gudaulin

Wings of Fame was filmed at a time when Polygram began expanding into the field of feature film production and had ambitions to become a counterpart to the American Majors and the largest European production company capable of regularly producing commercial hits and festival successes. One of these was supposed to be Wings of Fame, an intellectual play on fleeting popularity and human vanity. This was also reflected in the star-studded cast - although Colin Firth still had his biggest hits ahead of him, Peter O'Toole was at his peak at the time and his colleagues were generally predicted to have a very decent future. The plot depicts a journalist and writer played by Colin Firth, who writes a book about the first-rate actor Peter O'Toole and, after desperately trying to contact him, accidentally kills him in a fit of rage. He also loses his life and both of them go to a place where the living are forbidden to enter. However, that world is far from the pictures painted by the major religions, and the status of the deceased is determined by their earthly fame. The plot is truly interesting, but I feel the whole execution is driven by festival ambitions and it somehow feels cold to me. Overall impression: 65%.

A high-quality classic comedy based on witty dialogues, well-written characters, and excellent casting, where there is a real spark between the individual actors and all the wordplay is well-executed. Compared to this tried-and-true classic, the overwhelming majority of today's comedic productions seem desperately unfunny, tasteless, and poorly acted. I guessed that Ingrid Bergman's character was about forty, and embarrassingly, I couldn't identify Goldie Hawn at all, even though I kept thinking that I must know her well. The film barely missed out on a fifth star, and a few extra jokes would have been enough, but what's already there truly works. Although the individual characters in their actions are foolish and twenty-one-year-old Toni behaves like a sixteen-year-old teenager, the exaggeration never crosses the boundaries of the possible, and the whole story is entertaining and believable. Overall impression: 85%.

One remote French settlement in an area where harsh winter rages for 5 months a year, and even when the snow melts, foxes bid a good night. One farming family whose younger generation longs to escape social poverty, numbing toil, and bleak prospects. And one naked female body, a crime that disrupts the peaceful lives of local residents and brings the police and members of the justice system to the scene. The Burned Barns is not a typical detective story or even a crime thriller; it is rather a psychological drama, a clash between two strong personalities, though extremely different in temperament and experiences, yet attracted to each other precisely because of the strength of their characters. Alain Delon in the role of the investigating judge and Simon Signoret as the mother who defends her children threatened by suspicion. A captivating acting concert and a surprising resolution. The atmosphere is enhanced by the music, which often uses organ motifs, and the camera, which circles around the expansive farm from overhead, only to suddenly shift to a close-up detail. Overall impression: 80%.

The Lives of Others was a strong emotional experience for me and represents the peak of reflection on the communist past of Central Europe. Compared to the thematically similar Czech film Kawasaki's Rose, Hřebejk's film significantly lags behind in terms of understanding the subject, quality of execution, and approach to reality. His film does not surpass the Czech borders and participation in several festivals, whereas Donnersmarck's masterpiece is sufficiently internationally and interculturally comprehensible to convey knowledge about communist dictatorship on a global scale. And I truly do not have the slightest feeling that The Lives of Others was filmed with Oscar ambitions. In the case of this drama, it is not essential whether such a story actually took place because the story of the Stasi officer serves the director to reveal the mechanisms of state surveillance and manipulation of citizens, while also addressing morality on a general level, which is a timeless and universal theme. There are many great scenes where the temptation of power and conflict between moral values and the reality of the regime clearly collide in their details, e.g., the elevator scene where the investigator meets a little boy. "You work for the Stasi?" - "You don't even know what that is." - "Daddy says they lock up decent people there." - "And what's his name?" - "Who?" - "The balloon you're holding." The film is in its own way brilliant in its minimalist approach and allows the viewer different interpretations of motifs and actions of the film characters. One of the many myths related to that time divides the population into "us" and "them" and demonizes members of the secret police and repressive forces. The difficulty lies in the fact that in reality, they did not differ significantly from the rest of the population. I knew one Stasi officer, and it must be admitted that I wouldn't want to spend a vacation with him, but in our professions and in everyday life, I have met people who had a significantly more distorted value system, but fortunately, they have never pursued such a profession. That Stasi officer already had a certain value system before, which may not have corresponded to what we would identify with, but he certainly did not consider himself an immoral monster. He just once did something that was not in line with his official duties, and then there was no escape from the path he had taken. And his nature did not fundamentally change with that turning point in his life. Overall impression of this superbly directed and flawlessly acted emotional film: 100%.

