gudaulin

I do not share the general enthusiasm for this feature film, even though it is undoubtedly original, but it is also a film that would stand out much more as a series of short films. Such a series apparently exists and I gladly give it my attention once I get a chance to see it. A Town Called Panic is built on the sheer craziness of its characters and plot, where one wonders what the screenwriter and artists were thinking before creating something like this. But as I mentioned before, a feature film needs something more than just disrespect for established rules and great imagination. Overall impression: 55%.

If a film can do without words and convey its thoughts and emotions through images, it is always a plus and a sign of creative invention and good craftsmanship. But in the case of Trnka, it is more than that, and it is not enough to say that he was able to rely on a well-known and strong literary source. Trnka processed the Decameron-like story to his own image, creating an original and distinct satirical work on the false morality of that time, hypocrisy, and the church's monopoly on education. Trnka does criticize the church strongly, but it has nothing to do with the then-official communist doctrine. His film is artistically embellished and truly represents the peak of his work in its own way. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that it is a film that requires focused attention and is at times abstract in its visual communication. It is appreciated by a minority of connoisseurs rather than the general audience. I most appreciate the sarcasm and attention to detail, where a single shot is enough to characterize a character and cleverly suggest what was happening behind the scenes. Overall impression: 95%.

The Candidate is a kind of gentle satire on the confrontation of ideological idealism and down-to-earth political reality, where political engagement usually means an endless amount of compromises on the way to obtaining a position from which you can make decisions about public affairs. At the end of this path, only pitiful remnants of the original ideals remain. I would appreciate it if the film, rather than being a socio-critical drama, were a sarcastic comedy on the given theme because the subject prompts it directly. Robert Redford fits perfectly into the role of a likable guy who impresses voters with his youth, energy, and charisma, and the film effectively shows the technology of influencing public opinion through professional image-makers and media advisors, who pull the strings and let themselves be hired by anyone who pays them, regardless of their own political beliefs (if they have any at all). The film is attractive primarily to those who are more interested in politics. Those who are indifferent to it will probably not appreciate the look into the political backstage, and the screenplay is not among those that can appeal to the widest masses of viewers. Overall impression: 70%.

When watching the movie with a friend, he looked somewhat hesitant and then said: "An unbelievable mess. I don't understand what it is supposed to be, maybe some kind of parody of Bond movies? Thanks to the critical reviews, I managed to avoid this film during the premiere, but as it usually goes, I couldn't escape it. Now I fully understand the fervor with which Ricky Gervais sarcastically mocked this film and its actors during the Golden Globe Awards and the hesitant smiles with which Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie responded. The multiple Golden Globe nominations, in contrast to the dismal outcome, belong to the biggest mysteries surrounding this film. I read in a review that Angelina has never acted this poorly before and although I haven't seen her entire filmography by any means, I can essentially confirm this. Basically, the same can be said about Johnny Depp. I can't recall any blockbuster where the chemistry between the main characters didn't work this blatantly. It's as if they were each filmed separately and later digitally inserted into the shared scenes, of which there are unfortunately many. Angelina also overacts and as a result, it's more like a parody of high society and social status of a lady rather than a fully developed character. This film is the most boring of all and it probably shouldn't even be classified in the genre it wants to be in, i.e., a spy thriller lightened with comedic exaggeration. If they (significantly) increased the speed when it comes to humor and irony, then it could be a parody of Bond movies and similarly themed films. I discovered director von Donnersmarck in his excellent psychological Oscar-winning thriller The Lives of Others, but this is a complete departure and overestimation of his own abilities in every aspect. If an unknown director with unknown actors had made it, I would give it 2 stars, but this is supposed to be a blockbuster and the self-confidence bordering on pomposity is far too obvious compared to its below-average impression. Overall impression: 25%.

In this case, I am not going to give it a star rating because I gave up on the film at a certain moment. I saw it on TV and approached it with high expectations. I simply wanted to see a new animal, but films of a similar category based on grand nature shots need to be seen on a big screen or at least on a television screen of the maximum size and image quality. This isn't that, and it significantly spoils the impression of the film. However, I also think that Animals in Love does not have the quality of famous films in its category, and the director could have squeezed more out of the subject. It needed more dynamism and bold editing. The way it is, the emotional impact is weakened.

One of the essential genre films in the western category, which led to the revival of this genre and marked the artistic peak for the acting star Kevin Costner, who also did well as the director. The film significantly differs from the western classics dealing with the lives of cowboys and selling the romance of tough guys and the uncompromising battle between good and evil. Costner focuses on the clash of two civilizations, where the weaker one must unwillingly give way to the white settlers, who have industry and modern science behind them. For decades, Native Americans have been portrayed in westerns as bloodthirsty bandits and primitives, Costner turns this view upside down and becomes the spokesperson for the more intellectually inclined part of today's America, which feels a sense of guilt for the disruption of the original indigenous culture. His perspective is, of course, idealized and essentially biased, as the Indian side also acted pragmatically and violated agreements of both a local character and those made with the American government whenever the opportunity arose. On both sides, people were striving for compromise and coexistence, and there were also opportunists. The progress of white civilization to the West and the emergence of today's USA had no historical alternative. Dances with Wolves is influenced by the then-popular ideology of multiculturalism, but despite all this, it is an extraordinary film that beautifully sells American nature, the romance of the wilderness, and life in harmony with it. It has excellent casting and corresponding acting performances, and it works with human emotions in a great way. It is simply impossible not to root for the character's transformation and his fight for personal happiness and the salvation of the tribe. Overall impression: 100%.

