gudaulin

Sign of the Cancer cannot be considered a crime story; a doctor's murder within the hospital premises doesn't bring an agile team of investigators to the scene who would turn everything upside down and be at the center of the action. In fact, the detective duo is pushed into the background to the point of absurdity and becomes a certain weakness in an otherwise interesting film. The crime serves the director as a starting point for exposing the characters of the institution's employees and patients, who suspect, evaluate, and judge others. Herz works very well with musical motifs and camera work, and with the help of a strong cast, creates a gloomy atmosphere. It is not as flawless and impressive as he later demonstrated in The Cremator, but in his debut, it is evident that he was heading toward the genre of psychological drama and was fascinated by the dark corners of human nature. For a debut, it was surprisingly decent, and it indicated Herz's potential for the future. It is worth mentioning how the relationship between doctor and patient has changed since then. In the 60s, doctors still had a sense of professional superiority, automatically concealing important information about the patient's health for their own "good." Overall impression: 65%.

Fincher is simply good, and his version of the investigation of the legendary murder series in the American West, whose perpetrator yearned for fame and manipulated the media, has undeniable tension, a long runtime, a good pace, and I hardly find any weaknesses to criticize Fincher for. For me, Zodiac holds a higher place than the artificial cult thriller Seven. Perhaps only due to the enormous amount of facts, evidence, characters, and witness statements that Fincher tried to fit into his film, making it difficult for the viewer to orient themselves. In the end, I am inclined to give it only 4 stars. Most importantly, Fincher shows a clear distinction between the fictional world of crime stories and detective tales and the grim reality where investigators are confronted with poor resources, incompetence of superiors, stupidity, and the sensationalism of many pseudo-witnesses. On the other hand, they are required to irrefutably prove the guilt of a suspect based on evidence, so that the jury cannot acquit them. Overall impression: 85%. By the way, in two scenes where he deviates from the documentary style toward thriller tension, the director demonstrates his expertise. The scene with the mother in the car on the night highway and, above all, the visit to the old projectionist and the joint trip to the underground spaces of the house have genuine horror tension and atmosphere.

I don't know the book, or the original adaptation from the 1960s, so I can't compare them. The series has a very slow pace and typically Eastern Slavic lyricism. Where an American series would add five jokes, Russians skillfully deliver one joke, although not a bad one. The second thing is the screenplay, which slides into caricature, and the third downside is the atmosphere of Soviet Russia in the 1920s. Viewers unfamiliar with the local realities may not understand or notice many references at all. The series is characterized by a subtler, unobtrusive humor, but it has one significant advantage, and that is one of the most talented Russian actors of today. Oleg Menshikov was even criticized for wasting his talent on a mere television project. Taking everything into account, three stars are just right. Overall impression: 60%. The series will most likely be enjoyed by fans of Russian classics, such as Bulgakov.

To speak openly, considering that this is a revered classic of its genre, I am at a loss, even though I didn't have high expectations. The initial problem is the subject itself because zombies simply don't appeal to me - neither in literature nor in film. Even worse in this form, because George A. Romero's film does not work as a horror movie in my eyes, not even a little bit. It includes several disgusting scenes of eating internal organs, which may still be repulsive today but certainly not scary. Slowly, clumsily moving undead simply did not evoke a sense of danger in me, and I didn't really understand their growing dominance. Throughout the entire movie, a scene from the battle with the terrifying rabbit in the parody film Monty Python and the Holy Grail kept coming to mind. It simply triggered this association in me. That's why the movie couldn't work for me. If Dawn of the Dead doesn't come across as a horror movie, it is possible to somewhat accept it as an allegory of a post-apocalyptic world and a critique of consumerist society. The movie started a tradition where the story takes place in a large supermarket, which was later used by several other successful movies. However, there is also a problem with the overall length, silent passages, and character psychology. Overall impression: 40%. I consider Snyder's recent remake to be a significantly more functional and impressive piece of cinema.

The Holocaust viewed from the slightly different perspective of those who had relative luck and did not end up directly in the transport to the concentration camp. Their fate was constant hiding and escaping from the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo, and the local authorities. The story of the Free Land takes place in France, where they moved from occupied Paris to the Vichy part of the country, where the conditions were relatively more bearable, but still, the constant risk of denunciation by local fascists and collaborators persisted. France was soaked in anti-Semitism like a sponge after the rain. An old farmer and his daughter-in-law provide shelter to a Jewish family, who become a rare island of humanity in a crazy time. Although Free Land is not an exceptional film, and yet it does not manipulate emotions as we are accustomed to in Hollywood productions, and it provided me with several solid emotionally intense scenes. My overall impression is 70% and four stars.

