gudaulin

The movie received an Oscar and is supposed to be one of the most commercially successful Soviet films, although this is a relative concept because true commercialism could not be discussed in the Soviet distribution system, where it was always more about educational and propaganda functions. The awarding of Oscars was always to a considerable extent subject to not only commercial but also political interests, so the awarded prizes are usually the result of certain fashion trends or social calculations, as in this case. It was the end of a wave of political détente between the two superpowers, which roughly falls within the functional period of Jimmy Carter, and so the American Academy decided to reward the wave of mutual cultural exchanges and increased interest in Soviet culture with an award for the best foreign film. Truth be told, I think this choice speaks more about the incapacity of Soviet cinema because if this is the best it can do, then God help us. It is a typical Soviet melodrama with nonsensically drawn-out runtime, unremarkable characters, and outdated conception, which testifies both to the fact that Soviet cinema was isolated from its Western counterpart, where big things were happening at that time, such as in the field of independent film, and to the fact that the creators really didn't have to cater to the audience, as attendance was not a measure that determined film production. I will be harsh and say that if the runtime was shortened by an hour, if the script worked on the dialogues and the actors, who, in fact, quite often resembled startled fish, it would still be a mildly average film on a global scale and in the respective genre. Not to mention that the attitudes of Soviet heroines and their behavior would make American and Western European feminists blink. On the positive side, ideological stances, so typical for Soviet production, are significantly downplayed in this case, but with closer observation, they can still be unmistakably identified. Overall impression: 35%.

Large studios have never been characterized by meticulousness when it comes to historical realities, and this can also be applied to The Last Valley. Many details, but also more fundamental aspects of the thinking and actions of the characters suffer from a lack of historical accuracy, and it is simply the screenwriter's construct in the style of "these things will sell well in the second half of the 20th century and evoke the appropriate emotions, so we'll put them in there." Just to give an example, an officer would not publicly admit to his factual position as an atheist during a time of religious wars and boundaries with heretics - if only because he would lose the respect of his subordinates and give his opponents a powerful weapon to gain control over the village. Nevertheless, this is one of the significantly better films that were created at that time on a historical theme. The anti-war ethos is evident, there are interesting characters in the film, and the dramatic conflict functions. The clash between faith and political power on one hand, as well as the conflict between idealism and cynical pragmatism, provide film fans with many interesting scenes and catharsis. Moreover, the film has a star-studded cast in the form of Michael Caine and Omar Sharif. However, I cannot shake the impression that Czech director Karel Zeman managed to depict the chaos of war in his The Jester's Tale more creatively, with a sense of humor and irony, all at a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, James Clavell catered to fans of adventure spectacles and incorporated not only many mercenary skirmishes in his film but also a bloody battle for a large city. Overall impression: 75%.

A tragicomedy about life in a country divided by a war line where, although there has not been shooting, at least not in the typical way, for several decades, life is still desperately far from normal due to occupation and political conditions. The line divides not only military units but also members of local families who have to shout at each other through megaphones to be able to see each other from a distance in exceptional circumstances. Widespread military patrols, combat equipment, and police, but also uncompromising surveillance by local elders who try to adhere to traditions and religious and national rituals. It reminds me a bit of the conflict in Northern Ireland, but the reality of the Golan Heights is even more complex, with more parties, religious denominations, and more interests of neighboring countries. Amid this cauldron of conflicts, a Druze family wedding is supposed to take place when the bride, understandably, has to cross the ceasefire line herself after undergoing a 5-month ordeal to obtain the necessary permits. However, she, of course, has to encounter official red tape and hostility between Israeli and Syrian authorities along the way. In addition to all this, the screenwriter has involved a lot of motifs regarding women's emancipation, a patriarchal system in which the head of the family not only manages, but also controls the family, the Arab attitude toward immigrants, and Arab men toward European women, who evidently do not understand the local value hierarchy, and so on. The unknown actors are excellent, and the film features an absurd atmosphere full of tension and has a decent runtime. Of course, the Israeli creators did not go after their side, so the Israeli soldiers show understanding, and officials are eventually accommodating despite all the bureaucratic obstacles, while the Syrian side is made to look like a group of clowns. The occupation could have been depicted with darker colors, but it is, nevertheless, a bold undertaking and a powerful emotional film that will be enjoyed more by those who are at least roughly familiar with the local reality. Those who know the local conditions in more detail may notice several interesting moments and details, making the film even more interesting for them. Overall impression: 95%.

