gudaulin

Director Gillo Pontecorvo is known, among other things, for his documentary-style war drama, The Battle of Algiers, and he was one of the left-leaning filmmakers of his generation. Even in this case, he does not deny his political commitment. It does not make sense to consider Burn! a classic adventure spectacle set in the backdrop of an exotic Caribbean island. Pontecorvo directed a political drama, in which he deals with the much-debated topic of neocolonialism in Euro-American intellectual left circles in the 1960s, through the story of the strange alliance and subsequent conflict between British emissary William Walker and indigenous rebellion leader José Dolores. After World War II, European colonial empires quickly disintegrated, but former centers of power attempted to maintain their influence indirectly through supporting cooperative local leaders, corruption, and pressure. On the island of Queimada, controlled by the Portuguese, British agent Walker arrives with the aim of driving out the colonial rulers with the help of local residents and facilitating the penetration of British capital into the area. He selects a suitable leader for the popular uprising and provokes the local elites to declare independence. However, the abolition of slavery does not mean an improvement in the living conditions of ordinary people, and once ignited, the spirit of rebellion continues to burn within society. The character of William Walker is exceptionally well-written, ambiguous, complicated, and contradictory in his actions and goals. Walker is an excellent observer, analyst, and organizer, as well as a dangerous manipulator and cynical pragmatist who serves whoever pays him. But he is also a person who understands the difficult fate of the people "down there" and has no problem improving their position. Perhaps even by pushing the ruling class against the wall at the right moment. On the other hand, Dolores perfectly embodies the schematic ideas of a decisive and uncompromising revolutionary leader, as envisioned by supporters of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. In the confrontation of these two characters, Gillo Pontecorvo predictably stands firmly with the popular leader. Unfortunately, practical experience derived from studying history speaks unequivocally in favor of opportunists like Walker. Reformers succeed, not saviors. They know how to destroy, but they cannot handle the role of negotiators, creators, and guarantors, often ending up as self-righteous authoritarians like Mugabe or desperate failures capable of dragging their surroundings down with them. Marlon Brando's performance as William Walker deserves attention and is one of the most interesting roles in his long and extensive career. Overall impression: 65%.

Regarding Joss Whedon, it could be said that Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is the most essential of all his works. The series revolves around a high school student who, through fighting techniques, battles vampires and other demonic beings. Whedon's undeniably significant contribution to contemporary pop culture lies in his ability to effectively engage teenage audiences, present likable heroes with whom viewers can easily identify, and offer pleasing and uncomplicated stories that somehow reflect real-life problems. Ultimately, Buffy tackled her first loves and the difficulties of adolescence alongside her impressive battles with demons. While Buffy mainly targeted an age group between late childhood and puberty, Firefly is ideal for viewers a few years older, who are approaching adulthood. I have watched half of the episodes; at first glance, the mix of adventure, sci-fi, space outlaws, and Western elements in cheap sets seemed quite enjoyable. However, over time, I began to suspect that somewhere in the depths of the spaceship, Buffy was hiding. Somewhere, young River comes to life, while other times she remains anonymous, but her presence is felt in the background. For me, Firefly is simply too shallow, and as time went on, my interest waned, whereas, with a good series, it should be the opposite. The quality of the scripts in this series does not deviate from the production of mostly average sci-fi series that Canadian television studios churn out in large quantities. However, one thing must be acknowledged about the series: Serenity is convincingly defeated, probably because in the film, the teenager River and her killing and mysterious abilities get much more space. The characters, especially the captain and the likable but naive mechanic Kaylee, elevate the show to a mere three mediocre stars. Beyond that, Firefly only confirms my long-standing experience that Whedon has nothing to surprise me or capture my attention with, and I'm really not interested in the aspects that impress many others. Overall impression: 50%.

If I made a popularity ranking of film genres, westerns would not hold a very high position. Every genre creates and uses popular clichés, and the ones from western are more annoying to me than any other. There are few titles that I would fully accept, and they would mostly be alternative productions that probably wouldn't come to mind to a true fan. However, The Big Country is definitely one of them. It does indeed work with typical western elements, so the viewer can expect impressive shots of the countryside, shootouts, and wild horse rides. However, The Big Country turns the genre rules upside down. Traditional virtues and the abilities of tough men of the American West are more criticized and ridiculed here. The newcomers from the city, from civilization, show the locals the reverse side of their "fight for honor." Classic westerns romanticize the era of the Wild West and perceive the spread of order and modern civilization as an inevitable but painful and conflicting process. Adversely, The Big Country welcomes it. The film works very well as a love story and the love plot and the dramatic storyline complement each other excellently. Overall impression: 90%.

