gudaulin

I categorically declare that this melodrama is too melodramatic and shallow at the same time, despite all the effort put into it. It does touch on the serious topic of family breakdown and conflicts over raising a child, as well as the fact that the film features the most significant actors of their generation in the main roles. However, I simply feel that it is a flat film that lacks the rawness it truly needs and is afraid to show the conflict in all its complexity and hopelessness. I know several cases where painful reality far surpassed a Hollywood script. This film manipulates the viewer's emotions skillfully and its craftsmanship cannot be denied, but it did not evoke any emotional catharsis in me. Overall impression: 65%.

An adventurous historical fantasy, thanks to which we now know that the witch hunt organized by the Inquisition was absolutely fine because those monsters allied with the devil were causing damage wherever possible. The devil had his hands full dragging as much evil as possible among the unfortunate Christians, including a devastating epidemic, and who else can stand up to such devastation than the heroic Nicolas Cage accompanied by the thunderous Ron Perlman? Similar productions have a decent budget, and therefore also a decent production design, which in many cases can disguise the fact that the screenplay and the story are just a mishmash that doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Quite a few aspects are saved in the case of this film, and, indeed, you don't usually get bored with this kind of film - there's always something moving, sneering, running away, or attacking, exploding, burning - in short, action, special effects, and spectacle. However, if you want the film to work as a whole, you can't turn off your brain and even nitpickingly look for errors in the logic, so it's better to avoid Season of the Witch. Overall impression: 45%. Season of the Witch is exactly the type of film that my nine-year-old son would be enthusiastic about.

Clint Eastwood has become one of the most respected American directors alongside his stellar acting career, not because he fascinated film critics and experts with his experimentation at film festivals, but because he has always been, and still is, a top-notch craftsman of the silver screen. First and foremost, he always cares about the audience and presents them with films with a strong story and interesting characters that somewhat transcend the boundaries of the given genre, but never abandon them. Therefore, both traditional genre fans and those who wanted to see film heroes and their actions more realistically or in a slightly different way found something in it for themselves. And that is precisely the case with Unforgiven. Eastwood partially demystifies the legends of the Wild West, but at the same time uses all the necessary genre props, accommodating both fans of traditional westerns and those who consider their laws naive, outdated, or not in line with historical reality. In terms of craftsmanship, there is nothing essential to criticize about the film. By the time this film came out, Eastwood was already so well-known and respected as a filmmaker that he could easily approach any top actor to act in his films. In addition, he had the doors open with producers because he was disciplined, adhered to the budget, and his films were usually highly profitable. While I'm not a big fan of traditional westerns, Unforgiven brought me joy and I have no problem giving it the highest rating. It is of high quality, professional, surprising, and atmospheric. Overall impression: 95%.

I unfortunately have not read the book, so I cannot join the usual reservations that the literary source material is significantly better, and I cannot identify with the frequent criticisms of Tom Cruise's acting. Although he is certainly not the best character actor of his generation, he also does not embarrass his profession and can successfully handle the role, which shows why he is the highest-paid male star in American cinema. The film has a solid screenplay without errors in logic, unrealistic action, and ridiculous conspiracies while being suspenseful and entertaining. In addition, in the final confrontation with the leaders of the mafia gang, the ending is clever and surprising. Although the film does not change the view of the genre in any way and is a classic thriller made by a major studio, I still highly appreciate it within its category. Overall impression: 85%.

Rules of Lies is a far from perfect film, but I can include it in the category of interesting and sympathetic films. Several minor shortcomings can be pointed out, mainly in the script, especially the somewhat fabricated story that three individuals connected by the past and a crime in a distant country meet in a small closed community. However, this fabrication is common in classic famous detective stories by British authors. The logic of the behavior of the main adversaries occasionally falters, especially the main villain played by Jiří Langmajer. Also, some of the actors in supporting roles are not entirely convincing, and I don't entirely believe in their drug-addicted past and the torment of abstinence. On the other hand, I consider Rules of Lies to be one of the best attempts at a Czech genre film, surpassing, for example, the genre-related film Angel Exit or the weak Coal Tower. These mentioned shortcomings can be attributed to the inexperience of Robert Sedláček - considering that this is his debut, it is a strong and clever film that relies on a series of impressive dialogues between the main characters in the form of therapists and their patients. In addition, Jiří Langmajer's impressive performance stands out, as he does not play a demonic underworld character, but rather a small ordinary scumbag who manipulates his surroundings for his own benefit, being both selfish and cowardly at the same time. This creature is believable, as he is simply a realistic antagonist that you may encounter in real life. Overall impression: 75%.

A disturbing, intelligent thriller with a provocative theme and an even more provocative climax, which pits law and justice against each other, i.e., the criminal code and morality. It even explores the boundaries of ethical behavior by relativizing the concepts of good and evil. Its characters are not black and white and are also exposed to extreme situations that require truly fundamental and difficult decisions. The clever script has several significant twists in the perspective of the characters and their actions, and the film can be watched not only as a brilliant detective story but also as an excellent psychological drama. Moreover, the film is brilliantly cast and professionally directed and acted. I have absolutely no problem giving it five stars. Overall impression: 95%.

