gudaulin

I wouldn't dare to call Paul Anderson the king of garbage despite all his efforts, even though he's quite close to that title. The current record says that he has six films rated Boo!, one two-star, and one three-star rating from me, although I'm not sure if I would give Pandorum the same review today. Anyway, either something was wrong with me back then or with Anderson because when he gets going, it's worth it. From the perspective of what I expect from cinema, any part of the Resident Evil series would deserve a categorical Boo! label, but what is sympathetic about Anderson is that he doesn't rest on his laurels and manages to push each installment into even bigger messes, stripping it of even more basic elements of logic and consistency. With Paul Anderson, it doesn't make sense to talk about rock bottom because he always manages to creatively push his limits even lower. In this context, it's rather interesting that many people still manage to find something of their own in his work. Anyway, any user who can rate this piece higher than two stars raises a bit of caution in me. Overall impression: 5%.

The charming intriguer Irene, played by Dominique Sanda, imparts a lesson in disguise and manipulation to the members of the Ferramonti family and outsmarts them. The problem is that it is not possible to identify and root for anyone in the film, as practically all the actors are controlled by base instincts, greed, and lack of consideration. However, it is a very well-crafted and well-cast costume drama set in the 19th century with a decent set design, and so I can easily recommend it to fans of historical spectacles. The ending is surprising, and without knowledge of the laws and prevailing morals of that time, it is difficult for a modern viewer to understand. It must be said that the creators did not bother to explain the fundamental twist to their audience. Overall impression: 70%.

When I first saw the film 20 years ago, it deeply impressed me and I gave it the highest rating. However, repetition is the mother of wisdom, and today I have different standards, and so I noticed some flaws I missed the first time. The film is overly drawn out and could benefit from more prominent editing. Shortening the film by 20 minutes would definitely not mean depriving the viewer of anything essential, especially in the middle part where the drama really gets drowned in dialogues. Once I thought that Michalkov was playing with the viewer and keeping them in suspense for a very long time, yet now it seems to me that he reveals unnecessarily too much and that the film could have been better treated dramaturgically to deliver a sudden blow, so to speak. Also, Michalkov's fondness for melodrama and sentiment is occasionally excessive, although these are minor flaws in its beauty. Finally, in retrospect, Michalkov's political views are also evident here, which would fit perfectly into the era of perestroika, as a kind of critique of Stalinist excesses, without touching the legendary legacy of the Bolshevik revolution and questioning traditional Russian authoritarianism. On the other hand, the acting trio of Menshikov, Michalkov, and little Nadezhda Mikhalkova constantly keep the film above average. Michalkov also knows how to create beautiful images of the era's society, and in the last third, when the NKVD comes into play, the film gains a truly chilling atmosphere. For Russian society, where Stalin still represents an unquestioned authority and the symbol of the Russian empire, this is a much-needed film with a strong artistic statement about the cruelty of the time, despite my aforementioned reservations. Overall impression: 85%.

The Green Prince is shot in a minimalist way and obviously with a small budget. The use of such primitive film techniques theoretically should not work at all, as ninety minutes of two alternating talking faces, occasionally interrupted by sporadic documentary shots, should deter viewers. However, it works thanks to the power of the story, which is hardly believable, but that's exactly how life writes itself. If someone made a feature film that I approached without knowing it was a portrayal of a true event, I would reject it as far-fetched. But the whole thing actually happened and I personally remember the brief news reports from foreign agencies. The 80% is not for acting or directing, but consider it recognition of the professionalism and humanity of two men who initially belonged to opposite sides of the barricade, only to later join forces and save human lives.

The famous film To Sir, with Love can be considered idealistic. A movie that wants to believe that a teacher full of ideals and determination can achieve the seemingly impossible. Although I do not identify with it and where it tries to evoke catharsis, it actually brings a smile to my face, and I feel the authenticity and passionate enthusiasm in it. Once in a Lifetime, on the other hand, gives more of a feeling of a government contract. Parts ordered by the Ministry of Education and Culture with the aim of bringing the class community together and instilling in the descendants of immigrants a sense of belonging to French society, and trying to convey the message of French republicanism to them. Where the bitter drama of The Class shows a depressive and hopeless picture of unincorporated and demotivated troubled youth from poor Parisian suburbs, Once in a Lifetime offers simple and overly easily functioning solutions. If the teacher could gradually engage eight to ten more students alongside the two or three outstanding students through patient and persistent work, it would seem more believable. But here, as is usual with such works, we are witnessing a miraculous transformation of the whole class. Should I really believe that students who, at best, seem likely to end up unemployed and homeless, or at worst, as reinforcements for organized crime and jihadist terrorist organizations, only need such a small bit of incentive for transformation? That a girl who, with her approach, must push an ordinary teacher to suicidal thoughts, later presents a project with enthusiasm worthy of Rosa Luxemburg fighting for the German proletariat? Once in a Lifetime is suitable for a school performance where teachers will make a note, and students will either ignore them or mock them. The only positive aspect I see is the presence of a number of promising young actors whom I would like to see in a few years in a film with a better script, one that I could believe in. Overall impression: 35%.

