gudaulin

I noticed something interesting - those who rate Signs very highly often have great reservations about The Village. For me, it's the opposite. While I consider The Village to be M. Night Shyamalan's masterpiece, I not only disliked Signs, but it disgusted me. That's because the film touches on a genre that I like very much, and I know quite a lot about it. However, it does so in a very superficial way, using ideas from B-movies of the 1950s. Its portrayal of aliens and the risks associated with them made me laugh in the movie theater. In that case, any attempt at a "thriller" and "horror" is doomed to failure. Where others talk about the "great atmosphere and mystique," I sometimes felt like the director was openly making fun of me. Signs does not work as a psychological film for various reasons. What remains is the traditionally good work with actors, and the children acted very decently, while Gibson delivered his standard performance, he did not suit his role in my eye. He looks much better in action roles. Shyamalan is very good at working with details and sounds, but this time it wasn't enough to create the good atmosphere that his filmmaking stands for, due to the poorly chosen approach to the subject. In particular, the incorporation of religious elements into the story really didn't sit well with me. Overall impression 40%.

I by no means claim that The Village is M. Night Shyamalan's best film, but I like it the most. Emotionally, it may resonate with me more than the acclaimed The Sixth Sense. In one of Švankmajer's films, the heroine says: "You have to close your eyes, or you won't see anything." In the case of The Village, it is not necessary to close your eyes but to embrace the director's game and let your imagination carry you away. The film doesn't function as a thriller or even as a horror, and anyone who thinks in terms of traditional genres will inevitably be disappointed. However, The Village, despite many contrary claims in the reviews, offers a range of very good acting performances, directorial ideas, and above all, atmosphere. Overall impression 90%.

From an emotional perspective, an almost perfect film based on true events that took place during the infamous genocide in 1993. Excellent script, quality casting, and smart direction. The result is a film that succeeded worldwide and conveyed the brutal events in Central Africa far better than the media. One of the best films in recent years. Overall impression: 100%. However, it is not a film that can convey a good mood; it is a heavy testimony about a country deformed by its poverty and ethnic hatred.

Gattaca is literally the embodiment of the sci-fi genre's essence and, in every respect, a highly exceptional film where all the ingredients that make up a good artistic work are perfectly harmonized and balanced. An imaginative script that utilizes the latest scientific discoveries and envisions where these insights and new technologies could lead society. Sensitive, highly professional direction that evokes strong emotions without cheap effects, and a cast with no visible weaknesses delivering numerous excellent performances. Gattaca is already here, we just haven't fully realized it yet, but in about twenty years, we will fully face what is depicted in Gattaca. Overall impression: 100%. It is astonishing that such an exceptional film could be made with such a small budget.

For most critics, the film Brazil represents the peak of Gilliam's work, while Twelve Monkeys is considered too mainstream, where Gilliam's creative vision was hindered by strict producer oversight. The truth is that Brazil is indeed a pinnacle work in certain aspects (especially in terms of its visual design), but it is also very unbalanced, narcissistic, and difficult for most viewers to comprehend. On the other hand, Twelve Monkeys is an exceptionally balanced genre film, built upon a strong theme, an intelligent script with a highly emotive plot, and a superbly crafted tragic yet ambiguous final scene. Even a disciplined Gilliam presents his viewers with absurd ideas from his workshop (the punishment chair), Orwellian situations (scientists with gifts above Cole's tortured body), and plenty of clever shots with a sense of composition (Cole's ascent into the abandoned city with wild animals on the ledges of the buildings). The excellent cast is led by Bruce Willis, who delivered top-notch character acting without wrestling holds and punches, unlike in his other films. The crazy Brad Pitt showcased once again that he has a very impressive range as an actor, beyond just a handsome face. We also get the demonic David Morse in a small role. There are no weak performances here. For me, this is the absolute pinnacle of the sci-fi genre. Overall impression: 100%. Excellent work with the time paradox within the genre. Even the very tragic theme of a hero desperately trying to stop a catastrophe is lightened in several scenes with small sarcastic jokes.

Brotherhood of the Wolf is a type of French epic film that aims to emulate overseas blockbusters with its colorful plot, settings, and action elements, and it does a fairly good job of it. The excellent cinematography, dynamic action, romantic exteriors, and decent special effects deserve praise. However, the screenplay falters, as it apparently doesn't pay much attention to the logic of the plot or many essential details. An Indian and his European friend use East Asian martial arts, and the creature on screen seems to belong to a different genre. Nevertheless, it's a decent watch, and the audience won't be bored for even a moment. Overall impression: 50%.

David Cronenberg had been considering an adaptation of the famous William S. Burroughs novel for a long time, but he didn't know how to make it and with what resources. Despite the diametrical differences in the environments that shaped them and the differences in their personalities, both creators are united by a high level of creativity and a refusal to be bound by conventions and prejudices. Given his and the writer's reputation and the scandalous content of the work, he understandably could not secure the support of major studios. The adventures surrounding the making of the film could be the subject of another movie. Because Naked Lunch is essentially a surrealist affair that can only be literally filmed as an animated film or an extremely expensive digitally created blockbuster without a chance of box office success, Cronenberg wrote a screenplay that used the literary source material only as a starting point. It's a film about how writer William Lee, aka Burroughs, writes Naked Lunch, the creative struggles he experiences, and how he's plagued by demons of drug addiction and sexual fantasies. Dream visions and drug hallucinations often appear. This provocative, hard-to-digest film, which is definitely not for everyone, received enthusiastic acclaim from critics and won several professional awards, but logically failed commercially. The central theme of Cronenberg's film is loneliness and the resulting frustration of a highly talented individual surrounded and threatened by a conventional environment. Overall impression: 95%. Acting-wise, Peter Weller and Judy Davis had great performances.

David Cronenberg is a director whose work aligns with my vision of the sci-fi genre, and his style, which incorporates mysterious elements, atmosphere, and morbid ideas, has often thrilled me. eXistenZ is his masterpiece, where the casting, performances, script, and various artistic elements come together to create a piece whose atmosphere stayed with me for months. In the film, reality seamlessly transitions into a dream without warning the viewer, and even the protagonists don't know if they are connected to a virtual reality computer game or experiencing real emotions and events. "You don't have to kill me," says one of the characters, and then adds, "but tell me, are we still playing the game?" The film raises numerous questions about how far we can go with technologies that control the human mind and what the value of human life is. Overall impression: 95%.

I watched the film in the summer of 1989, just shortly before the fall of real socialism, and it was a significant cinematic experience for me at the time. The feeling of absurdity and stagnation was something I knew well from real life, having just graduated from high school and gained fresh experiences working in a factory marked by the system. Many scenes and dialogues fascinated me and stayed in my memory. I would say it is one of the greatest film experiences I've ever had, but I haven't seen the film since then, and with such a long time gap, I don't dare to place it in my top favorites. Noting the long time gap, my overall impression is 80%. The film accurately depicted the madness of the system.

This film caused quite a stir in the film world at the time and was successfully screened in dozens of countries. Karel Zeman became a renowned name in the film industry, and if he hadn't been working behind the Iron Curtain, he would likely have had a brilliant career, with the child actors becoming recognized stars. For its time, the special effects scenes with attractive depictions of prehistoric creatures were exceptionally well done, making the film still interesting today and a significant reminder of film history. However, the script, in retrospect, is rather flat, and the didactic intent is glaringly obvious. In many ways (exclusively male cast, scout ideals, a desire for adventure), the film is reminiscent of and likely intentionally follows Jaroslav Foglar's work. Overall impression: 70%.