inhuman screams and evoke pity. Increasing tension, fear of the unknown, and isolation emanate from each comic panel, later followed by the brutality of a brutal massacre and the hopelessness of the survivors. Comics can advance the plot and evoke a lot of emotions with just one full-page image of a snowstorm - it is impossible not to think of the long shots of a snowy landscape in Carpenter's cult classic The Thing, which, along with a simple musical motif, managed to create unpleasant tension. The film lacks what made the comic famous - atmosphere. Atmosphere is is what is originality in a film, as well as accurate work with sound, cleverly shot scenes, and visually impressive camera shots. Because David Slade lacks aesthetic sensitivity and especially a sense of composition, he tries to create an impression only with techniques typical of music videos - that is, masks, fast cuts, and frantic camera movements. This may be enough for those who grew up with music videos and video games, but probably not for connoisseurs familiar with the film classics. I don't mind that Slade's film lacks artistic depth. That happens very rarely, and most viewers don't expect it or need it to be satisfied. What bothers me is that 30 Days of Night has stupid, unimpressive filmmaking that can satisfy only fans of B-movie horror and splatterpunk in this form. I saw the film only on a poor pirate copy (thank God, because I would have regretted spending money on such a thing in the movie theater for a long time), but even so, it was clear that not a single interesting and memorable scene appeared in it. I don't need to turn to film legends, for example, in the unambitious and purely television "Kingesque" film The Night Flier, I can recall five of them... In this context, the film Alien is worth mentioning. Before it, dozens, if not hundreds, of bad films about bloodthirsty creatures from space were made, which damaged the genre and majorly discredited this prop. Then one clever director came along, along with one original artist, and they proved that there are no "noble" and "debased" genres, only good and bad movies. Alien became a film event, but I highly doubt that 30 Days of Night can claim the same. Overall impression: 35%.

I would like to borrow my opening words from elsewhere: "Overwrought and poorly told phantasmagoria"... because they succinctly and accurately characterize what you can expect from the series. According to Alex de la Iglesia, he worked on the series for 6 years, reserved only a maximum of one week for the screenplay based on the result, and it took him the longest time to convince the producers to invest finances and studio support in such garbage. Honestly, I am amazed that the series was created under the patronage of HBO, which usually sets the bar for quality high. I like storytelling and enjoy it, but Alex is a terrible storyteller. It cannot be claimed that the problem lies in the subject itself, it is rather about its execution, about Alex's superficial approach to the material. He wastefully indulges in ideas only to thwart their potential. The mystery genre relies on emotions much more than on rationality, but that does not mean that no laws should apply to it, and that the behavior of the characters will not be guided by any logic. I am surprised by the decent rating on FilmBooster because Alex's lack of restraint and inconsistency moves the genre from horror or fantasy to grotesque in many places... but to each their own. I will not in the least accommodate the carelessly shot mishmash with poor effects and a stupid screenplay, there are others for that. Overall impression: 10%.

I call this category of festival films "Rohypnol" for their fascinating ability to reliably put you to sleep after just a few seconds. Imagine the sea waves, pebbles on the beach, and calming sounds, and the disaster is complete. I would like to mention many other things I saw in the movie, but unfortunately, I don't remember anything else. Overall impression: 5% - and don't ask me what it's for.

I definitely don't claim that this is a bad movie, but the expectations were too high in this case, and during the final scene, I was thinking, is this really the end? Is there nothing else coming? Are you telling me this film won at a category A festival and is considered by film fans and critics alike as the European film event of the year? The thing is, this film somehow deceives in its substance and offers substitute emotions, or rather, in my opinion, it fails precisely in what it is most adored for, i.e., a statement about a certain country and political system. Many reviews enthusiastically admire its amazing authenticity, but how many of those viewers experienced communist Romania first-hand? I haven't been there, but from the testimonies of eyewitnesses, I know that even ten years after the revolution, some places in the countryside had no electricity, many remote areas are today economically worse off than during Ceausescu's regime, and the mountainous regions are depopulating. Comparing the former Romania to Czechoslovakia is misguided, as the situation there was disproportionately worse and, above all, systemically different. The abortion that is at the core of Mungiu's film, is presented as purely a technical problem. Those girls, just like the other film characters, are not victims of the system, but part of it. Polish films of moral unrest were able to address moral conflict issues in the behavior of their characters during the deep communism of the 70s and 80s, whereas here, a college student undergoes an abortion of a fetus that is merely an obstacle to her career. We learn very little about the system itself, and it is necessary to realize that abortions were also prohibited in a number of European countries in the recent past, and a similar film could be made in present-day Poland, in a democratic system. Since 1993, abortion there has been limited to the absolute minimum of possibilities. That pre-revolutionary Romania was an inhospitable and freedom-restricted place to live in is quite evident in some places, but that is just a secondary motive. If the main problem for Romanian college students in dormitories was obtaining a certain brand of Western cigarettes, then those girls really didn't have a bad life. In short, it is watchable but, from my perspective, also an overrated film with an unclear concept. Overall impression: 60%.