This is what a professional and attractive documentary should be. One should use essentially tabloid motifs to attract attention, but process them in a way that they serve only as a starting point for mapping the life of the Chinese community in Italy, their successes, integration problems, and their way of life thousands of kilometers away from their homeland. The documentary does not only describe, but also analyzes, and in doing so, conveys a lot through images, with the testimonies of individual Chinese people complementing the visuals. The rise of the Chinese community can be compared to the Vietnamese community in other parts of Europe and the reasons are similar: hard work and community cohesion. Europeans have long lost their drive and focus on maintaining the status quo. Overall impression: 90%.

Reviewing Identity Card consists of two important aspects for me. The first - the form - feels quite average to me, whether in terms of the acting performances or the fragmented screenplay and level of humor used. I don't share the enthusiasm of many regarding the performance of the group of boys in the main roles, as they lack charisma and acting talent. While Věra Plívová Šimková was not a star director, her films worked thanks to her talent for selecting child actors, whom she turned into stars one after another. The casting of the actors in adult roles is also good. I wouldn't label Geislerová a bad actress, but her stardom is more related to her appearance and media presence rather than top-notch character acting. Identity Card attempts to be a type of nostalgic tragicomedy, but that type of humor seems more forced and simplistic to me. So-called real socialism can be a target of humor at various levels; it was full of absurdity, hypocrisy, and stupidity, but not the kind where a high-ranking police officer is illiterate, as Ondřej Trojan tries to portray in his film. This and other aspects didn't work for me. The second content aspect of the film is more complex and deserves a deeper analysis. I classify Identity Card as one of those unpleasant pretentious films that pretend to be something they're not. With all due respect to the many reviews praising how well the film captures the lifestyle and atmosphere of the 70s, life simply wasn't like that. Czechoslovakia in the 70s was not a brutal dictatorship that relied on dances and Soviet soldiers. Soviet soldiers stayed in their barracks and for various reasons were prevented from interacting with locals and the local culture. It's about what kind of support the system actually had and whether there were really 15 million suffering victims, as the enthusiastic citizens claimed after November 1989. The system of normalized Czechoslovakia didn't rely on batons, as it may seem to the viewers of Identity Card, as they were rarely used. Instead, it relied on pragmatism, pretending, minor benefits, conformism, and spinelessness. Millions of people deeply despised the system, its highest representatives, and official ideology but willingly took advantage of all the benefits that the regime brought and provided. Whether it was the poor work ethic, various forms of "privatization of property in socialist ownership," the system of favors, acquaintances, clientelism, or the undeniable social benefits in the form of the so-called "goulash socialism," etc. There was a stench here, but also calmness. One had the certainty that they would still be where they were 20 years later and that their life would be stabilized. If Czechoslovakia had been open to the world, it would have had to deal with the decline of many industries, closing mines, and coping with oil crises, etc., several years earlier. At the same time, the system provided one huge advantage - the absence of personal responsibility. Which other country can say that its leaders and institutions were the target of the cruelest jokes and yet enjoyed such tranquility without strikes, demonstrations, various civic protests, etc.? Czechoslovakia represented one of the most stable soft dictatorships of its kind. But capturing the mediocrity, hypocrisy, pettiness, and spinelessness is a bit harder than showing beaten-up youth at a concert. In the 19th century, bearded intellectuals imagined that future generations would learn about their past through museums. In the 21st century, we know that museums are just nice monuments that few people care about, and the majority gain knowledge about history through films. Future generations will consider Identity Card to be a more or less truthful testimony of that time, even though there are only a few films that I would consider more misleading. This film, in particular, does not represent an attempt to come to terms with the past. It doesn't analyze the system, whose foundation, according to Trojan and Šabach, consists simply of police officers or creatures that are clearly identifiable and isolated. In reality, and paradoxically, the biggest victims of normalization were the holders of Communist Party membership cards who were crossed out and expelled from their positions and jobs during the purges. The overwhelming majority ended up in manual labor positions, while non-party members often benefited significantly from the system and took advantage of, for example, scarce goods to enrich themselves. My overall impression of this distorted view of Czech history is 40%.

