gudaulin

Tenet certainly doesn't pose an intellectual challenge and is one of those films that you'll enjoy the most when you think less about time paradoxes, the motives of the film's characters, and their quest to defeat the Bond-like villain. As a popcorn flick deliberately reminiscent of Agent 007 stories in a sci-fi coat, and as an action spectacle, Nolan's film really works. Thanks to John David Washington, we essentially have the first "non-white" Bond in history. I enjoyed the dynamic opening opera heist, where Nolan drew inspiration from a real terrorist act. Kenneth Branagh also pleased me, intentionally building his villain as a monstrous comic book character. Overall impression: 65%.

When I read Mika Waltarii's extensive novel many years ago, it was a profound experience for me on all levels. Waltari conceived "The Egyptian" as an opportunity to bring everything known about ancient Egypt and its culture to the Western reader at the time of the novel's creation. Egyptology is still developing, and new discoveries might slightly revise the content of Waltari's text, but I still believe that if I returned to reading it, I would definitely not be disappointed. Michael Curtiz's film is just a historical reminder of a certain chapter in the development of American studio cinema. In the 50s and 60s, these expensive costume projects from ancient empires were everywhere and represented the showcase of the production at that time. The Egyptian certainly is not one of the better films, and today the shallowness and trimming of the multi-layered novel motives directly annoy me. It's just a costume blockbuster from the 50s... Overall impression: 40%.

I intentionally give The Wedding Guest a fourth star because it seems somewhat underrated to me. However, I understand the cautious reservations because the director couldn't decide what genre he's actually filming, and labeling it as a thriller is somewhat misleading or unsatisfactory. Michael Winterbottom fails to properly build and maintain tension. It's simply a hybrid that oscillates between drama (which, on the other hand, lacks a deeper psychological profile of the main characters) and the aforementioned thriller. The film benefits from the exotic settings of Pakistan and India, as well as the theme of arranged and forced marriages. Acting-wise, both the charming Radhika Apte and Dev Patel deliver what is expected of them without any issues. Overall impression: 65%.

No, I will not throw out superlatives and I will remain significantly reserved in my evaluation. Some directors successfully fit the adaptation of a several hundred-page novel into a two-hour blockbuster, but Hamaguchi managed to stretch the adaptation of a short story one-tenth of the size into three hours. It took me three tries to watch the film and that's not a good sign. I constantly felt like I was watching a snail on vacation, not in a rush to get anywhere. The film drags on and even though it introduces interesting motifs regarding the artistic creative process and the psychological aspect of coping with the departure of a loved one, it really doesn't deserve a higher rating. Overall impression: 55%. I am horrified at the thought of how long the adaptation of a thick tome of a 19th-century Russian classic would stretch in the hands of this director.

These are times when predictability prevailed in both domestic and world politics, and politicians could be put in drawers with their respective labels. The phenomenon of populism and "illiberal" democracy with strong authoritarian features directly calls for artistic mapping, but after the first attempt, I feel like it will miss its goals and the audience. The series aims to be satirical but lacks moderation and refinement. It is often superficially silly and over-stylized, a test that few creators can withstand; perhaps Wes Anderson or Terry Gilliam in top form could handle this. In the first episode, I see clear limits, and Stephen Frears is long past his prime. If there is a reason to pay attention to Victory Day, it is Kate Winslet in the lead role. I believe in her psychologically unstable dominatrix character, as she enjoys playing the chancellor and lets her acting type shine. Just because of her, I'll give one more episode a chance and we'll see...

My commentary should start with something positive. I've been thinking for a long time about what I could say that would please Issa López, that I could give the show a thumbs up, but I couldn't do it. Yet I figured it out. The length. The modest six episodes saved the audience from more nonsensical screenwriting lapses, prevented us from spending more time with poorly written, untrustworthy characters, and prevented us from marveling at logical acrobatics in the plot. With a standard eight-episode length, I might have gone for just one star. If True Detective was exceptional in something, it was Nic Pizzolatto's screenwriting art, which was behind the previous seasons. The difference is overwhelming. The third season was marked by average direction, but Pizzolatto's influence saved the series from disaster. Issa López is a below-average screenwriter, but as a director, she knows what to serve to the audience so they don't feel bored, so she uses what she has seen elsewhere and is convinced it works. As viewers, you could play a game that she gathered inspiration from everywhere. For a moment, you feel like you are at Carpenter's scientific base from The Thing, for a while you face Nordic demons from The Terror series, and I could go on. Pizzolatto played with the audience, but it was a sophisticated game, while Issa López slides into cheap tricks to keep the audience's attention. The acting is average, as Jodie Foster struggles with her character, going directly against her acting type. I would consider the final resolution more of a disrespectful joke at the audience's expense. If you don't think too much about the plot, then the series deserves two stars. Overall impression: 40%.

