gudaulin

Danny Boyle has gained a following with his Shallow Grave and confirmed his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Therefore, something grand was expected of him and unfortunately, it's not as amazing as one would hope, although from my perspective, it's still enough for a 4-star rating. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is uncertain, sometimes talkative, and above all, it has an awkwardly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but I simply expected more from the director of Trainspotting. Overall impression: 70%.

The film has a nice visual aspect, but the rest is sterile or conceptually problematic. I once invested an incredible 50 bucks in Miller's comic book, influenced by the claim that it is one of the most significant works of comic creation. There is no doubt that it was the worst investment I have ever made in the world of books. Ideologically, it felt like a guide for a young fascist through the world of life values, not to mention the lack of historical credibility, only the visual concept stood out... Overall impression: 40%.

The comic book of the same name became a literary event of the year in its genre, not thanks to its average script that relies on a single clever idea, but thanks to the blurred original artwork of Ben Templesmith, which elevated the work to art. His graphic style is economical, and surrealistic, relying on readers' imagination and focusing on striking, unpleasant details that evoke a sense of hopelessness and cruelty. I have the comic book at home, and it is one of my favorites. I was curious about how its film adaptation would turn out, especially since the book can be read almost like a film script and has great film potential. Thus, my disappointment was even greater when I saw the result. True, a certain visual resemblance can be traced between the film vampires and the ones from the comics, as well as the original idea and basic story being adopted. However, while the comic monsters exude sinister majesty and demonic characteristics, the film ones resemble sick creatures infected with Ebola and rabies at the same time. The villains from the comic can be brutal murderers in one second, only to transform into polished companions in the next moment, who perversely play with their next victim with an elegant smile on their faces. The film versions emit only inhuman screams and evoke pity. Increasing tension, fear of the unknown, and isolation emanate from each comic panel, later followed by the brutality of a brutal massacre and the hopelessness of the survivors. Comics can advance the plot and evoke a lot of emotions with just one full-page image of a snowstorm - it is impossible not to think of the long shots of a snowy landscape in Carpenter's cult classic The Thing, which, along with a simple musical motif, managed to create unpleasant tension. The film lacks what made the comic famous - atmosphere. Atmosphere is is what is originality in a film, as well as accurate work with sound, cleverly shot scenes, and visually impressive camera shots. Because David Slade lacks aesthetic sensitivity and especially a sense of composition, he tries to create an impression only with techniques typical of music videos - that is, masks, fast cuts, and frantic camera movements. This may be enough for those who grew up with music videos and video games, but probably not for connoisseurs familiar with the film classics. I don't mind that Slade's film lacks artistic depth. That happens very rarely, and most viewers don't expect it or need it to be satisfied. What bothers me is that 30 Days of Night has stupid, unimpressive filmmaking that can satisfy only fans of B-movie horror and splatterpunk in this form. I saw the film only on a poor pirate copy (thank God, because I would have regretted spending money on such a thing in the movie theater for a long time), but even so, it was clear that not a single interesting and memorable scene appeared in it. I don't need to turn to film legends, for example, in the unambitious and purely television "Kingesque" film The Night Flier, I can recall five of them... In this context, the film Alien is worth mentioning. Before it, dozens, if not hundreds, of bad films about bloodthirsty creatures from space were made, which damaged the genre and majorly discredited this prop. Then one clever director came along, along with one original artist, and they proved that there are no "noble" and "debased" genres, only good and bad movies. Alien became a film event, but I highly doubt that 30 Days of Night can claim the same. Overall impression: 35%.

I would like to borrow my opening words from elsewhere: "Overwrought and poorly told phantasmagoria"... because they succinctly and accurately characterize what you can expect from the series. According to Alex de la Iglesia, he worked on the series for 6 years, reserved only a maximum of one week for the screenplay based on the result, and it took him the longest time to convince the producers to invest finances and studio support in such garbage. Honestly, I am amazed that the series was created under the patronage of HBO, which usually sets the bar for quality high. I like storytelling and enjoy it, but Alex is a terrible storyteller. It cannot be claimed that the problem lies in the subject itself, it is rather about its execution, about Alex's superficial approach to the material. He wastefully indulges in ideas only to thwart their potential. The mystery genre relies on emotions much more than on rationality, but that does not mean that no laws should apply to it, and that the behavior of the characters will not be guided by any logic. I am surprised by the decent rating on FilmBooster because Alex's lack of restraint and inconsistency moves the genre from horror or fantasy to grotesque in many places... but to each their own. I will not in the least accommodate the carelessly shot mishmash with poor effects and a stupid screenplay, there are others for that. Overall impression: 10%.

I call this category of festival films "Rohypnol" for their fascinating ability to reliably put you to sleep after just a few seconds. Imagine the sea waves, pebbles on the beach, and calming sounds, and the disaster is complete. I would like to mention many other things I saw in the movie, but unfortunately, I don't remember anything else. Overall impression: 5% - and don't ask me what it's for.

