gudaulin

I do not deny the entertainment value of the film; in fact, it even has a spicy taste for me. I knew Mrs. Volfová from the time she led the Social Democratic Women when she used different vocabulary and stood for different values. A closer look suggests many unflattering things about the inability to communicate and maintain cohesion on the radically right-wing side of the political scene. However, this is only a secondary and probably unintended effect. Zuzana Piussi could perhaps be praised for how she managed to make both interviewed groups open up, but let's be honest, she didn't have to try very hard. They were eager to show off their arsenal of ideas. The film lacks scale and any deeper analytical perspective on the issue. Yes, activists are often naive idealists, but their influence and numbers are negligible; on the other hand, the views of the second group have become mainstream in the Czech Republic, with far-reaching influence on the political scene and real decisions and functioning of public administration. In a country with a tiny, at most 20,000-member Muslim minority, living dispersedly, highly educated, and well-integrated, in a country with a long-standing conservative, very cautious asylum policy and refugee camps empty, it is rather interesting how incredibly quickly hysteria has escalated and influenced the social climate and the media. A documentary on this topic would be much more useful, because the more we chase after phantoms, the less energy we will have left to solve real problems. Overall impression: 55%.

If you like generously made costume romantic spectacles, there is a very decent chance that you will like Victoria. The craftsmanship is undoubtedly of high quality. The problem is that from the beginning, I saw Victoria heading toward being a penny-dreadful, and I really didn't need that, so I gave up watching it soon. If you are looking for something more, a deeper immersion into the Victorian era, non-trivial dramas, and unconventional processing, you simply have to turn elsewhere. Overall impression: 45%.

This documentary series was created under the National Geographic brand. The famous brand evokes a sense of seriousness and trust, but from the first shots, it is clear that the decisive criterion in this production was viewership. Drugs, Inc. expects to be aired on commercial television screens. This series is effective, but it's also superficial documentary filmmaking with a touch of sensation. You may or may not believe that the man with the scarf over his face is a significant drug dealer. The openness with which characters from the criminal underworld speak about their business, knowing that they can receive lengthy sentences for their actions, is definitely remarkable. Overall impression: 40%.

I don't know if I have changed over the years since watching the first film in the series, or if the quality of the creative team has changed in such a fundamental way, but while I accepted The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with satisfaction and didn't regret buying a ticket to the movie theater, the second part didn't satisfy me in any way, not even as a filler for a late evening shortly before bed. I approached the second part with lower expectations having been informed by sober comments. It's a typical example of a film that doesn't know how to work with its potential and doesn't know how to sell its characters to the audience. It lacks tension, and it lacks atmosphere. The way Alfredson approached directing, he might as well have been filming an unambitious television series episode meant to fill airtime. Moreover, it is clear to me that even the literary source itself does not have the power and value of the first part. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this film is even less than average. I now understand why overseas they only copied The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - they didn't see the commercial potential in the sequel. Overall impression: 45%.

Once upon a time, The War of the Buttons enjoyed extraordinary interest from television viewers, and the phrase "If I had known, I wouldn't have come here" quickly became popular. My parents' generation considered The War of the Buttons a pleasant comedy from a children's environment and whenever the film appeared on TV, they rushed to the television. Time has indeed left its mark on the film and I would rather recommend a more recent adaptation from the 90s to those interested in the rivalry between two village groups. However, this film still retains its charm. Above all, it can serve as evidence of how much society and the position of children have changed within it. The adults in The War of the Buttons pour hard liquor for children and offer them cigarettes, and they have no problem with child labor or having them operate agricultural machinery. Killing a predator is a commendable act worthy of a reward and physical punishment is a natural part of upbringing. There is a greater range of duties, but also responsibilities. In short, it was a different time with different morals. Overall impression: 75%.

There are certain things one should not return to. I remembered The Dark Crystal as a great dark puppet fantasy, but the ravages of time have painfully affected it. The film is now exhausted and lives on the nostalgia of memories, and it doesn't even come close to current puppet movies like the Danish film Strings. Many animated works have stood the test of time with honor, but the famous The Dark Crystal is not one of them. Overall impression: 40%.