Zulu feels like a trip to the countryside to an old house of deceased grandparents, which has been abandoned for years in solitude and is waiting for someone to visit it. Open the door and you will discover preserved furnishings that smell musty and look somewhat quaintly old-fashioned. You wouldn't want to live in it, but it can be enchanting to lovers of antiques. Open the wardrobe and you see clothes long out of fashion. Zulu could once have seemed like an epic blockbuster, but today it can only evoke an indulgent smile. In a sense, it reminds me of old westerns or movies about Native Americans, where settlers traveling westward on the prairie fend off attacks from wild Comanches. The film pays homage to the peak of the colonial era in Victorian Britain when white men took their share of colonial conquests as a civilizing mission of European culture into the wilderness. It features not so much living characters as human types, and the behavior of the officers reminded me of one of Michael Palin's Ripping Yarns episodes, which satirized the stiff British army. The film can be criticized from today's perspective for many things, from choreography to pathos. However, those who appreciate beautifully colorful uniforms and a world that was simple and had a black-and-white dimension can still enjoy Zulu today. Overall impression: 40%.

For me, this is the best-filmed adaptation of Alois Jirásek's work, supported by excellent performances from all involved, meticulous direction, and an emotional screenplay. In several moments - especially in the final scene, when Gustáv Valach walks toward enemy soldiers - the film lightly slides into pathos, causing it to miss out on a fifth star, but it is still a great piece of work, even on an international scale, for its time. Strong dialogues and an atmosphere of despair during wartime turmoil. Overall impression: 85%.

I have a mix of emotions regarding Petr Zelenka's distinctive films. Some of them have impressed me, while others have left me with an average impression. However, I have no problem admitting that Zelenka is one of the most interesting filmmakers that the lackluster Czech film scene currently possesses. I have never associated his name with any significant disappointment. Actually, I cannot speak of disappointment even now. Based on paradoxically enthusiastic responses, I didn't believe in the film, and my instinct did not let me down. Zelenka served me two films in one, but I don't get either of them and I conclude that they don't harmonize together at all. Although the author is inspired by the ideas of historian Jan Tesař, he interprets them in his own way. This time, Zelenka's mystification didn't entertain me; I felt a similar self-centeredness in it as I have perceived in the surrealistic performances of a certain Prague theater in the last two decades. Those people are also content with entertaining themselves and their fan club. Overall impression: 35%.

The series depicts the fates of a group of exiles who were ground down by the millstone of Stalinist terror in the early 1930s and expelled to the remote and inhospitable parts of Siberia. There, if they were lucky enough to survive the harsh beginnings without supplies or support, they would establish a new settlement and lay the foundations for the wood processing industry. The series is far from flawless. At times it is overly melodramatic, disjointed, and rushes forward wildly (the period of the patriotic war is covered in just a few minutes of narration), while at other times it slows down melancholically and indulges in contemplative images of the taiga. Many interesting characters do not get enough space, and the settled village looks too neat, like something from a recruitment brochure for new settlers. What is well done is the casting, with Chulpan Khamatova easily carrying her main role, as well as Morozov in the role of the camp's characterful leader. The bull's-eye is the disgusting portrayal of the Stalinist opportunist played by Roman Maďanov - in him, the pathology of the Soviet 1930s seems to be concentrated. I won't give it four stars, but it is still a decent piece of work and an attempt to come to terms with one of the sore spots of Soviet, or rather Russian, history. Overall impression: 65%.

The subject and the script actually only recycle formulas that have been used many times and are not surprising, moreover, the outcome is predictable and during the final scene when settling the score with the villains, the viewer will recall that Whitaker remembered Orlando Bloom's performance in The Hobbit and, just like Legolas, he mercilessly mows down orcs, his detective instills a sense of satisfaction in combating evil. By the way, I have a problem with the character played by Orlando Bloom. His undisciplined cop, drunkard, and womanizer is not exactly likable, which wouldn't be a problem if the screenwriter and director weren't aiming for the exact opposite and trying to shape him as a likable rogue. Zulu differs from typical American genre productions in its setting in the exotic environment of South Africa and, above all, in its raw depiction of brutal violence. Unfortunately, I have to admit that even the presence of my favorite Forest Whitaker doesn't bring it up to more than 3 stars and a 60% overall impression. I cannot consider Zulu a realistic drama, as it drowns too much in genre clichés.