One has to admit that director Paul McGuigan is a master of his craft and has also gathered a decent amount of experience, so he currently belongs to the significantly better part of what British cinema has to offer. Paradoxically, I would have liked his film more as a classic straightforward gangster story about how things work and how new generations alternate within the gang, rather than as a psychological study of a deviant person, envy, and violence in general. The film portrays gangsters as people whose moral standards are shifted compared to the general population. However, McGuigan doesn't handle this psychological aspect very well, so the film sometimes teeters on the edge and the script, along with the motivations and actions of the individual characters, somewhat drags on. My weak three-star rating is ultimately saved by the cast, led by experienced actors Malcolm McDowell and Paul Bettany. Moreover, the depicted violence at times very much stands on the edge and can evoke disgust in many viewers. Overall impression: 50%.

Director Mira Nair draws on her ability to stand somewhere between Indian culture represented by Bollywood and traditional filmmaking represented by Hollywood in her work. She is able to effectively combine both styles and sell exoticism cultivated by Western moderation and reality. I know her film Monsoon Wedding, which I liked a little more precisely because of its exotic frame of a traditional Indian wedding, but The Namesake is also a solid film that somewhat suffers from the effort to map the lives of two generations. Two hours is a little too short for that, so the film sometimes feels rushed and the characters a bit like figurines. In addition, it lacks a stronger plot line, and the psychological conflicts are diluted over time and by the director's reluctance to engage in a greater emotional clash. Overall impression: 60%.

Jeremiah Johnson is not just a film about one of the American myths, it's a film about how modern myths and legends are created, that they usually have a real basis, which may be more interesting than what popular culture makes of it in the end. We follow the character of a lonely man who, without experience but with great determination, sets off in the mid-19th century to the still-wild American West and gradually becomes a tough and experienced woodsman, one of the pioneers of white civilization. At the same time, he becomes a hero and the main character of storytelling around campfires. Today, we can see in Johnson a prototype of a real man, and such men no longer exist today because there is not enough wilderness, solitude, and the determination to endure hunger, cold, and the absence of modern medicine. The film also interestingly describes the relationship between the white hunter and the original Native American inhabitants. For decades, American westerns portrayed the image of cruel savages who defended the progress of modern civilization and threatened Christian settlers in the most vile way. Since the 70s, this image has gradually been replaced by a sense of multicultural shame, which instead depicts Native Americans as victims of the ruthlessness and greed of the expanding white civilization. In Pollack's film, these ideological views are suppressed, and the director simply depicts them as a logical conflict between two different civilizations, neither of which represents evil or good according to today's value ranking. Both sides simply tried to defend their interests and act according to their traditions and experiences. Logically, the one that was more adaptable, dynamic, and technologically advanced prevailed. Pollack directed his film as a slowly flowing ballad, highlighting the beauty of the American mountains and paying tribute to masculine friendship, when the meeting of two hunters in the wilderness makes do without exaggerated emotions and only with the briefest of speeches which, however, convey great mutual respect. Redford played his trapper with his usual professionalism, and the director appropriately took advantage of his likable appearance. I don't know if Pollock's view accurately reflects the reality of the Rocky Mountains at that time, but at the very least, the wild West could have been like that. Overall impression: 90%.

I will not give this film five stars because, despite its reputation as a quickly-made film with a lower rating on FilmBooster, I find Wag the Dog to be much more targeted, funnier, and more entertaining, and it has a much more powerful impact. However, for its time, Network is a highly above-average film, also demystifying the eighth superpower, i.e., the media, which enjoyed great respect in the 70s, and journalists and the press were considered pillars of democracy. Today we know that business interests and political influence can effectively undermine the efforts of journalists and that quality journalism is successfully overshadowed by tabloids and various obscure entertainment shows. Furthermore, in light of the recent scandal in Britain surrounding Murdoch's media empire, the truth can sometimes be worse than crazy fiction at first glance. However, I also believe that Network is a product of its time and today it has a somewhat slower pace, some story lines, such as the relationship between Max Schumacher and Diane Christensen, seem unnecessary to me and it lacks a powerful punch; it's just sometimes too talkative. The only completely impressive performance for me was the careerist brilliantly played by Faye Dunaway, who absolutely deserved her Oscar for her performance. Overall impression: 80%.