gudaulin

Insulted vanity turns into hatred, which grows into an escalating obsession. Two officers of Napoleon's army indulge their egos and engage in increasingly unseemly duels, all against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, which are changing the face of Europe. Scott is not concerned with depicting historical events, which are a mere backdrop to the adventurous story of two men who excel at wielding their weapons. There are things here worth seeing and someone to root for, although the characters hardly develop and the script is not particularly refined. However, Ridley Scott already shows here that he can damn well create beautiful images and has a sense for building tension. Overall impression: 70%.

Nope, I can't do that to director Bogdanovich and this time I'm not handing out any stars. I would be too stingy and I consider Bogdanovich a director of excellent social dramas, like The Last Picture Show or Paper Moon. But this time, after just a few minutes, I felt that something was off. Making a conversational film with boring dialogue is the road to hell. The casting of Owen Wilson is basically a diagnosis in my eyes because I regularly miss out on his films where he gets a more significant role. I don't know if it's because he's unlucky with his roles or if his cuckoo mannerisms are just so annoying to me, but there simply isn't any chemistry between him and me. I watched half of the film without interest and realized that, with the highest probability, the second half wouldn't give me more than the first, so I gave up watching it with a clear conscience. I consider this comedy to be a typical case of a film that evokes a feeling of helplessness in all those involved in its production. As someone mentioned in a comment here, perhaps the most interesting thing is Jennifer Aniston's change of hairstyle, which I didn't even recognize at first. It's the first time since Friends that I felt she had detached herself from Rachel in terms of her appearance.

I have heard people call this the "series of the decade," to which I respond that it would mean dismissing the significance and quality of Wasteland because Czech series production has long been crappy. The last Czech series that received 5 stars from me was directed by Karel Smyczek in 1994, yes, I'm talking about There Were Five of Us. That series had the advantage of exceptionally high-quality literary translation by Karel Poláček, which is a cult classic of Czech literature. In fact, Wasteland entered a territory that no one in the Czech Republic has reached yet despite some unsuccessful attempts. It is the first series that fulfills the essence of the term quality TV. Wasteland is not only ambitious but also a very well-made affair, with a sense for the gradual building of atmosphere, for modeling believable characters with authentic dialogues, great acting performances, and top-notch camera work. It's a pleasure to watch how the director works with individual elements, builds tension, and shows that Czech television production does not have to be only a Central European imitation of Latin American soap operas. I will leave the review of the series until its end, as voices of insiders claim that the finale falls short of expectations, but the 6 episodes I've watched so far maintain reliable five-star quality, so I hope that the finale will not be such a painful disappointment that I would have to lower my rating. Report after the final 8th episode: I haven't noticed any significant decrease in quality. Many famous series end up simply rotting after the producer has squeezed them dry. Štěpán Hulík doesn't have to be ashamed of this finale. I stand by the fact that Wasteland is the highest-quality Czech series produced in the last 2 decades. It's not flawless - for example, I could criticize the aesthetic of shots or the motif of the disabled father of the family who is a regular visitor to local brothels, gives prostitutes large sums of money, and drives around in a luxury car. But the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. A five-star rating is appropriate in this case. Overall impression: 90%.

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.

This play can be considered a tribute to Anton Chekhov's lifelong work. After all, it is essentially an adaptation of his play "The Cherry Orchard," set in contemporary Russia. I hesitate between 3 and 4 stars, as Chekhov is probably my favorite among Russian classics. It is not a sacrilegious adaptation, but more could have been extracted from such a refined subject. Overall impression: 65%.