I can't deny Villeneuve's amazing ability to create captivating images and materialize fantastic book worlds, but Herbert's "Dune" with giant worms and a strange combination of spaceships and medieval society equipped with cutting weapons always seemed dysfunctional to me. I just can't immerse myself in that world, I can't enjoy it, and I'm not able to appreciate it. Unfortunately, Denis Villeneuve did not use his talent for dozens of other titles of science fiction literature, on which the genre is built. Something like "Roadside Picnic" in Villeneuve's rendition would be an irresistible treat. Overall impression: 60%.

This is more functional and entertaining than any of Tarantino's films since Jackie Brown. Tarantino-esque films, where violence and corpses are not spared, have long worked better for me in the films of other creators. It's solidly cast, and while veteran Jeff Bridges caught my attention the most, no one drags the film down. It has an inventive screenplay, which I would only criticize for being a clever play that relies on the screenwriter's imagination. I prefer films that are capable of creating the impression of something real, where the factor of chance triggers a shocking sequence of events. Here, the meeting of people with a dirty past in one hotel complex represents madness, but it has order and, to some extent, makes sense. Overall impression: 75%.

If I apply the perspective of an ordinary consumer viewer unburdened by knowledge of history, who came to the movie theater to see a grand blockbuster with a world-famous star in the lead role, where it's all about a fateful love and spiced up with shots from several magnificent battles, then I can be reasonably satisfied. Masses of extras, costume scenes, a few exciting war scenes, and a plot that makes some kind of sense. If I apply the perspective of a film fan and also a history enthusiast, then I would have to be significantly, and I emphasize significantly, more critical. Ridley, as expected, fails in the very intention to capture the entire active life of Napoleon. You simply cannot fit such a complex personality and time into one feature film in such a vast time span, no matter how hard you try. The film looks incredibly fragmented, completely skipping crucial sections of Napoleon's life and cramming others into a single scene. The crucial Italian campaign, which brought Napoleon fame and enabled his dizzying political career, is dismissed by the film with a single brief sentence. There is no time at all to develop any of the characters or significant military figures, and French and European politicians remain mere pawns. Ridley plays with historical facts very carelessly in the name of his artistic vision, and the more you know about the life of Napoleon and Josephine, the more you will suffer. However, the most fundamental thing, in my opinion, is the lack of Napoleon himself. Joaquin Phoenix is indeed a great actor, but he has been miscast in several significant films in his career, and unfortunately, Scott's film is one of them. A man on the verge of his fifties acts throughout the film with the same appearance without any aging, which seems inappropriate for a young artillery officer. The same mistake is repeated in Joker - Phoenix plays his character as a pushover. Although ambition shines through Napoleon, what is missing is his incredible vitality, charisma, and rebelliousness. You somehow don't understand how this self-centered, gloomy loner could rally his army and win over crowds to his side. History portrays Napoleon and, ultimately, his relationship with women completely differently than Ridley presents it to us. I don't regret seeing the film on the big screen, but you, Ridley, unfortunately, won't get an overall impression of more than 55% from me. You have significantly worse films in your career, but Napoleon looks up to your top-notch films from a great distance. Your debut The Duellists, paradoxically also set in the environment of the Napoleonic Wars, filmed with a fraction of the budget, still evokes much greater respect and interest in me to this day. What disappointed me, especially, is the choreography of the Battle of Waterloo. There are plenty of war films about the Napoleon era that are better and more inventive for war history fans.

This is perhaps the first thing from the Dejvice Theater that I really did not understand. What was supposed to be funny became awkward with its loudness, overacting, and stylization. I understood every third word and the affectation of the actors made me feel unwell. This was a mistake for me. Honestly, I am quite surprised by the positive reviews. Neither the playwright nor the direction stood out. Overall impression: 25% for the Dejvice ensemble.