When watching Pollock, I recalled the words of Miloš Forman when he spoke about his doubts about whether and how to shoot Amadeus. He considered biographical films about troubled artistic souls to be the most boring genre that could appear in the film industry and simply did not know how to approach the material. With biographical films of this caliber, you only need to know a few (and basically, you can count them on one hand) biographical facts, watch the first few minutes of the film, and deduce what to expect in the next two hours without much effort. Ed Harris simply wanted to make his artistic film, through which he would break free from established acting stereotypes and show himself in a good light as a director. Though the film is honest and well-acted, it drags on and the film as a whole is boring, unless you are fans of Pollock's artwork or Ed Harris. With biographical films, it really is true that your satisfaction is directly proportional to your relationship with the character the film is about. Personally, I prefer biographical films that present a specific historical epoch and place their protagonist in a certain society, rather than those that depict the torn artist's soul. The only attractive scenes for me were the ones depicting Pollock's creative process. Overall impression: 45%.

Scorsese is a director who is two classes better than Avildsen, and the same can be said about Robert De Niro compared to Sylvester Stallone. However, I won't give more than 3 stars even in this case because boxing is as likable to me as encountering an agitated swarm of wasps, and testosterone-filled Jake LaMotta is not the kind of guy I would want to share a double house with. As a study of masculinity and uncontrollable jealousy, it is quite decent, but the film didn't captivate me in any way. Overall impression: 55%.

An uncomplicated hero steadfastly walking toward fulfilling his American dream with an appropriate dose of genre clichés, sweat, blood, and an easily predictable ending. Given that when it comes to Sylvester Stallone's acting talent - how can I put it diplomatically - I am, let's say, reserved, and I really don't like boxing as a sport and entertainment (if I had to choose between having dinner with Mike Tyson or Hannibal Lecter, I would invite the latter without hesitation), I struggle to find a reason to give more than 2 stars. Overall impression: 45%.

The protagonist of the film is a musician and also a homosexual. He has no problem with his identity and thanks to his family's position, which is one of those who are not so wealthy, but rather very wealthy, he has no existential worries and enjoys life to the fullest. His family should have no problem with his homosexuality, except that his uncle has the idea that it would be appropriate to pass on family genes and procreate a new generation of little Jews. Otherwise, the money supply will cease and our protagonist doesn't really enjoy struggling through life without his allowance. So, it is necessary to find a young, healthy, sufficiently naive Jewish girl and convince her that the interest in her is genuine. The unfortunate one is the charming Elsa Zylberstein and the story unfolds in the spirit of a tragicomedy, which cannot end with a happy ending due to the different sexual orientation... Overall impression: 70%.

What the series Rome represents for the adult viewer, the series Roman Mysteries represents for a child audience. Of course, the budget is smaller, which is reflected in the modest set design, cast, and special effects. The extras in the background are sometimes visibly static and the historical accuracy is not strictly observed. Overall impression: 70%.

Subordination of women and sexuality to religious sentiments and rituals is usually associated with Islam nowadays, but truth be told, world religions are somewhat similar in this regard, and if taken seriously, they suffocate any of them reliably. The heroine of the film is unlucky to be born and raised in a family of Orthodox Jews, where faith is taken deadly seriously and women are expected to serve their husbands and their faith. However, Sonia is not interested in sex during which her partner is constantly thinking more about Jehovah and not sinning, and she is also not interested in completely giving up other joys of life and personal goals, so conflict is imminent. During the course of it, she manages to earn the hatred of the parents, the contempt of the community she comes from, and the loss of property and child, but she gains freedom, dignity, and hope. And that is certainly not insignificant. The screenplay is quite mild and tends to smooth out the tense situations, but it is still a film worth watching. Renée Zellweger filmed it before she became a star with Nurse Betty and especially Bridget Jones's Diary, but here she proves that she is a promising actress. Perhaps only the star status of these celebrity actors makes it difficult for the viewer to see them as other, more ordinary characters than the ones that brought them to the top. Overall impression: 70%.