Berlin has fallen, the leader of the German nation has passed into eternity, and the surrender of the German armed forces was expected with each passing day. No one is rushing into battle anymore because who would want to die just before the end of the war? Actually, only the clean-up remains. However, a group of German soldiers who have gathered on the shores of the Baltic Sea do not want to surrender to the Red Army. They are not enticed by the prospect of infamous Siberian labor camps and forced work. They are considering escaping by boat to Denmark, where British captivity offers a considerably more favorable future. The Soviet captain does not press them. He, too, lives with the prospect of an imminent ceasefire and does not want to risk a clash against tenfold superiority. Moreover, he has enough worries of his own. His group has settled in an orphanage, and a German boy would like to experience the battle firsthand and gain some military fame. 4 Days in May is an intimate war film that focuses not so much on the grand epic picture of battle and war machinery, but rather on the personal dramas of people who must cope with the loss of a familiar world, new responsibilities, and above all, the question of whether and for what they should die for at the very end of the war. It is an inconspicuous film at first glance, but it is emotionally impactful, and it has left a mark on me. Overall impression: 90%.

I'll admit, I rarely watch romantic movies anymore because, in that stereotypical whirlpool, there are only very few titles worth watching. The vast majority of those genre pieces are made as if following a template and differ only slightly in doses of naivety and, when it comes to teenage matters, even in the level of tastelessness. (500) Days of Summer really stands out from this flood because it has honest craftsmanship and a few decent ideas as well as pleasant casting. But from my perspective, it's by no means a cult film. It was allegedly a huge hit at the Sundance Festival, but any major studio could have easily financed this Webb film. In fact, it is purely a mainstream affair. If stars were given for the best mainstream romance of the year, (500) Days of Summer would probably win hands down, but that's not how it works for me. It differs from the usual productions mainly by the fact that the screenwriter admitted that not every romantic love ends in marriage, but if they want to sell me these discoveries, they should turn to someone else with such banalities. After two days, I can only remember very little from the film. It's pleasant enough for one viewing, but nothing more. Overall impression: 60%.

The screenplay is unfinished. Although it is well-acted, it feels like a fragment of a feature film rather than a standalone functioning short film. The female element is also unnecessary in a script like this... Overall impression: 50%.

Each of us is intimately familiar with this situation: the smaller the expectations, the greater the enthusiasm for an otherwise average film. And vice versa - the greater the expectations, the more bitter the disappointment, even though objective reality is somewhere in the middle. I seriously expected very little from this movie, or rather "nothing." After watching it, I initially intended to give it four stars with excitement, but then I pondered it and erased a star. Rob Schneider is slightly less awkward than usual, but he still overacts and Sandler also recalls his worst acting several times (most notably in the scene where he cries on the boat, reminiscing about lost love). Nevertheless, despite all of this, it is still the best Sandler comedy with surprisingly civil performances from both main characters and a funny storyline. Overall impression: a decent 65%.

731: Two Versions of Hell is a type of documentary where the impact of the message is based solely on commentary, delivered by a neutral voice, which is in sharp contrast to the emotionally charged content of the film. The visual part could be completely absent, as similar information could be conveyed by a slightly modified radio program. The chosen dual perspective is interesting, saying that with a sufficient degree of cynicism and demagogy, anything can be relativized and justified, including gas chambers and torture devices. The visual component is only complementary, where the lively Chinese city of the present forms a counterbalance to the ruins of a concentration camp and a factory for the production of biological weapons. My overall impression, considering the weak visual aspect, amounts to 60%. However, the chosen unconventional form and provocative interpretation of the same event from the perspective of two warring sides make this a film that should not go unnoticed.

After watching the film, I was reminded of a lecture by a well-known science popularizer who admitted that the motive for the creation of his latest book was not a passion for its subject, but a grant that he happened to receive and that it would not be wise to refuse. I had a similar feeling of "motivation" when it came to most of the participating directors here. It wasn't a dream project that pushed them to the limits of their creative powers, and it wasn't even a commercial thing for which they would risk their reputation with the producer. Most of them approached it like a school exercise, and sometimes I even felt like it was out of obligation. In any case, directorial qualities prevailed over screenwriting - sometimes there was palpable helplessness in that area (Kusturica's alcohol-soaked visit to the film festival). Most film fans will probably choose their own favorite story, but as a whole, 7 Days in Havana, in my opinion, doesn't hold up. It was clear from the beginning that the individual contributions would have different styles and poetics, but I must admit that I didn't expect to feel like I was on a roller coaster or riding a carnival ride when comparing the quality of the stories. Overall impression: 45%.