gudaulin

I am not the target audience, and fortunately, I did not see the film when it premiered, but as luck would have it, I found it recorded on tape, so I could later confirm that I once again wasted a piece of my life. It was already apparent earlier that Václav Vorlíček has lost a significant portion of his good reputation in favor of cheap money-making. This film is so desperately awkward, lazy, condescending, and cheap in both senses of the word that it is not worth wasting time with it. It is wiser to return to proven animated classics. For me, this is the bottom of Vorlíček's work and proof that he is losing his sanity in his old age. Overall impression: 10%.

Batman was created as a comic book for American teenagers and adults, in no way as a project intended for children. In the case of the animated series The Batman, it is like watching an eleven-year-old girl who discovers the magic of makeup and her mother's clothes for the first time, so she eagerly puts on makeup and dresses up to play as an adult. The producer clearly targeted a children's audience, but the creators remained somewhere halfway, with these motives and expressions belonging to the adult world, while the quality of the dialogues and plot belongs to the children's world, and the result satisfies no one. Without the Batman cult, the realistic rating would be lower. Overall impression (for a routine commercial product): 10%.

It is not the worst on offer from current animated films, but the series has one flaw typical for large-scale commercial production of animated studios on the North American continent. The script is so insane that you would hardly find a similarly affected patient in a psychiatric hospital. On top of that, you have mediocre animation and the most uninspired visual concept, and thus the disaster is complete. Overall impression: 10%.

One sentence can dismiss The Addiction as a failed experiment. The effort to look at the vampire theme differently and utilize creative approaches typical for the alternative and independent scene is in itself sympathetic (and, to a considerable extent, I think it contributes to a fairly decent evaluation). The fact that the creators evidently do not understand or ignore the laws of the horror genre is also not a problem. From my point of view, the film actually has only one, albeit fundamental, drawback - practically nothing works in it and it doesn't make sense. The whole thing resembles a hallucination of a philosophy student after consuming heavy drugs the evening before a difficult exam. The dialogue, in the context of the action in front of the camera, would say nothing even to a university professor and would lead an ordinary viewer far beyond the threshold of despair. The behavior of the characters is bizarre, the plot is non-existent, and the actors have nothing to do, partly because they don't even know how... this is especially painful for the talented Lili Taylor, who naturally gets the most space, but doesn't have any way to use it. The script doesn't bother with integrating vampires into the real world, or how they can survive and hide their nature without being noticeable. If vampirism spread at the same speed as Kathleen spreads the infection around her, the entire population would turn into vampires within a few weeks. Walken's abstaining vampire character appears without making sense and equally senselessly disappears shortly after... An awkward trip for festival or club audiences. Overall impression: 10% for the interesting cinematography and decent music.

This is a film falling into the category of Unbearably Bad Movies. I would recommend all repulsive complainers and perpetually dissatisfied moviegoers, who grumble while watching an average genre film, to watch this movie first, so that they know what a bad film really is. It's a dreadful mess with a demented screenplay, lousy special effects, and clumsily acting "actors." The director should be praised for his perseverance - after so many disasters and failures, he did not give up and kept shooting. These people are simply indestructible. A.I. Assault is not bad in a cute way, where one can smile at the naïveté of the creators, it is bad offensively - afterward, one feels sad for the wasted time and ashamed of those who were involved in the film. On the other hand, from time to time, it is really necessary to see an explicitly bad film, so that one can set a scale and not give films a Boo! rating that don't deserve it. It can also be seen as a ritual punishment for the viewer's sins, similar to how some deeply believing individuals torment themselves during religious ceremonies. I just broke my diet resolution, so I fully deserve A.I. Assault... Overall impression: 0%.

This is not a movie, but a mess. You can react to such a spectacle either with laughter or tears. It's useful only for hardcore fans of action films. The propaganda dimension was also an obvious anachronism considering the time of its creation. Overall impression: 5% (for the military technology).

Fans of action movies can of course give it any number of stars, but I don't have the time or nerves for this. It's not a B-movie, as this spectacle belongs somewhere at the end of the alphabet....Overall impression: 5% for the pyrotechnics.

Greenaway's film is one of those rare cases when, despite my undeniable stinginess, I would be willing to leave the movie theater after half an hour and forget the money because I saved a bit of my increasingly scarce time. The question is: is it possible to make a film that is supposed to deal with the dark sides of the human soul, sexuality, and the lives of wealthy people unrestricted by social conventions in an unbelievably boring way? Yes. Greenaway proves that with a little effort, it can be done. If I were a producer, I would rather burn the money in the fireplace than invest it in a similar spectacle. It is an immensely self-centered and difficult-to-digest film, primarily intended for the festival circuit audience, for the small circle of true intellectuals, and a considerably larger circle of those who think they are intellectuals so that they can eagerly debate the hidden meanings of the film after seeing it. At the beginning, one character asks another: "Do you think leading directors make their films to satisfy their sexual fantasies?" - the other replies: "I think most of them do." If Greenaway made this film to satisfy his sexual fantasies, then he is a very boring and eccentric patron. This film is neither provocative nor spicy, and in no way is it true to life, because I have encountered a fair number of bizarre characters, sociopaths, and nutcases, but I have never come across anything remotely similar to these film characters. Overall impression: 5%.

I avoided this movie back when it came out with the thought that it wouldn't be my cup of tea. If I had listened to my instinct, I wouldn't have wasted a few bucks and almost 90 minutes of my precious time. But as years go by, as they say, people become foolish. So I was expecting many things, but I have to admit that I was equally shocked. While watching it, I had to constantly remind myself of the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes", for which I have a personal version based on my own experiences. Once upon a time, in the 80s, a friend came up with the idea of teasing others and pulled out genuine marijuana, when he mixed used tobacco with several terrifying ingredients (yes, even just thinking about it now makes me feel sick) and let others smoke it. Everyone felt incredibly sick, but they all spread rumors that it was an incredibly beautiful experience, and not only that, they even believed it because, over the years, when at least some of them experienced the real taste and effects of marijuana, they still reminisced about their first experience with it. It's a bit like that with this movie, which is one of those that aren't interesting from a cinematic perspective, but rather from reading enthusiastic reviews. This sort of awkwardness isn't even seen in the works of film school students, and the desperate absence of anything that could be called an atmosphere with a large dose of imagination is unbelievable. This film doesn't contain a single interesting shot, a single cinematically interesting moment, or a single acting performance, and the only thing commendable is the marketing, which cleverly utilized the emerging phenomenon of the internet in the 90s to launch its advertising campaign and build a reputation as an independent cult film. After watching it, I had a night shift and climbed up the ladders of the technological shafts of a power plant block, where I didn't encounter a soul all night and only listened to the monotonous sound of fans and operating technological units. Sporadic lighting, insulation, and giant machines. If this film even had a hint of horror potential, I should have at least felt a breeze of fear. But it was nonexistent. This cult completely passed me by, and truth be told, I understand it the least out of all of them. Overall impression: 0%.

The sympathetic efforts to make the worst comic book adaptation missed the mark because I can't remember worse films of this kind than Vampirella and Barb Wire. However, coming in third place is not to be dismissed, and I will remember this movie whenever I need to encourage my gag reflex. Nevertheless, it proves that a comic book movie can be made very cheaply. Overall impression: 5%.