Experience has taught me that you truly get to know a person when they are exposed to extreme situations. People discard their masks and deeply hidden emotions and their hidden character traits float to the surface. The one who inspired trust disappoints, while the outsider unexpectedly surprises. Heroism is a deceitful concept. A person can behave heroically without even realizing the risks of their actions and their threatening consequences for themselves and others. Heroes are individuals who, in a different context, may appear as adventurers and irresponsible individuals. Medals for bravery are awarded in times of war to those who would have ended up in prison or in a psychiatric ward during peacetime. The sad hero of this story does not want to be a hero. Risking his life is the last thing he would do. But sometimes life gets in the way. The created situation didn't feel artificial to me, and I had no problem with the psychological persuasiveness of the characters. For me, it is one of the most successful war films in Czech cinema. I also appreciate that it is not schematic when portraying the enemy. The German commander is not a clear monster, as he acts under the pressure of circumstances and it is evident that he does not try to push the situation to extremes. Overall impression: 75%.

If, for example, Haneke's The White Ribbon felt disturbing and extraordinarily impressive to me, Amour represents the opposite pole of his work. It seems strongly predictable, aloof, and unnecessarily literal for my taste. True, contemporary society tends to repress unpleasant phenomena - and first and foremost among them are dying, powerlessness, and the act of death itself. If you belong to this large group, the film can reveal something to you. But a simple demonstration is not enough for me. I have already dealt with all of this in the past and I do not find film magic in Haneke's film. The director serves me something that is already finished and I do not see any room for myself in there. Not to mention the fact that it's as cold as ice. I'm giving it three stars for Haneke's undoubtedly high-quality craftsmanship. Overall impression: 55%.

I have to admit that since Paradise Now, director Hany Abu-Assad has clearly progressed further, and his drama can withstand even the most precise measurements and comparisons with foreign models. Moreover, it is evident that he is influenced by European cinema and adapts the pace and style of his storytelling to the local audience. I greatly appreciate the sense of authenticity. Hany Abu-Assad grew up in Palestine and can convincingly and captivatingly depict the local realities. As for the acting, I also did not find any weaknesses worth mentioning. Perhaps, I should note that Omar is a political drama that necessarily has a propagandistic dimension. Palestine is unfortunate in that it is disputed by two ethnic groups, and therefore two radically different interpretations of its modern history exist. The viewer must take into account and approach Omar's story with a certain reservation and awareness that the problem is (much) more complex since the film advocates for the "Palestinian cause." If Palestinians, who are currently at a disadvantage in terms of power, were to find themselves in the role of the hegemon, I would have no illusions about the fate of the Jewish population. Overall impression: 80%.

Director Gillo Pontecorvo is known, among other things, for his documentary-style war drama, The Battle of Algiers, and he was one of the left-leaning filmmakers of his generation. Even in this case, he does not deny his political commitment. It does not make sense to consider Burn! a classic adventure spectacle set in the backdrop of an exotic Caribbean island. Pontecorvo directed a political drama, in which he deals with the much-debated topic of neocolonialism in Euro-American intellectual left circles in the 1960s, through the story of the strange alliance and subsequent conflict between British emissary William Walker and indigenous rebellion leader José Dolores. After World War II, European colonial empires quickly disintegrated, but former centers of power attempted to maintain their influence indirectly through supporting cooperative local leaders, corruption, and pressure. On the island of Queimada, controlled by the Portuguese, British agent Walker arrives with the aim of driving out the colonial rulers with the help of local residents and facilitating the penetration of British capital into the area. He selects a suitable leader for the popular uprising and provokes the local elites to declare independence. However, the abolition of slavery does not mean an improvement in the living conditions of ordinary people, and once ignited, the spirit of rebellion continues to burn within society. The character of William Walker is exceptionally well-written, ambiguous, complicated, and contradictory in his actions and goals. Walker is an excellent observer, analyst, and organizer, as well as a dangerous manipulator and cynical pragmatist who serves whoever pays him. But he is also a person who understands the difficult fate of the people "down there" and has no problem improving their position. Perhaps even by pushing the ruling class against the wall at the right moment. On the other hand, Dolores perfectly embodies the schematic ideas of a decisive and uncompromising revolutionary leader, as envisioned by supporters of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. In the confrontation of these two characters, Gillo Pontecorvo predictably stands firmly with the popular leader. Unfortunately, practical experience derived from studying history speaks unequivocally in favor of opportunists like Walker. Reformers succeed, not saviors. They know how to destroy, but they cannot handle the role of negotiators, creators, and guarantors, often ending up as self-righteous authoritarians like Mugabe or desperate failures capable of dragging their surroundings down with them. Marlon Brando's performance as William Walker deserves attention and is one of the most interesting roles in his long and extensive career. Overall impression: 65%.