Richard Ayoade took darkness and skepticism from Dostoevsky, from Franz Kafka he took existential uncertainty, a sense of absurdity, and black humor, from Jeunet camera filters, from Terry Gilliam a touch of dystopia, and I could go on about his inspirations. Nevertheless, the film is unique and in my opinion truly good. It's definitely infinitely better than Submarine from the same director, which I had the opportunity to see a few days ago. The presence of Mia Wasikowska adds female charm to it and Jesse Eisenberg convincingly and confidently plays his split hero. I would probably give it only 4 stars, but the film seems unnecessarily underrated to me on FilmBooster. There aren't many successful Kafkaesque films, and I think this doppelganger belongs among them. The atmosphere cannot be denied, and actually, I haven't felt for a long time that I was rooting for a protagonist to get out of a mess in one piece. Overall impression: 90%.

I get the feeling that Luchino Visconti would understand Ludwig quite well and if he had the opportunity to live in his time, he would probably belong to the circle of people that let Ludwig sustain them and create things for him. I see the same indifference towards the common viewer that Ludwig probably felt toward the ordinary subjects of his state. Visconti is interested in the formal perfection of camera shots, the lyricism of scenes, and the musical accompaniment. However, the film is oversensitized. A filmmaker who considers his audience and works with the knowledge that he creates for them would not hesitate to cut certain shots. That never occurs to Visconti. At the same time, he is obsessed with his protagonist at the expense of depicting the era in which Ludwig lived. Incidentally, he does the same thing that the elites of the time did, in that they did not pay any attention to ordinary citizens and certainly did not consider them equal human beings with the right to have a say in public affairs. Yet it was precisely the case of Ludwig II that compromised such a style of behavior and thinking. Ludwig was completely incompetent in governing his state and yet he had immense authority, which stemmed solely and only from his family traditions. No one could stand up to him for a very long time because they were paralyzed by respect and fear of his majesty. True, the rule of Ludwig II was more pleasant than, let's say, Caligula's, but it does not change the fact that in a democracy, which is by the way not a guarantee that people will choose the most competent person, he would be absolutely without a chance to gain any public influence. My two stars are for the unquestionable aesthetic qualities of Visconti's film, the rest I have no interest in. Overall impression: 45%.

The boundaries of control, which brought many film fans to the brink of despair or the threshold of fury, appealed to me, partly because I enjoyed Jarmusch's mannerisms and self-centeredness. For a while now, I've felt that if Jim doesn't change his approach, the day will come when the scythe will hit the stone, and that was perfectly fulfilled in the case of this film. I endured 65 minutes of concentrated boredom, only to fast forward through the rest of the film, and I must admit, I bitterly regret those very long 65 minutes. The film is simply too empty for me. In my opinion, it's a clear artistic failure. Overall impression: 20%.

This is a sympathetic and still functional attempt by American studios to cope with the emancipation of women and the liberal transformation of society. Although suffering from half-heartedness and lack of courage, for example, the girl perceived as ugly by her surroundings is actually played by a charming actress, even though Patty Duke's unique charm is certainly not identical to the antique beauty of Grace Kelly, for example. It is simply an intermediate stage between the conservative cinema of the 1950s and the rise of independent American cinema in the seventies. At the beginning, filmmakers had plans to shoot a socio-critical drama, but it quickly slid into a decent romance with comedic elements. In any case, this film stands and falls with Patty Duke, who was at her peak in the 1960s and filmed her most significant roles. Overall impression: 75%.

Mike Nichols was one of the few certainties for me in film heaven, for whose films I always expected to give four or five stars. But disappointment had to come at some point. Charlie Wilson's War resembles, at first glance, a nice pool that invites you to swim in it, only to find out upon entering the water that it has a depth of about 40 cm. It doesn't help that the water is pleasantly warm and the pool design looks top-notch. It is not clever and analytical enough for satire, and not funny enough for comedy. My problem was that I couldn't laugh at the obvious attempts at comedic elements. The only truly interesting character was the CIA agent played with irony by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Tom Hanks is reliable, but the screenplay, which I consider the main weakness of the film, did not allow him to develop his acting abilities. Throughout the duration, I was slightly bored, partly because the events portrayed were well-known to me from far more informed sources. Overall impression: 45%.