gudaulin

For me, the film was an attempt to map German production of the 1950s and its efforts to come to terms with World War II and Nazism. Unfortunately, this is not a second coming of The Bridge, and by that I mean the excellent German war drama from 1959. If the German production of that time was like this, then it is probably good that it was displaced by American blockbusters, because the average Hollywood product of that era is more professional and more acceptable to the audience. I have only seen the last part of the trilogy, and it is possible that as a result, some of the connections and situations may have been less understandable to me, but it is more likely a script mess with problematic acting of several characters, particularly the female characters, that slide into pure amateurism. There is an evident effort here to humanize the soldiers and reduce the guilt for war crimes to individual excesses and the NSDAP. Overall impression: 20%.

I'll put it plainly - the vast majority of so-called American teen comedies are crap: poorly cast, badly acted, vulgar, and desperately unimaginative, all following a tired formula. Objectively, this film is no gem either; it relies on familiar clichés, the characters' behavior is entirely predictable, and the resolution can be guessed within the first ten minutes. However, it does have a pleasant and effective cast (both leads demonstrate why they later became stars) and maintains a certain level of quality. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Overall impression: 45%.

When looking back, the film doesn't seem as clever as it did while I was watching it. Its screenplay tempts us to expect some kind of mystifying twist, similar to Sexmission, and meanwhile... The film is interesting in that, during its runtime, it changes genres, similar to a chameleon changing colors. It's not about intertwining different genre elements, it simply functions as a pure horror for a while, then transforms into a psychological drama of an isolated group of people, later on it becomes an authentic science fiction, and elsewhere it turns into a thriller about encountering a deranged criminal. By the way, the main heroine is really unlucky. Ending up in the company of the biggest lunatic in the district after a serious car accident is not fair at all. All three actors deliver an appropriate performance. Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the role of a brave girl who doesn't want to sell her life for free is likable and appeals to me more than in a similarly constructed character in the prequel The Thing. The real treat, however, is the presence of John Goodman in the role of an eccentric property owner with peculiar hobbies. This is an immensely gratifying type of character and John Goodman thoroughly enjoys it. Although after the final quarter-hour, when 10 Cloverfield Lane definitively reveals its true colors and the illusion of sophistication dissolves, the impression slightly decreases, I will ultimately give it 4 stars, as no matter what genre it belongs to, it precisely provides the emotions it intends to. Overall impression: 75%.

A bizarre bit of screenwriting that is influenced by Tarantino's famous film Pulp Fiction in terms of mixing genres, and shuffling the chronology of the story with several parallel character stories that get roughly the same amount of space in the film and are endowed with cool characteristics. Humor, as typical for Tarantino's films, is combined with violence and human suffering. There are also several crimes, dead bodies, one severed penis, and somewhat raunchier language - basically, everything that a cultured viewer nurtured by Bergman and Fellini likes. The film has a very reasonable runtime and fast pace, but it does not have as well-written dialogues as early Tarantino films, lacks black humorous lines, and the director's inexperience is noticeable in the film. Overall impression: 65%.

I still have not seen 12 Angry Men, so I have no comparison to make, but Michalkov's modern version is very high quality and it was one of the strongest experiences in the past year. Excellent acting on a level that is rarely seen, well-written characters that depict the cross-section of contemporary Russian society and speak volumes about the atmosphere of modern Russia, and an intense dramatic conflict that keeps the viewer uncertain until the very end and forces them to think. Excellent camera work and clever direction, which alternates static shots from the gym with flashbacks from war-torn Chechnya. By the way, the action scenes make up only a very small part of the film, but they are among the best that have been produced in the field of war films in recent years. The script cleverly and gradually reveals the motivations and characteristics of the individual jury members, as well as the criminal act itself. In two or three cases, the director went too far in his attempt to make the plot more attractive, for example, the scene with a knife cutting a cigarette is exaggerated, but Michalkov has to be credited with true mastery and his film, despite some minor flaws, is among the best that European cinema can currently produce. Overall impression: 90%.

I will not give this film five stars, despite my great regret, because the form somewhat lags behind the content and the first half of the film drags a bit despite its reasonable length and needlessly dissects the unflattering mundane existence of the story's protagonists. However, the second half, which takes place on television during a live talk show, is great and, in my opinion, the most accurate portrayal of the reality of a generation that experienced the fall of the communist regime and the subsequent disillusionment with the post-revolutionary situation. It experienced it quite rightly, because the actions of the elites are merely a result of the overall state of society, and changes in thinking are much harder than formal changes of the regime. The elites are no better or worse than the rest of society and they only do what those below them allow them to do. The television debate addresses whether a revolution took place in a provincial town east of Bucharest or if the locals just passively waited for the fall of power in the capital. As is known, human memory operates selectively and people tend to adjust their biography to the point where they eventually believe it themselves. Confrontation with reality, or rather with the perception of their peers, can result in a geyser of tragicomic outbursts that reveal the opportunism and adaptability of our heroes. The humor style, which revels in the awkwardness and pettiness of the film's characters, is quite different than that seen elsewhere in countries that experienced something similar. Overall impression: 85%.

The fact that Nicolas Cage has been appearing in the dumbest genre productions in the last 15 years can be considered a constant. It's a shame because he used to have more potential. Simon West is a decent craftsman, but the bad script simply cannot be overlooked. It feels promising for the first 10 minutes as you watch a briskly shot robbery, and then it goes downhill, and then it gets even worse. Overall impression: 25%.

For mysterious reasons, I've missed out on this generally well-known film for decades, even though it must have aired on TV a long time ago and probably repeatedly. I am therefore not influenced by nostalgia, and in fact, I saw a remake of it by Nikita Mikhalkov some time ago. If you don't have the opportunity to see the compared films at the same time, it is better to avoid comparison, as relying on memories can be deceitful. However, it is true that Mikhalkov's version seemed disproportionately more impressive and fresh to me. In the 1950s, Lumet's film undoubtedly represented a fundamental element of the courtroom drama genre. It was a film that rightfully stood out among the productions of that time. However, from my point of view, it has lost its impact. I also find the selection of actors and their portrayal inappropriate. The drama flows without any surprises, and the actors diligently fulfill the predictable roles assigned to them by the director, I guessed the order in which the opinions of 10 out of the 12 jurors would change, and that is definitely not a good credential. Usually, I don't have a problem with the theatrical appearance of a film, or with "talkative" movies. But this is an exception. Overall impression: 55%.

The film is shot decently, with exceptional care, and it can be seen that if not the director himself, then the producer was definitely counting on a festival award - after all, the subject matter is the sort where the creators claim a film award in advance. However, my 4 stars are rather meant as my appreciation of the formal qualities rather than an expression of emotional solidarity with the film. It has a strong story and theme, and yet I watched a film that didn't touch me emotionally in any way, and what's more, it didn't surprise me at all. It has exactly what one would expect, and while Hunger from the workshop of Steve McQueen, which is rated worse on FilmBooster, got under my skin and made me think about the film and come back to it in memories, in the case of 12 Years a Slave, I feel like I just ticked off having seen it. Overall impression: 70%. Sometimes the term film academism appears in film comments - I would say that it fits quite well with this film.

An attempt to build on the American school of classic detective stories in the noir style. It has a very good cast with the central duo of Dana Medřická and Jaroslav Marvan, as well as a decent script, but it is somewhat outdated and the actors in the supporting roles are not as good. Overall impression: 60%.