Critiques of high society and the conflict between plebeians and the aristocracy are common film subjects, and honestly, Griffin Dunne's film does not provide anything fundamentally new and is not a top film. The most interesting aspect of it is the subject matter, but the first half is drawn out and lacks any compelling dramatic storyline, sometimes desperately so. It is more like a series of scenes about how the wealthy are bored, and entertained, and how they use those down below as their toys. The second half does bring the necessary conflict and can be emotionally gripping at times, but even here, the script mostly stays on the surface and does not present a systematic critique of what is seen. Evil comes from a psychopathic individual, not from the principles of wealth and social differences. On one hand, it is excessively predictable in the conclusion - the villain must be portrayed as an unacceptable creature, on the other hand, it rounds off the edges of the social conflict, and the conforming ending is rather socially naive. The first few minutes gave hope for a dark satire that cuts to the core... Overall impression: 55%.

Polemics about the controversy of Antichrist passed me by at the time, but the first information about the film reassured me that it goes beyond what interests me, so I decided to avoid it. However, a few days ago I received a DVD of the film as a gift, and as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't have a problem with Lars von Trier, just like the majority of creators, but at the same time, I have no problem mercilessly sending my favorite director or actor to fiery hell if their film doesn't resonate with me. I became fond of Trier when I watched his cult series, The Kingdom, and I highly appreciated the content of his "theatrical" films. But some time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the fundamental characteristic of Trier's work is the manipulation of the viewer and facts, which he adjusts according to his artistic visions. Furthermore, the problem with him is that since the time he drunkenly devised Dogme 95, he has become a fashionable director in the true sense of the word, satisfying the intellectual snobs' ideas of true art in film and becoming a pampered celebrity of the festival audience. Unfortunately, this has become an integral part of his personality and his filmography. He caters to his snobs with plenty of things, from supposedly encrypted messages through provocative and genre films promising titles to the necessary reference to Tarkovsky in the end credits. The trouble is that there is an absolute antithesis in the ideological foundations between his film Antichrist and Tarkovsky's work, not to mention that Tarkovsky could afford to ignore the viewers because a film industry did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the decisive factor for filming and permission to distribute the film were not the reactions of the audience or the intentions of the producers, but the approval process, where it was necessary to overcome several officials at the relevant ministry. Tarkovsky could therefore subjugate everything to his artistic expression and his artistic ideals. Lars creates his films under real capitalism and calculates both with the controversial content of his films and with the scandals that his outspoken mouth and behavior regularly provoke. He knows very well that one or two failures are enough to tarnish his star status. Antichrist should not be a highly reviewed film on FilmBooster with over five thousand ratings simply because it is not a film that corresponds to the mass taste of film viewers in any way. It is a film that caters to the festival and club audience, so we see a lot of three or four-star reviews and comments like "I didn't know what to make of it, but it's a wonderful piece of work..." rather speak of user conformity than the real qualities of Antichrist. The genre identification with horror is confusing; it is more of a surrealist dramatic-mysterious game on the subject of the decay of a partnership. Unfortunately, it is pretentious, tiresome, and unbridled. Of course, Trier hasn't forgotten his filmmaking skills, and one can revel in the camera or other elements of film language, but they should also form a cohesive film. Antichrist is simply an unengaging film that wants to provoke with its controversial content and violent or pornographic scenes. Typically, I would give such films at least one star for craftsmanship, but in this case, I am happy to make an exception, which can be seen as a counterweight to the many uncritical users. I was startled once and disgusted three times, but the majority of my feelings fell into the category of disinterest, and this film is simply one of those that amuse me with the comments of many fans and how many meanings one can find when you are looking for them. I did not find in this film much of a story, good dialogue, interesting characters, and catharsis because the final third of the film is utterly unnecessary. Yet the prologue seemed so interesting... Overall impression: 5%.

This is one of those films for nostalgics who feel obliged to give a higher number of stars than would correspond to their subjective feeling about the film. It's simply a classic. The famous book by Zola, the famous director Renoir, and the legendary Jean Gabin in the lead role. However, I won't deny that I was bored while watching and even dozed off several times. So yes, the film certainly has a lot to offer to admirers of film classics, those who diligently visit film clubs to fill in the gaps in their quest to map out world cinema. It will definitely please those who are professionally involved in cinema, as well as film critics who can extensively praise the work of the camera and other film professions, but as a viewer, the film simply did not captivate me. Nowadays, we have a different film pace, movies are more civil without pathos and theatrical poses in actors' performances, and perhaps the source material and genre are to blame from my perspective. Overall impression: 45%.

David Thewlis wanted to make his own unique film and tried very, very hard. It shows in his acting performance and the entire film, but the result is uncertain due to the screenplay that oscillates between several genres and ultimately fulfills neither of them. It is neither a comedy nor a drama, and stylistically it keeps fluctuating back and forth, just like the characters and situations that are not utilized as the audience would imagine. In the end, it comes closest to a melodrama, dealing with coping with the loss of a life partner and mother. At the beginning, however, it seems like a poetic clown show, then a sarcastic satire in the style of the successful film The Full Monty about declining television competitions. The final result is somewhere between 2 and 3 stars, although in this case, it's quite a shame. Overall impression: 45%.