gudaulin

I either haven't seen Deray's film or I have completely blocked it out after a few decades, so I don't have the ability to compare the approaches of both directors and decide which one is more effective. Guadagnino's film seems somewhat dull, muted, and unremarkable to me. A Bigger Splash was supposed to be a combination of thriller and psychological drama, but the director would have had to work much more with the characters, play a sophisticated game full of hints, dose information, and veiled conflicts, which gradually and inevitably bubble to the surface only to explosively erupt in an emotional outburst, instead of using lengthy shots of the sunny Italian nature. Only the character of the not inherently evil, but self-centered, possessive, and hedonistic producer works as it should (I'm afraid mostly thanks to the performance of the acting chameleon Ralph Fiennes rather than the director's guidance). Dakota Johnson's Lolita only gets enough space to show off her naked body and send provocative looks, which is questionable considering the immodest duration. Tilda Swinton is a casting mistake. I consider her an interesting actress destined for special categories of roles such as androgynous or asexual beings and broken women whirled through life, but with the knowledge that a) she won't read this and b) I am at a sufficient distance away. I have to say that I cannot imagine Tilda as a sexual object arousing desire and jealousy. Matthias Schoenaerts fails to act as a counterpart to Ralph Fiennes on the same level, and this lack significantly sinks the dramatic conflict. It also wouldn't hurt to cut out about 12 minutes of runtime. A Bigger Splash is watchable, but apart from Fiennes and the soundtrack, it quickly evaporates from the mind. Overall impression: 55%.

One of the basic works of the French New Wave, which marked the beginning of Jean-Luc Godard's dazzling career and propelled Jean-Paul Belmondo into the spotlight. The director had a lucky hand in choosing the central acting duo, as they are exactly what charismatic actors and excellent performances should be. Even in acting school, Jean-Paul Belmondo was not predicted to have a film career, but after he did a great job in the role of the desperado Michel, interesting offers came his way. The character played by Jean Seberg is arguably more interesting due to her ambiguity and unpredictability for those around her. The script is simple, but Godard mastered the film craft perfectly, so he worked excellently with the film image, music, and editing. A very impressive film and a must-watch for film fans. Overall impression: 95%.

American audiences may have little interest in European or world cinema, but American studios closely follow what can be monetized and eagerly produce remakes of successful films, particularly French ones. Typically, these versions are far from as good as the originals, but American audiences appreciate the presence of familiar faces and American English. Naturally, Godard had something completely different in mind than his American counterpart. The label "crime" is quite misleading, as is the presence of the gallery members on screen, because the director was making a psychological drama focused on the character of his protagonists, not on action. In the American version, the basic story and its characters remained intact, but it became a common product of mass culture, a mediocre affair with a hint of romance that has almost nothing in common with the intellectual depth of its source. If you enjoyed the original Godard film, don't bother watching the remake, and the same applies in reverse. Both films have completely different audiences. Of course, there are also differences in the actors' approaches; Belmondo's crook represented a completely different type of character than his later likable adventurers, and Gere lacks his charisma and acting range. Overall impression: 40%.

The renaissance of the crime genre in France has been mainly associated in recent years with the name of Olivier Marchal, but in my eyes, my latest discovery Fred Cavayé surpasses him. I have already seen his film Anything for Her and I said to myself that this director has talent and is worth paying attention to. With his film Point Blank, not only did he not disappoint me, but he even very much surprised me. It is not a great work of art, but rather a perfectly executed work in the action crime genre. I have said many times before that action movies usually disappoint me because they rely solely on the action and do not care about the acting performances and especially the screenplay. That is not the case here. You don't have to hit your head with a hammer to accept any sort of nonsensical motivations, silly behavior, and stupid plot. It is a reasonably short adrenaline-filled film, where an ordinary guy and a family man are suddenly thrown into the world of crime and desperately struggle not only to preserve their reputation but also their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Not that I haven't found some minor logical errors here, but within the genre, they are completely forgettable details. Point Blank is simply better than the majority of much more famous action titles. Well-cast unknown actors, a screenplay that can surprise and, above all, not let you breathe, and dynamic direction make Point Blank an experience that only happens once in a while with an unknown title. Overall impression: 90%.

I consider Trainspotting to be one of the best British films of all time, but I admit that if Boyle presented Renton and his gang of ultimate outcasts, slackers, and drug addicts as conscious freedom fighters, opponents of the establishment, consumerism, and the iron lady, I would seriously consider abandoning it and taking a trip to the islands, where I would kick Boyle in the balls. Unfortunately, Nikolaev went precisely in this direction (regardless of the mechanical comparison of directorial qualities, where Boyle acts as a modern jet compared to Nikolaev, who stuck a few chicken feathers on his shirt, jumped around the yard eagerly, and clucked). It is a mixture of unwanted amateurism, naivety, pathos, and screenwriter helplessness. It's Gonna Get Worse sells a romantic view of the underground that deserves a much more sober look. Those pigeons actually wanted to slack off, drink, party, and fornicate a little - actually, quite a lot - and the state power was too stupid to leave them alone. There is nothing uplifting about what they did, and my empathy is frozen in this case. By the way, I remember an article where the editor went on about the case of the hijacking of a Czechoslovak plane to West Germany, and to his unpleasant surprise - actually, quite a big shock - he stated that the Secret Service, which conducted parallel investigations alongside the West German police, acted more correctly than the German investigator who considered the defendants to be a bunch of disgusting hippies. On both the German and Czech sides, there were bourgeoisie who understood each other quite well across the Iron Curtain. Maybe we should stop creating a mythology that is similar to the one created by the communists when they defended their regime, constantly going back to all those proletarians and the heroic struggle of workers on the barricades. Those real histories often correspond to the stale joke when a Soviet soldier, instead of shouting "For Stalin and for the people" heroically fell with a bundle of grenades under the tanks and yelled "That damn ice..." Overall impression: 25%.

