gudaulin

I have often seen comparisons with the movie Crash, but I find that misleading because Crossing Over has a different topic and treatment, and in my opinion, it is different even in terms of quality. While Crash tried to depict the issue of a multicultural society, i.e., the coexistence of different cultures and races, Crossing Over focuses on the theme of a wealthy country, into which people from various reasons try to immigrate with the desire to fulfill their work ambitions, support their families, or experience adventure. There are also many pests involved, such as smugglers, lawyers, corrupt officials, and a large number of foreign police officers. Although it is an interesting subject with high potential, the execution is learnedly referred to as midcult, i.e., a serious topic is presented in a way that can be understood by as many people as possible, and that corresponds to the polarization of characters into noble ones + victims and the evil ones, who should be punished. It also seemed too patriotic to me, the typical American patriotism with an enthusiastic view of the American flag, where immigrants arriving from around the world vow their loyalty to the new American homeland. The film is solidly cast, played, and directed, but the script is too "Hollywood" for me. Overall impression: 65%.

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%.

The film also features the well-known French director Olivier Marchal, who is known for his crime dramas that mercilessly attack the French justice system and police forces. It all takes place in the style that his work represents, i.e., mapping the corruption of political elites, the interplay between the police and the criminal underworld, and the overall chaos of French society. Unfortunately, the screenplay presents more of a hodgepodge that looks up to Olivier Marchal's masterpieces from a respectful distance. Unfortunately, it is implausible, and I say that from the perspective of a citizen of a country that has had unfortunate experiences and long-standing practices with what Marchal criticizes. In addition, the lead actor Gérard Depardieu seems to have chosen an acting vacation during filming, not putting his usual enthusiasm into it and rather treating it as routine. Furthermore, I get the feeling that in his case, the casting failed because he should have been cast in this sort of tough police role 25 years ago. I understand that the production of a star costs money, and when an actor already has a name, it is necessary to squeeze out as much as possible, but this is more of an attempt to destroy the good reputation of an acting legend than an example of a clever and effective move by the producers. Overall impression: 45%.

This is a typical example of a film where the screenwriter thinks that just writing a script with lots of twists and crazy situations will naturally lead to success. However, it is evident that something is wrong and the whole thing needed more polishing. The essence of success lies in the details, which are not taken care of at all. Despite many crazy escapades, viewers will find reasons to laugh only rarely. Not to mention the overall feeling of the film, which only looks at successful classics of Gallic criminal comedies from a great distance. Despite a solid cast and obvious effort, it is tasteless and unimpressive, and although I could give it 3 stars, this time, due to the wasted potential, I lean toward a lower rating. Overall impression: 45%.

Generally, I tend more toward an intellectually oriented and poetic style of humor, which is the exact opposite of what this film offers. It has humor in the style of classic popular farce, quite coarse and occasionally clearly balancing on the edge of general good taste. Paradoxically, however, this is for a number of reasons, whether it is the interesting and functional cast led by Jean Reno, who, by the way, suits his role of a medieval knight more than the stereotypical characters of impervious killers and uncompromising tough cops, through his lowly primitive servant to a bunch of supporting characters or a funny plot with a lot of functional comedic elements. At the time of its release, I was satisfied and gave it four strong stars, but today, my excitement has waned. However, I am still giving it four stars for being the peak of a certain comedic style that, in its more average form, eludes me and sometimes even repels me. Overall impression: 75%.

I have already mentioned several times in my reviews that I have a problem with East Asian cinema, as I have difficulty accepting its world of thoughts, ethical standards, and general cultural dimension. In some cases, I don't understand those films, in others, I can't identify with their ethical starting points, and in others, I simply dislike the director's style and unnatural movement and speech. South Korean cinema is a typical example of this. It has never happened that I gave more than 3 stars to any South Korean film, including those by the most acclaimed directors. Ironically, it did happen with this film, although it is a film in which I can point out many specific shortcomings, which would bother me disproportionately more with well-known American or European filmmakers. Whether it's the whole series of absurd elements in the investigation - which I would accept in countries in central Africa and maybe even in central America, but for technologically and culturally advanced South Korea, they seem unbelievable - naive twists in the script (the crucial discovery that changes investigators' point of view is clear from the beginning, even to a very average intelligent viewer without knowledge of forensic criminalistic methods), the strange genre classification when the film contains a number of comedic elements that, in my opinion, arose more as unintentional magic rather than a creative intention and end up being disruptive in the result. Nevertheless, this is a film that is not excellent, but interesting, and the culturally different perspective on society from the opposite end of the planet ultimately adds value to it, hence the fourth star I'm giving it. Additionally, despite my reservations about the script, I must acknowledge the film's quality in terms of the excellent music, editing, and camera work. Overall impression: 75%.

