gudaulin

Flower Buds is far from perfect, roughly as much as the Czech Republic is from the standard of living in Luxembourg. There are many things to criticize the film for, but above all, it is the lack of script development or rather overcomplication. On the other hand, it is a sympathetic film that I enjoy watching, especially since this genre is rare here, and Jiráský entered the domain where only Bohdan Sláma had previously operated. By the way, with the honorable exception of Country Teacher, I have a worse attitude toward Bohdan Sláma's films than towards Jiráský's. Despite some missteps, Jiráský seems overall more convincing to me. To his credit, I can mention the casting, work with the actors and camera, and above all, the choice of settings. Jiráský belongs to the handful of Czech directors who can evoke an atmosphere using music, visuals, and lighting, and in this case, the atmosphere of desolation and hopelessness. Jiráský - and I find this sympathetic as well - does not look at his antiheroes with any naivety, as they are characters who are actively working during their time in the basement in one way or another. Last but not least, I find this film sympathetic because it portrays members of the Vietnamese minority, as this, like many other things, is not cultivated in the Czech film industry. Overall impression: 75%.

From the time more than 20 years ago when I first watched Zafranović's trilogy, I remembered that the middle part of the trilogy, unlike the other two parts, caused me considerable perplexity and clearly appeared to be the weakest. Returning to Zafranović's work convinced me that I was not mistaken. Zafranović took on more than he was capable of handling with this film. The script is not as tight and impressive as in the case of Occupation in 26 Pictures, and the intention to depict the fate of a charismatic and devoted revolutionary whose destruction is ultimately caused by the ideology he fought for, as well as by close comrades-in-arms, is far more convincingly portrayed in The Bells of Evening. However, what hurts Zafranović the most is what reliably sinks films by Juraj Jakubisko from the last two decades. It is a certain kind of posing and self-absorption. Strange characters and scenes like the arrival of police pirates who seem to have stepped out of some crazy Hollywood fantasy film onto an Adriatic island, or the Fellini-esque portrayal of the commander of the Italian garrison. None of these are convincing, as they are artificial and disruptive elements that only confuse the viewer and dilute the dramatic impact of the film. In any case, it is a great role for the legend of Polish cinematography, Daniel Olbrychski. The Fall of Italy partly functions based on individual impressive scenes, which often utilize the romantic scenery of the Dalmatian Islands or shock with typically Balkan-inspired brutal violence, but definitely not as a comprehensive statement about its country and time, nor as a gripping human story. Overall impression: 45%, give or take.

I am somewhat hesitant about Tito. On one hand, it must be admitted that Zafranović gathered a remarkable amount of audiovisual material that historians can rejoice over and has created an extensive documentary series that many significant historical figures cannot boast of. On the other hand, there was a lot of editing needed here. From my perspective, it would make sense, or rather, I consider it ideal to have a three-part series with an hour-long duration for each episode, and I can even imagine a version twice as long that would meticulously map out the individual stages of Tito's life. But 13 nearly hour-long episodes are truly a hassle. I understand that for the residents of Yugoslavia and especially for supporters of the Yugoslav form of socialism, Tito represented an exceptional figure and they see it differently. However, even here, many years after Tito's death and the fall of the system he built, Zafranović has not rid himself, in my opinion, of a certain admiration and excessive respect for him. The testimonies overwhelmingly come from Tito's close associates, friends, collaborators, and supporters, thus creating a somewhat distorted image of his role in Yugoslav history. Although I haven't watched the entire series - I didn't have the strength for that - from the episodes I have seen, at least this feeling clearly emerged. It was necessary to provide space for more objective analysis by historians rather than purely subjective human testimonies. The fact is that like this, one can hardly recognize that for many years, Tito was indeed a capable strategist, conspirator, and organizer, but at the same time, a tough Stalinist with a dogmatic view of the world. Overall impression: 60%.

This film once caused a commotion in Czech movie theaters by depicting the brutal violence practiced by the Ustasha against their real and presumed opponents. The bus ride, where the executioners pounded nails into the heads of their victims and gouged out eyes to save opticians some work, shocked and contributed to the peculiar popularity of the film at a time when there was practically no official distribution of B-movie horrors and exploitation films. For film fans, encountering something like this was absolutely exceptional given the censorship and ideological barriers. However, these mentioned shots are only a fraction of the total length of the film. While some directors, such as the Czech Vláčil, have a favorite creative method of telling the stories of their characters and conveying something about the time and historical events through their destinies, Zafranović approaches it differently and his characters are merely tools to capture the historical processes described from the perspective of supporters of the Yugoslav form of communism. The atmosphere of old Dubrovnik with its palaces and historical patina also plays a significant role in the film. Zafranović portrays the shock of the fall of royal Yugoslavia, the beginnings of political violence, and the emergence of the ideological crossroads that led to irreconcilable hatred between former friends and often led to the division of family members. Overall impression: 75%.

Michael Bay's own words are that he aims to entertain the audience. In that case, I state that I am not his target group, because I feel more entertained in a dentist's chair. I had the opportunity to watch all three Transformers movies within a few days, and I couldn't finish any of them. This is simply beyond the scope of what I consider digestible cinema. Michael Bay is not so much a representative of a certain genre as he is a diagnosis. Lots of action, bombastic special effects, clumsy dialogues that bring physical suffering, and a script and story on the level of a small child. Unfortunately, I haven't been eight for a long time, and I won't be eighty for a long time, so Bay's offer didn't appeal to me. I considered giving 1 star for the special effects and set design, but I would rather go to a magic show. Overall impression: 10%. My choice for a movie set in the world of children's toys would be any of the Toy Story movies.