Filming is something Jan Svěrák hasn't forgotten how to do, but creating picturesque images and working with a retro atmosphere alone is not enough for a fulfilling cinematic experience. You also need a functional screenplay. I don't know why Jan didn't utilize his father's abilities, who is one of the best screenwriters of the last decades. Barefoot does not work, and when I use this term, I really mean it doesn't work from a dramaturgical standpoint. Even though Jan Svěrák fills his film with plenty of stuff, in the end, it is incredibly empty. You don't just need memories, you have to piece them together properly. This film is helped to a considerable extent by sentiment, but I won't assist it in that, as there are plenty of others who can. Overall impression: 45%. I can't help but have a reservation about Oldřich Kaiser's casting. Even though there is not a big age difference between Vetchý and Kaiser, the years when Kaiser was drinking heavily have unfortunately taken their toll on him, so he could actually play Vetchý's father. By the way, both he and Ondřej Vetchý are slightly too old for Tereza Voříšková and their little son... The scene by the pond, where Voříšková and Kaiser exchange a long, emotionally charged gaze, and in which it is evident that the director wants to evoke in the viewer the impression of either a platonic or fulfilled past relationship, brings to mind associations with pedophilia more than anything else.

Before anyone starts getting angry about stealing from the famous theater of Jára Cimrman and his equally famous mystification, I recommend finding out something about Jiří Šebánek first. He was present at the very birth of the Czech genius Jára Cimrman, and it was he who came up with the name, and Smoljak and Svěrák considered him the "founder's father" of the theater. Although they started together, their paths soon diverged because they had different ideas about the humor surrounding the Cimrman character. Smoljak and Svěrák represented the mainstream. Their humor based on wordplay was more accessible, they were excellent screenwriters, and from the beginning, they aimed toward a project of a "grand" theater accessible to a wide audience. Šebánek did not fit the relaxed, cute humor of the author duo. He was interested in nonsense and absurdity, he was not afraid of provocation and darker, less understandable forms of humor. He lasted only three years in the theater and later joined forces with musician Karel Velebný, who was also present at the birth of Cimrman in the end. It was Velebný who announced at the end of 1966 on Czechoslovak Radio that a sensational discovery of Cimrman's legacy had been made in Liptákov. Velebný does not appear in television recordings because he died prematurely in 1989. This duo came up with the project Salón Cimrman. They can be considered typical alternative artists, performing on the club scene, and greater popularity eluded them - they did not even strive for it. The two parties did not compete but respected each other. The humor of Salón Cimrman was unpolished and had its ups and downs - unlike the Theater of Jára Cimrman, it clearly lacked someone who understood dramaturgy and directed performances with a firm hand. All of this can be seen in television recordings, but I still like Salón and consider it a pleasant addition to the Cimrman myth. Overall impression: 75%.

A film that started promisingly only to end in awkwardness. No, I don't regret the time I spent with Frank and his gang, it's occasionally really funny, playful, and features interesting actors. The sight of Maggie Gyllenhaal enveloped in tobacco smoke is priceless, and innocent cuckoo Domhnall Gleeson can really surprise, as it turns out he has some major ambitions hidden behind him. However, promising moments are followed by weaker passages, and above all - the whole film is permeated by an attempt at some deeper message, some significant revelation about alternative music, which ultimately doesn't happen. The ambitions are obviously greater than the result. Not least because the story of an alternative band that refuses to "give in" to the audience for fear of dilution and selling out is ultimately supposed to serve as a commercial product itself. Also, because the band members' attitudes seem more like the result of a collection of mental disorders rather than a conscious act derived from a strong value system. Any true creation should have the ambition to find and engage its audience, and performing at a concert is certainly not an act of prostitution to the entertainment industry. It is worth reminding that at least music production has already lost concepts like mainstream, independent music, and artistic experiment in connection with the fall of music labels and new ways of distributing music. The last thing I would criticize Frank for is that the film about a music group serves me only a bunch of strange guys, but practically no musical experience. When I think of, for example, the Swedish Sound of Noise, that was a different story. Overall impression: 55%.