The original is almost unknown according to a handful of current ratings on FilmBooster, while the very average American remake, which can only be credited for having an attractive devil seductress, is very well-known and quite popular. However, in my opinion, Donen's film surpasses the American one. Its advantages include typically British sarcastic humor, clever dialogues, and a witty script, which says quite a lot about the eternal conflict between the romantic ideal and the very down-to-earth reality. Overall impression: 75%.

During its release in movie theaters, the film was met with conflicting reactions, ranging from enthusiastic ovations to significant doubts. I must admit that I didn't have much faith in Mašín's debut film, so I avoided it at the time. However, the time has come to catch up, and it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise. 3 Seasons in Hell is primarily a carefully and honestly crafted film - such professionalism combined with a solid budget is not common in the Czech Republic. It may indeed be a bit too polished, and I would have preferred the film to be more surreal and provocative, but Mašín simply and correctly decided to make a film for a broader audience, who are not necessarily as interested in the fates and work of this enfant terrible of Czech culture. I agree with the opinion that this is a quality film that may not deserve a perfect 5-star rating but should be up there, and in this case, I happily round it up. Especially for the presence of the charismatic Karolina Gruszka, who perfectly fulfills my idea of a fateful Bond woman, capable of driving her surroundings and especially men to the brink of madness. Yes, one could die for a woman like her, but it's better to run far away from her... Overall impression: 90%.

The Last Picture Show is a movie about the difficult period of adolescence, the creation of one's value system, the loss of innocence, the first sexual experiences (which may not be the same thing), the loss of illusions, and the transformations of a small Texas town during the economic and technological boom of the early 1950s. The post-war prosperity, further compounded by oil fever, along with the arrival of television as the main source of entertainment, led to greater individualization of society and a lifestyle change, symbolized by the decline of the local movie theater and entertainment club. In The Last Picture Show, the story is not important (on the contrary, it is deliberately suppressed), but rather more important is the overall atmosphere supported by maximum meticulousness, with which the filmmakers captured the smallest details, the consistency with which they dedicated themselves to the dialogue or the complexity of the natures of the individual characters. In the movie, not much actually happens, but you can feel the dramas that take place outside the camera's view and the conflicts that collide in the minds of the characters. I consider this film to be an exceptionally successful black-and-white retro with excellent performances and a sense of authenticity rarely seen in the film industry. In the case of such films, I am often irritated by lofty phrases, unhistorical thinking, artificial plot twists, or catering to the taste of the mass audience. Here, I simply have nothing to criticize. The character's actions are sometimes impulsive and often go against what I believe in, but they correspond to the complexity of the time and the characters, which were not crafted by a routine screenwriter. The character portrayed by Cybill Shepherd is worth mentioning, where the young actress demonstrated not only her charms but also refined character acting and managed to transform from a naive romantic girl into a dangerous and manipulative vixen. Overall impression: 95%.

Once in the 80s, during a high school literature class, I grounded my teacher with the statement that the cursed poets were a bunch of terribly ill-mannered people who drank, snorted cocaine, were promiscuous, and if they didn't dedicate themselves to worldly pleasures, they could accomplish much more. Not to mention that if I allowed myself just a percentage of what representatives of a graduation question did, I would be expelled from school without hesitation. As a teenager, I simply leaned toward bourgeois life, which prioritized hard work over drinking and drug excesses. No one could convince me later that any artistic work could not be created without artificial stimulants. Alcohol and drug influences are a big obstacle during the process of artistic creation. Jim Morrison was undoubtedly a talented poet, lyricist, and musician, but also - and perhaps above all - an emotionally and ideologically unstable poser who never managed to grow up, a weakling, an alcoholic, and a junkie. I definitely would not want to share a household with him, and there is spiritual harmony to be spoken of. His premature death is not the fault of the FBI or misfortune but exclusively his nature and uncontrolled behavior. Therefore, I cannot identify in any way with the main character, who I find unsympathetic, and I also do not support the music of The Doors. However, that's the problem with a music film...Additionally, in its second half, the film focuses too much - although quite understandably, because it's the basis of this band's legend - on scandalous performances and Morrison's decadent lifestyle. However, dozens of minutes of parties and excesses on stage become a boring stereotype during the long runtime...Morrison is simply an icon of pop culture that, even after so many years, evokes illusions of absolute freedom during a certain age of adolescence, and in small-minded people, feelings of envy towards a man who, unlike them, was not afraid to overcome the barriers of social conventions and did not burden himself with hypocritical pretenses of false emotions and gestures. If there is something worth attention in Stone's film besides the traditionally high-quality direction, this time in "psychedelic" style, it is the performance of Val Kilmer in the lead role. Although I don't particularly like him, this time I take my hat off to him, as he practically transformed into the character. Overall impression: 55%.