After the problematic and scripturally completely unmanageable Seven Psychopaths, Martin McDonagh returned in full form and followed up on the success of In Bruges. It has the same poetics and the same work with characters, and perhaps there is a bit more absurdity here. In Bruges seemed to me to be more precise, as everything fit perfectly and fell into place. This film drags a bit in places, but the entertainment is exceptional and Three Billboards will definitely be among the best films I will see this year in terms of new films. Martin McDonagh can not only entertain, but his work has a broader impact. When I compare his work to Tarantino's, he is several levels higher. Unfortunately, Tarantino has not come close to what he accomplished in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri in any of his films after Jackie Brown. I don't want to be cruel, but maybe he wouldn't even achieve that if all his films were combined. Where Tarantino squanders the potential of great actors, Martin McDonagh can squeeze the best out of his colleagues. Frances McDormand is delicious, Sam Rockwell brilliantly balances on the border of parody, and both of them portray characters that fit perfectly into the idea of the American South full of uncompromising and incorrect characters distrustful of the system and always willing to take their own idea of justice into their own hands. Overall impression: 90%.

A modern form and classic content with a lot of what we call genre clichés. I hesitated for a long time about how to review the film because on one hand, it is heavily burdened by genre myths and the logic of the actions of individual characters somewhat lags behind, and overall it is far from the down-to-earth historical reality. On the other hand, this is a genre that has always been a fairy tale for grown-ups and adults in its vast majority, and it is simply an escapist form of entertainment. If we consider it that way, then James Mangold and the present actors certainly did not disgrace themselves. The individual opponents have charisma and the characters are convincingly portrayed. Moreover, the dialogues, when I disregard that logic, also have depth and can be described as a kind of psychological drama. I would give it three stars because, considering what I saw, it deserved more comedic relief, and a couple of times the corners of my mouth twitched due to the opponents' illogical behavior, but I will probably shock and outrage most genre fans when I declare that I ultimately liked this film more than The Magnificent Seven. Overall impression: 75%.

Those who were able to follow Alain Delon's projects in recent decades will slowly stop understanding where his cult came from in the past and why he was considered a great talent of French cinema... This film is dated to 1980 and it is Delon's swansong as a tough guy in top criminal thrillers. After that, there were films of declining quality and popularity. At the same time, it is the last major film by Jacques Deray. Although Three Men to Kill is not one of the best films in its genre in France, over time, and especially after I saw it again after a longer break, I feel like giving it the highest rating. It's an honest crime story with nothing missing and nothing in excess, about how one random encounter can turn your life into hell. And a piece of advice in the end - don't provoke smokers on the street, you never know what they might turn into. Overall impression 85%.

During its release in movie theaters, the film was met with conflicting reactions, ranging from enthusiastic ovations to significant doubts. I must admit that I didn't have much faith in Mašín's debut film, so I avoided it at the time. However, the time has come to catch up, and it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise. 3 Seasons in Hell is primarily a carefully and honestly crafted film - such professionalism combined with a solid budget is not common in the Czech Republic. It may indeed be a bit too polished, and I would have preferred the film to be more surreal and provocative, but Mašín simply and correctly decided to make a film for a broader audience, who are not necessarily as interested in the fates and work of this enfant terrible of Czech culture. I agree with the opinion that this is a quality film that may not deserve a perfect 5-star rating but should be up there, and in this case, I happily round it up. Especially for the presence of the charismatic Karolina Gruszka, who perfectly fulfills my idea of a fateful Bond woman, capable of driving her surroundings and especially men to the brink of madness. Yes, one could die for a woman like her, but it's better to run far away from her... Overall impression: 90%.

I definitely don't claim that this is a bad movie, but the expectations were too high in this case, and during the final scene, I was thinking, is this really the end? Is there nothing else coming? Are you telling me this film won at a category A festival and is considered by film fans and critics alike as the European film event of the year? The thing is, this film somehow deceives in its substance and offers substitute emotions, or rather, in my opinion, it fails precisely in what it is most adored for, i.e., a statement about a certain country and political system. Many reviews enthusiastically admire its amazing authenticity, but how many of those viewers experienced communist Romania first-hand? I haven't been there, but from the testimonies of eyewitnesses, I know that even ten years after the revolution, some places in the countryside had no electricity, many remote areas are today economically worse off than during Ceausescu's regime, and the mountainous regions are depopulating. Comparing the former Romania to Czechoslovakia is misguided, as the situation there was disproportionately worse and, above all, systemically different. The abortion that is at the core of Mungiu's film, is presented as purely a technical problem. Those girls, just like the other film characters, are not victims of the system, but part of it. Polish films of moral unrest were able to address moral conflict issues in the behavior of their characters during the deep communism of the 70s and 80s, whereas here, a college student undergoes an abortion of a fetus that is merely an obstacle to her career. We learn very little about the system itself, and it is necessary to realize that abortions were also prohibited in a number of European countries in the recent past, and a similar film could be made in present-day Poland, in a democratic system. Since 1993, abortion there has been limited to the absolute minimum of possibilities. That pre-revolutionary Romania was an inhospitable and freedom-restricted place to live in is quite evident in some places, but that is just a secondary motive. If the main problem for Romanian college students in dormitories was obtaining a certain brand of Western cigarettes, then those girls really didn't have a bad life. In short, it is watchable but, from my perspective, also an overrated film with an unclear concept. Overall impression: 60%.