In the mid-60s, a new wave from France spilled over into Czech film productions and young filmmakers expressed their desire to shoot completely differently than before, and they were interested in different protagonists and a different storytelling style. Until then, heroism, naturalism, and ideological activism had been required in war and occupation themes. Jiří Menzel went a different way. His film is melancholic and full of poetic stylization. He approached the suffocating atmosphere of the protectorate and the tragic story of a teenage boy as a tragicomedy full of gentle humor and irony. Even the exemplary collaborator, councilman Zednicek played by Vlastimil Brodský, functions more as a harmless fool than a bearer of evil. Menzel does not try to moralize and certainly does not use the pathos so beloved in the 50s. He understands his flawed imperfect characters and judges their actions with indulgence. In addition to the fact that Menzel's early work perfectly suits my taste, Closely Watched Trains also appeals to me for two other reasons. I identified to a considerable extent with the uncertain Miloš Hrma brilliantly portrayed by Václav Neckář, as he reminds me of the naivety of my youth. I understand that character and sympathize with him. Last but not least, it is also appealing to me that Menzel, among the radically experimenting creators of the New Wave, did not lose the desire to tell human stories in his own way and slowly. Overall impression: 90%.

It is paradoxical that I never managed to perceive this film as a classic noir, even though was there at the beginning of the famous black series and thus represents the basic building block of the noir genre. I rather associate the genre with tragedy and inner demons, whereas The Maltese Falcon always was for me a genuine crime comedy, thanks to the casting and performances. I can't shake the feeling that Bogart overacts when playing the private detective Sam Spade. He adds so much casualness, confidence, and cynicism that he sometimes crosses the boundaries of caricature. Also, the crafty and scheming characters of Joel Cairo and his boss Kasper Gutman, portrayed by Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, turn into clownish figures instead of those who should inspire fear. The novel is considered one of the most significant works of American detective literature and has been successfully filmed multiple times. However, to me, the battle over the mysterious valuable statue with a complicated history always seemed more like something out of Indiana Jones adventure stories than a "serious" subject. Overall impression: 65%.

Inherent Vice is a peculiar, unpredictable, and mischievous film. That's where its charm, but also its risk, lies. It's nice for once not to follow a predictable genre routine, but when the end credits roll, it's also easy to shrug your shoulders and ask what the author actually wanted to say... The screenplay seems like it was written by several screenwriters who periodically each got their say. Although they received the same instructions, each one is in the realm of a different genre. There are also other explanations at play. It could all be attributed to fluctuating levels of drugs in the veins of a single screenwriter. At certain moments, the characters and events in the film fall into psychotic states, and the film world sheds its veneer of normalcy. Perhaps the film's protagonist himself succumbs to psychotic states, through whose eyes we watch the film. He once chose too easy a way to temporarily improve his unsatisfactory existence, and he increasingly loses control over his senses and actions. I can't say that I was enchanted by it, the film doesn't have an attractive facade or innards, it's difficult to identify with anyone or anything, and the characters are more weird than cool. However, the originality saves the film quite a bit. The director may confuse many people with it but the film is firmly under his control and he works with the best that the acting industry currently has to offer. Moreover, the message of this morally ambiguous tale is ultimately more convincing than the preaching of social authorities and the warnings of medical professionals. Overall impression: 75%.

I have never read anything better from Stephen King than "It". He didn't rush it, played with the text for a long time, and finally created a novel full of creeping horror and omnipresent tension, one of the basic building blocks of the modern horror genre. The television adaptation disgusted me in its time, and practically nothing worked in it except for the clown's mask. What can I say about the film version? It's definitely not the best King adaptation, the victory in this category still belongs to Kubrick with The Shining. But Muschietti's film will hold a more than dignified spot in the ranking of film adaptations of King's works. It's definitely worth a visit to the movie theater to see it because the big screen undoubtedly enhances the viewing experience. Some (quite unnecessary) modifications may not please fans of the novel, and in a few places, the director slightly breaks the chilling atmosphere with comical scenes (Georgie hitting his head, the shooting of the phantom with a butcher's pistol, or awakening "Sleeping Beauty" with a kiss). I can imagine many films being shorter but here I wouldn't hesitate to add on fifteen minutes. Some scenes are rushed and lack a feeling of uncertainty and subtle hints of losing control over one's senses. The jump scare should be the period at the end of the sentence. In my opinion, the film also too ostentatiously showcases ideal friendships and there are simply too many big words in there. The novel's characters lived their friendship more than they showcased it. Despite all the minor criticisms, I ultimately lean towards giving it 5 stars. I don't see a film far and wide that could compete with It in its category at the moment. It is helped by excellently chosen child actors, excellent camera work, appropriate set design, and music that can stretch nerves to the breaking point. It's all there, even though by "it" I mean something different than what horror fans were looking forward to. Muschietti's film works more like a dark fantasy or like an adventurous story of a group of friends who have an already difficult adolescence made harder by a battle with a supernatural, irrational evil. Overall impression: 90%.