The inspiration of the Watergate affair and the entire crisis of credibility of American politics under President Nixon is quite evident. But the main source for the script was clearly the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent conspiracy theories about a multi-layered conspiracy. Considering that it is a well-known and highly acclaimed thriller, I was quite disappointed with the lack of attention to detail in the screenplay. The script fails to address many things and in many respects gives up on the logic of the storytelling. If the Parallax organization dealt with logistical aspects of assassinations and other illegal operations, then they probably didn't belong among the elite in their field, as otherwise, they wouldn't have made so many mistakes. Even for the initial assassination of the senator, the assassins couldn't have chosen a more difficult place in terms of an escape route. And it seems somewhat easier to get rid of one assassin, instead of struggling for several years to eliminate 18 eyewitnesses. Especially when the only thing they could reveal was the face of a hired hitman, which was captured by telephoto lenses anyway. Director Pakula also didn't deliver his most dazzling performance in terms of directing, which he would later do in his best work, All the President's Men. Overall impression: 55%.

Regarding Accattone being Pier Paolo Pasolini's debut film, it is surprisingly mature and of high quality, showcasing Pasolini's great directorial talent. At the same time, it fully reveals the left-leaning direction of this filmmaker, which is evident in the depiction of the living conditions of his characters. The stumbling block, however, is Pasolini's approach to the film's characters, as the protagonist, a pimp, is portrayed as a somewhat boastful and frivolous young man, who is nevertheless difficult to feel sympathy towards. This ultimately leads to the tragic ending of the film. According to Pasolini, prostitution is primarily a result of social deprivation, which is somewhat oversimplified. Overall impression: 65%.

Despite the promising cast, this is definitely not a film that could compete in the box-office hit of the year category. I assume that it will only briefly appear in movie theaters and viewers will have difficulty seeing it on the big screen. The truth is that this film is one of those that are suited for a small screen because it doesn't rely on special effects and set design. I remember the astonishment caused by Brad Pitt's character as a white gypsy in Snatch among less informed viewers. In Great Britain, gypsies do not have an ethnic dimension, it is a social category, the labeling of people who live a nomadic lifestyle and have a specific value system different from the rest of the population. The protagonist of the film is also one of these travelers - on one hand, he is the most promising successor of the aging clan leader, who should one day lead the whole family, and on the other, he becomes increasingly visible as a daring rebel who sees the need to adapt to the rapidly changing world, who wants to educate his children, and who wants to say no where tradition tells him to say yes. However, the surrounding world does not particularly care about him, the power of prejudices and legitimate mistrust takes its toll. Only the family can offer a helping hand against the pressure from the surroundings. Trespass Against Us is a work that combines social and psychological drama, as well as elements of crime with action. It can be proud of its dramatic escape from the scene of a robbery, just like a purebred crime thriller. Overall impression: 70%.

From the long series of Christmas films in recent years, A Christmas Carol stands out like the Eiffel Tower. While Charles Dickens as the author of the literary original deserves credit for the final impression, it is a fact that Clive Donner skillfully and without hesitation transformed his story into a film. It is pleasantly emotional and reasonably moralistic. Even I felt the urge to improve, but unfortunately, that feeling passed after about an hour. Still, it was the most promising attempt in the last five years. The film does not feature top stars, but this only contributes to its authenticity; otherwise, the performances are convincing, as is the atmosphere of London in the first half of the 19th century. Overall impression: 85%. I have not yet seen the new version with Jim Carrey, but I strongly doubt it could offer more, except for visual effects. As for the story, Donner extracted the maximum from Dickens.

A classic festival film that works better in a film club venue or at a specialized festival rather than on a television screen as a way to fill free time for entertainment. Like most films from the Middle East and Central Asia, this drama is not based on an interesting plot, but rather on the exotic setting and atmosphere of absurdity provided by a different culture, standards, and values. Additionally, in its field, it can serve as self-awareness for women and support for their social status. The main protagonist dreams of better education and self-realization, even considering the idea of obtaining a high position in government administration. Her father is a typical uneducated religious fanatic and the country is torn apart by civil war, so any attempts at social advancement are truly just an illusion. It's not about the story here, but rather a series of sometimes impressive scenes, like when the heroine looks for water in a bullet-riddled gigantic palace and the viewer listens to the drops of water falling and experiences the tension of whether she will step on a landmine or will get lucky again. Overall impression: 55%.