In the majority of his films, Woody Allen leaves an imprint of himself. It is not just that he has played the lead roles in them for a long time. We can clearly read his views on the world, political preferences, value hierarchy, and especially snippets of his own life experiences from them. Annie Hall, however, goes much further. Woody Allen decided to basically make an autobiographical film about himself and his relationship with Diane Keaton. Intriguingly, both former partners act alongside each other, portraying themselves, and they worked together on the script and dialogues. In the film, Woody speaks to the audience, thinks out loud, comments on his life so far, and satirizes his weaknesses, failures, and mistakes. It is a chronicle of a relationship from which one can still draw because it has to a large extent a universal character. Both partners are quite different and, as is usually the case, it is precisely their differences that attract them the most to each other. On the other hand, the same contributes to the breakdown of their coexistence, especially when neither of them is patient or tolerant enough. Woody, in the form of his alter ego Alvy Singer, cannot get rid of his desire to re-educate his partner and reshape her in his own image, and Annie Hall, alias Diane Keaton, cannot get rid of her bohemian lifestyle and flighty nature. Woody Allen attached great importance to this film and did not just try to stuff it with enough suitable jokes and gags, but had ambitions for a deeper artistic statement about a particular partnership and life in general. This film is definitely at the above-average level within his body of work, although it is not his complete artistic peak because the screenplay is not completely coherent, as the film is just not quite compact enough. That's just how it goes when there is a lot of effort put into something. Whatever the case may be, Woody managed to make a film that is one of the most famous among his fans and the broader audience. Overall impression: 85%.

From a formal processing perspective, this is definitely a refined film. It features mature and high-quality filmmaking, Michalkov has exactly what he wants in it, and during the production of the film, three distinct personalities come together. However, no matter how I think about it, I can't give it more than 3 stars. There is too much Michalkov at the expense of Chekhov. The film lacks greater momentum, more humorous situations, and greater drama. It's a long melancholic stroll, although there's still something to see here. However, earning 3 stars is decent and I am certainly not suggesting that the film is not worth watching. As some comments have already stated, Dark Eyes in Michalkov's rendition strongly resembles Fellini's work, especially the Italian part. However, Michalkov is less manneristic compared to Fellini. Overall impression: 65%.

There are movies about women and there are movies for women. This film belongs to the latter category and even if I didn't know the director's name, I would swear that a woman must have made it. I am not the target audience, and not just because I have never read a single novel by Mrs. Austen and my knowledge of her work is limited to two films based on her material. This kind of romance is simply appreciated mainly by women. In the first half, I objectively stated that the film is at a decent level and can be watched simply because it is a type of romance intended for the middle generation, so the creators have avoided all the flaws that affect teenage projects, from vulgarity to toilet humor. Nevertheless, it is something that will be appreciated by other types of viewers, and I felt somewhat left out. In the second half, I became so familiar with the characters that it looked like it would be a 3-star rating, but in the end, I chose a lower rating because it is simply too polished, too sweet, and with a classic American happy ending. In real life, things happen somewhat differently. Someone wins and someone has to pay. Overall impression: 45%.

We see this story again and again. An unknown talented creator shoots a successful festival film with unknown actors and minimal resources and capital, which gains the favor of the audience and film critics and successfully makes its way around the world. The next film is already being shot with the support of a strong producer, starring international movie stars, and ambitions are felt in every step of the crew and every shot. However, despite efforts and investments, the result is often more than disappointing. Danis Tanović succeeded not only with me but basically with everyone, with his film No Man's Land, which was a great intimate anti-war drama. Back then, the director only needed three soldiers confined between the front line and bound by mutual hatred to evoke maximum emotions. Here, he clearly tries the same, but somehow it drags on and the result does not meet expectations. My sense of reason would like to appreciate the theme and effort with four stars, but the emotional part of myself says that three stars are just right. Yes, the twist is strong and the intense scenes from the field hospital in rebellious Kurdistan are impressive, but that's a bit too little for a hundred-minute film. Overall impression: 60%.

I watched Labor Day as part of a Valentine's Day event, during which a person is willing to undergo a bit of romance and score a bit in a partnership to fulfill their expectations of the holiday of lovers. This film can be simplified as "won't offend, but won't impress either." It won't offend mainly because of the presence of the central couple. Kate belongs to the elite of female character actors within her generation, and you simply believe in her as the abandoned mother. Josh Brolin could patent roles of charismatic bearded men with a tough exterior and a good heart - that's just simply him. The others play their roles as they should, and the director is capable of orchestrating it all. The problem lies in the screenplay, which does not address some things at all and only briefly touches on others. The most interesting and important aspect of the plot is the mutual discovery, building trust, and relationship between the escaped prisoner and his hostages. But that is incredibly superficial. It almost seems like Kate Winslet was just waiting for something like that and enthusiastically ended up in bed with a murderer sentenced to 18 years after a few hours. What should one think of such a character then? The psychology is simply superficial or completely unreliable. And the tacked-on romantic ending seems to come from a mediocre romance novel. Overall impression: 55%.