gudaulin

Some topics are so serious that they should still work even with average processing. Moreover, having Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel, and several other well-known and quality actors at your disposal and not making a strong film already seems like a big failure. Nevertheless, I can't think of a film set in a concentration camp that would feel so barren to me. Brynych wasn't a directing ace, but his film Transport from Paradise, even though it didn't rely on a strong dramatic plot and was modest in terms of production, managed to capture the everyday life of the camp and the departure of the transport in an impressive documentary-like way that clearly surpasses The Grey Zone. In Nelson's film, I get the impression that there was a misunderstanding of the rules of the world behind barbed wire. The dialogue between the camp commander and the prisoner who opposes him is like something from another planet. Comparing the motif of survival in the gas chamber from the chillingly impressive Son of Saul with a similar scene in The Grey Zone feels almost blasphemous. The Grey Zone fails to sell the film characters and its storytelling is clumsy and quickly forgettable. Overall impression: 45%.

It's been about two years since a cycle of French films from the 1930s was broadcast on TV, celebrated classics that every film critic and art critic raved about. They seemed affected by time and to me, it's just film history that mostly passes me by. This film is a different story. I would say it is timeless and emotionally it managed to bring me exactly what Renoir intended. He had no intention of making an adventurous film about escape. This is a political film, where through the model of a few prisoners and their antagonist in the form of a typical Prussian aristocrat with elitist thoughts, he wanted to demonstrate and support the idea of republicanism, equality, and resistance against war, as well as resistance against the rapidly spreading antisemitism at the time. It is not a coincidence that he chose for his protagonists a plebeian officer played by Jean Gabin, a Jewish soldier, moreover, a wealthy one, who directly responded to theories about a Jewish elite pulling the strings, and a selfless officer from higher social circles who understands that the era of blue blood has long passed. Considering the time of its creation, it is truly a high-quality film, where the acting performances serve the social message. Overall impression: 90%.

My adolescence was co-shaped by French war comedies. I really liked those films and their humor used to resonate perfectly with me. However, quite a few years have passed since then and I have moved on and so has cinema, after all. Don't Look Now: We're Being Shot At may be a showcase of a certain type of popular situational comedy, but it is certainly not the best French comedy. In this case, not even a bit of nostalgia works for me, so from my current perspective, I'm only giving it three stars. Overall impression: 65%.

There are a lot of motifs and characters in the movie that perfectly fit the adjective "weird." However, the problem lies in the fact that it is either too weird or not weird enough. When after 40 minutes you have no idea what genre the movie is in or what it is about, then it is either a brilliant film, a mystification, or an unsuccessful matter. I ruled out the possibility of it being a brilliant film, so it is probably a joke at the expense of the viewers, or - more likely - an incompletely mastered intellectual game. The worst part is that the film is not provocative and attractive enough. In the end, I did not feel a sense of disappointment, as the actors acted very well and there were several enjoyable small tricks in the script, but it did not evoke any deeper feelings or emotions in me, and in a few days I won't even remember it. Overall impression: 45%. Fans of popcorn flicks heads up, this is definitely a niche affair...

Even the biggest optimists understandably cannot expect a grand spectacle like Titanic from a European television movie, but I was somewhat disappointed in the end. The problem with this film is not that it is cheap, but that it looks cheap. The Gustloff sank for approximately 50 minutes and if the creators were able to present those 50 minutes in a reasonably appropriate way, my impression would definitely be better. However, because their budget did not allow them to, or rather, they were unable to film the attack on the ship and its destruction as their finances allowed, the overall length of the film is dragged out because, with such a subject, the viewer simply expects the drama of a sinking ship. Instead, the film plays out several individual stories of passengers on the ship, but the individual characters are not as attractive and the actors are not charismatic enough to truly captivate the audience. Additionally, the screenwriter did not want to admit that the reason for the ship's destruction was the fact that by the end of January 1945, the Germans no longer controlled the Baltic Sea, so an unlikely story of a Soviet spy or rather, a German traitor infiltrating the crew was created. The reality was that the captain of the Soviet submarine had his own personal issues due to his repeated drunkenness and desperately needed success, so he took a risk and sank the first ship that crossed his path... Overall, The Crimson Ocean is an average war film that undoubtedly had greater ambitions and could have been filmed better. Overall impression: 50%.

Professionally filmed and decently edited documentary about a noble family that perhaps most significantly influenced the history of Central Europe. Its only disadvantage is its relative shallowness, meaning that the documentary will not enrich avid history enthusiasts, as it is specifically geared towards providing popular educational content for a wider audience unaffected by intensive studying of historical events. The series is approached in a nostalgically positive sense, as a narrative about the fates of monarchs and their empires. Pleasant commentary by Jan Kačer. Overall impression: 80%.

If one side of war is represented by the front line with whizzing bullets and artillery fire, then the film actually shows us only the other side. In the first shots, American infantry cautiously advances into the heart of a city, but we are spared street fighting, and the war, as portrayed by American commanders who witness the opportunism and remarkable pragmatism of the local elite, takes on an almost operatic dimension. However, step by step, it becomes apparent that even a war without bombings and bloody massacres exacts its toll. From the highest toll in the case of a minefield to forced child prostitution - it is indeed better to sell one's child's body than to let them die of hunger. Cavani manages to show the absurdity of wartime conditions in a sometimes outright comical manner, reminding me in several moments (such as the theft of the tank and trading with well-fed German prisoners of war) of the novel "How I Won the War." Captain Malaparte is an informed narrator of the story and he has the ideal position from the viewer's perspective. He can interact with all layers of Italian society, from the upper ten thousand to the lost existences on the outskirts of the city. For Mastroianni, the role of an Italian officer with frontline experience was an interesting deviation from the template of intellectual and melancholic characters in Bolognini's films. Overall impression: 90%.

A slow and uninteresting film that feels twice as long as it is. The characters couldn't draw me into their world, and I didn't care about them at all. A good film needs more than a top actor in the lead role... Overall impression: 40%.

There are movies that we remember from childhood as amazing experiences, and when we return to them after years, we bitterly realize that they have aged and above all, they simply don't work in adulthood. The Goonies belong to those rare exceptions when the film experience repeats every time I watch it again. I become a kid again, embarking on adventurous expeditions, having plenty of free time, and enjoying it despite occasional adult hardships. Whenever I hear the familiar film melody and the voice prompts me, "Don't just stand there, come on," I go and immerse myself once again in the world of my childhood memories. Overall impression: 90%.

I can finally check this one off with relief in that I have seen another famous classic, which I approached with justified skepticism. However, I couldn't leave this task unfulfilled. Thomas Hardy is considered a typical representative of realism, but I can't help the fact that his story feels more like romanticism to me, or rather, I find all the classic flaws of his contemporary production therein. After all, the novel is an invention of this artistic style. The tormented soul of a romantic and a penny-dreadful is not something that attracts me (except for the exceptions that prove the rule), and it usually affects my review. Only one of the four central characters evoked a feeling in me that he is a normal character from life, someone I can root for or sympathize with. The others are a scoundrel, another a madman, and the main female character could be called a cow, but I feel like that would grossly insult poor female domestic animals. Partly, this is because Julie Christie overacts, pushing her character into positions that Thomas Hardy probably didn't intend for her. The happy ending (questionably happy for both parties) doesn't suit the story and feels artificially tacked on. The nearly three-hour runtime is exhausting, and yet I don't get the feeling that John Schlesinger managed to tell the story smoothly and explain all the motivations of his characters. However, the cast is a positive aspect (except for Julie Christie), and so are the shots of beautiful nature and country life. Overall impression: 45%.