I categorically declare that this melodrama is too melodramatic and shallow at the same time, despite all the effort put into it. It does touch on the serious topic of family breakdown and conflicts over raising a child, as well as the fact that the film features the most significant actors of their generation in the main roles. However, I simply feel that it is a flat film that lacks the rawness it truly needs and is afraid to show the conflict in all its complexity and hopelessness. I know several cases where painful reality far surpassed a Hollywood script. This film manipulates the viewer's emotions skillfully and its craftsmanship cannot be denied, but it did not evoke any emotional catharsis in me. Overall impression: 65%.

An adventurous historical fantasy, thanks to which we now know that the witch hunt organized by the Inquisition was absolutely fine because those monsters allied with the devil were causing damage wherever possible. The devil had his hands full dragging as much evil as possible among the unfortunate Christians, including a devastating epidemic, and who else can stand up to such devastation than the heroic Nicolas Cage accompanied by the thunderous Ron Perlman? Similar productions have a decent budget, and therefore also a decent production design, which in many cases can disguise the fact that the screenplay and the story are just a mishmash that doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Quite a few aspects are saved in the case of this film, and, indeed, you don't usually get bored with this kind of film - there's always something moving, sneering, running away, or attacking, exploding, burning - in short, action, special effects, and spectacle. However, if you want the film to work as a whole, you can't turn off your brain and even nitpickingly look for errors in the logic, so it's better to avoid Season of the Witch. Overall impression: 45%. Season of the Witch is exactly the type of film that my nine-year-old son would be enthusiastic about.

Clint Eastwood has become one of the most respected American directors alongside his stellar acting career, not because he fascinated film critics and experts with his experimentation at film festivals, but because he has always been, and still is, a top-notch craftsman of the silver screen. First and foremost, he always cares about the audience and presents them with films with a strong story and interesting characters that somewhat transcend the boundaries of the given genre, but never abandon them. Therefore, both traditional genre fans and those who wanted to see film heroes and their actions more realistically or in a slightly different way found something in it for themselves. And that is precisely the case with Unforgiven. Eastwood partially demystifies the legends of the Wild West, but at the same time uses all the necessary genre props, accommodating both fans of traditional westerns and those who consider their laws naive, outdated, or not in line with historical reality. In terms of craftsmanship, there is nothing essential to criticize about the film. By the time this film came out, Eastwood was already so well-known and respected as a filmmaker that he could easily approach any top actor to act in his films. In addition, he had the doors open with producers because he was disciplined, adhered to the budget, and his films were usually highly profitable. While I'm not a big fan of traditional westerns, Unforgiven brought me joy and I have no problem giving it the highest rating. It is of high quality, professional, surprising, and atmospheric. Overall impression: 95%.

I unfortunately have not read the book, so I cannot join the usual reservations that the literary source material is significantly better, and I cannot identify with the frequent criticisms of Tom Cruise's acting. Although he is certainly not the best character actor of his generation, he also does not embarrass his profession and can successfully handle the role, which shows why he is the highest-paid male star in American cinema. The film has a solid screenplay without errors in logic, unrealistic action, and ridiculous conspiracies while being suspenseful and entertaining. In addition, in the final confrontation with the leaders of the mafia gang, the ending is clever and surprising. Although the film does not change the view of the genre in any way and is a classic thriller made by a major studio, I still highly appreciate it within its category. Overall impression: 85%.

Rules of Lies is a far from perfect film, but I can include it in the category of interesting and sympathetic films. Several minor shortcomings can be pointed out, mainly in the script, especially the somewhat fabricated story that three individuals connected by the past and a crime in a distant country meet in a small closed community. However, this fabrication is common in classic famous detective stories by British authors. The logic of the behavior of the main adversaries occasionally falters, especially the main villain played by Jiří Langmajer. Also, some of the actors in supporting roles are not entirely convincing, and I don't entirely believe in their drug-addicted past and the torment of abstinence. On the other hand, I consider Rules of Lies to be one of the best attempts at a Czech genre film, surpassing, for example, the genre-related film Angel Exit or the weak Coal Tower. These mentioned shortcomings can be attributed to the inexperience of Robert Sedláček - considering that this is his debut, it is a strong and clever film that relies on a series of impressive dialogues between the main characters in the form of therapists and their patients. In addition, Jiří Langmajer's impressive performance stands out, as he does not play a demonic underworld character, but rather a small ordinary scumbag who manipulates his surroundings for his own benefit, being both selfish and cowardly at the same time. This creature is believable, as he is simply a realistic antagonist that you may encounter in real life. Overall impression: 75%.