I have never succumbed to the temptation of rating individual episodes of a TV series, but here there was no other choice. The option to rate the three-part series as a whole is missing; however, it is precisely the intersection of three perspectives - the perpetrators, the victims, and the investigators - that makes it a complex and powerful work in the docudrama genre. The miniseries allows the viewer to glimpse into the botched investigation of a series of murders of Turkish immigrants, while also mapping the functioning of the extremist far-right German scene. It hints at many things about the background of the series of deadly attacks, poses provocative questions, and unsettles with its suggested conclusions. I consider it a given that it is meant for TV, but its content is significantly above average. Overall impression: 90%.

In simplicity there is strength. The captured bitter collapse of one marriage is devoid of any detours, quirks, or additions. The film focuses on the authenticity of the situation and precise psychological acting. In my eyes, it works, evoking exactly the emotions it wants to and should. There is nothing extra there, therefore nothing hinders or disturbs the viewing experience. Overall impression: 90%.

I'm going to be brutally honest. I Am Legend is a stupidly written and routinely filmed B-movie that has nothing to offer besides decent post-apocalyptic visuals. I don't know anything more cliché than the motif of a destructive virus that turns humanity into an army of bloodthirsty mutated zombies - and here, diplomatically speaking, it is handled unoriginally. Nothing is clever in this film. Will Smith doesn't even manage the minimum of psychological acting that is required of him, and it is better not to contemplate the existence of the depicted world and the behavior of the hero of the story. The idyllic community of survivors with a pristine white church in the middle felt more like a raised middle finger to me. The film is an easily forgettable endeavor only worthy of being broadcast on late-night TV. Overall impression: 25%.

United 93 draws on the worldwide echo of September 11th, Green Zone on the trauma of the Iraq war, and I do like the character of Agent Bourne, but if I had to answer the question of which Greengrass film I value the most, I wouldn't hesitate for even a second. Captain Phillips combines a strong and sympathetic hero, a dramatic situation, awareness of artistic reconstruction of real events, and last but not least, the presence of a dangerous opponent in the form of a pirate captain. The cinematography is clear this time, and the director moves from the spacious cargo ship to the claustrophobic environment of the rescue boat at the right time. The story focuses on the depiction of a specific case of maritime piracy, but it also says something about the phenomenon of banditry on the shores of Somalia, about senseless regulations that bind merchant ships, and about the fact that every phenomenon has its background, and pirate crews, with their dependence on clan leaders and existing poverty, actually have no choice. Tom Hanks was born for this role, and I find no weaknesses in the film that are worth mentioning. Overall impression: 90%.

The Indian reservation of Wind River is not a place that you would choose for a pleasant luxury vacation. It is an inhospitable, sparsely populated place far from civilization, where only those who have no other choice or those who do not need much in life and do not want much from it live. The discovery of a raped Native American girl's body brings together local predator hunter Cory and inexperienced FBI agent Jane. The subsequent investigation can be considered a counterbalance to crime thrillers based on effects and shocking plot twists. It is an intimate story full of weight, bitterness, and melancholy. Although I did not find in it the promised "mystery," the majestic nature of the freezing mountains and the slowly dosed tension was more than enough for me. Taylor Sheridan is primarily a screenwriter, and it might have been better to look for a more established name for the director's position, but it is not that crucial. Rather, I would like to emphasize again: do not expect anything relaxing, this is an adult drama with a slower pace and without clever screenwriting tricks, built on acting performances and tragedies of ruined human lives. Wind River is a film that you don't necessarily have to see in movie theaters, but you shouldn't miss it. It is an above-average genre film that may not elicit a burst of superlatives from most viewers, but it reliably does its job. Overall impression: 75%.