gudaulin

I admit that I approached Red as an action comedy with a certain disdain because I usually don't appreciate action nonsense, and when I hear the term "action actor," I instantly get a rash. And behold - this film won me over. It's good enough to cast actors who have facial expressions and acting talent, instead of desperados who spend their whole lives in the gym. It's good enough to act with a suitable dose of irony, humor, and nobility, and most importantly, to stay somewhat grounded when massacring hordes of enemies. Red is somewhat more intimate compared to its genre siblings, giving more space to dialogue, quotes, and the main stars - Bruce Willis from the older generation and Karl Urban from the younger one, who, alongside their exceptional physical condition, are very decent character actors. Bruce Willis also excels at self-irony, which he has been honing since the days of Moonlighting. Any fan who has seen a few of his films will recall specific scenes and shots from his filmography when seeing his face, his raised eyebrows, and his dry lines. Great character actors also work well in supporting roles, which you wouldn't expect in an action movie, led by Helen Mirren, who fearlessly fires a heavy machine gun. Add to that Mary-Louise Parker, for whom I have a weakness, who carries the romantic storyline of the film, and above all, the insane John Malkovich, whose paranoia and pink piglet he drags around everywhere led me to want to give Red five stars. It is a very enjoyable and memorable film. Overall impression: 75%.

Poor Charlie is drowning in sorrow over the tragic death of his little brother, and I'm drowning in grief over the loss of one hundred minutes of my life that I spent with this pseudo-romantic kitsch pretending to be a drama. Actually, no, I'm kidding, I fast-forwarded through some parts, so I was saved from some of the embellished dialogues, pathetic scenes, and mediocre actors pretending to have deep emotions. Overall impression: 25%.

A Latin American soap opera... So just to be clear, I'm not equating the Mexican cartel with any random bit of Latin American soap opera, both in terms of content and quality. Walking Vengeance aims to be a crime drama, and objectively speaking, it is. It looks more like the film crew, from the screenwriter to the director to the last actor, used to make soap operas in the past and whether they like it or not, it now influences their current work. Walking Vengeance is like a soap opera in terms of the fatefulness, agonizing suffering linked to cunning revenge, exoticism, a focus on the female element, the outward appearance of its characters ranging from the charm of desperate women to the captivating gaze of the main male character, and so on. It takes itself very seriously, just like a telenovela (am I supposed to take a female pickpocket gang seriously?) where humorous exaggeration would instead be appropriate... Overall impression: 40%.

In The Breakfast Club, there is a visible effort to make it a generational film and supposedly it is a cult phenomenon in the United States. I don't know, it doesn't seem to me that it significantly portrays the young generation of the 80s, rather it is some sort of pretentious manifesto of teenagers. Everyone had to go through puberty and those who are currently going through it can naturally identify with the film's characters. Nothing more can be deduced from their dialogues and actions than annoyance toward parents and authority figures. They are far from being real characters, rather they represent classic school types - so typical that it reeks of script convenience. It's not funny and considering the aforementioned, the psychological aspect doesn't work for me either, and I can't emotionally identify with those guys, especially the jock and troublemaker portrayed by Judd Nelson, who I think needs a few slaps rather than understanding. His idea of independence and life ends where the French film The Class takes place. For the system to function, not everyone can just talk about their rights, they must also contribute. The film's characters don't behave realistically and their pairing at the end is also just a result forced by the script. Overall impression: 40%.

The story takes us to the early Middle Ages, where knowledge and art survive behind the high walls of a Christian monastery inhabited by monks who transcribe and decorate parchments. Little Brendan wants to follow in their footsteps and dreams of creating a truly great work of art, but the invaders from the far North have a completely different idea about the future of the monastery than its residents. Tomm Moore took a completely different approach than Walt Disney, so fans of animation and especially unconventional but stylish drawings can consider this film a treat. The story is also good, although its poetics, along with the almost surrealistic drawing, may not be for everyone. Evil, in the form of Vikings with horns on their helmets, takes the shape of horned devils from fiery hell. Overall impression: 85%. A highly original and stylish affair.

I am not the target audience and I already knew what I was getting into with this film, so I was not disappointed in any way. However, I will not give it a higher rating just because of that. The Cold War ended, and so it was necessary to find a new target and a worthy opponent for the American marines who could resist them for at least a few hours. It is not so much because it is pathetic, pro-American, and who knows what else, it is simply because it is too dull, monotonous, and predictable for me. As a teenager, I would have definitely added a star, but I stand by my review. Overall impression: 25%.

This film is closely related to the Italian film Gomorrah in its style. It is not a classical feature film in the true sense of the word, where the screenplay presents a story to the viewer, but rather a docudrama that subordinates the plot on the screen to the greatest authenticity of the environment, the reality of the behavior of the characters, and the overall testimony about the state of French education. It is necessary to emphasize that Laurent Cantet did not choose an extreme case, but rather an ordinary school from the outskirts of a big city with a number of immigrant children and unmotivated urban poverty. French education suffers from massive truancy and criminal activity, so most schools elsewhere in Europe are relatively better off in this respect. On the other hand, I get the impression that they are trying to catch up with this disadvantage. Given the above, it is not an entertaining film, but rather a truly documentary view of the issue. Overall impression: 80%.

Director Peter Weir already has a few masterpieces under his belt, but in this case, I really didn't get this film. It's too shallow, and the dialogues are informative so that even an American viewer unfamiliar with Soviet history can follow the plot. Moreover, the characters are black and white, and it's no coincidence that the only truly well-rounded character is the classic Russian criminal played excellently by Colin Farrell, who exudes genuine emotions, animality, and charisma. Unfortunately, the script does not prescribe him a more significant role, and he completely disappears halfway through the film. This subject matter directly called for a series adaptation in six to eight-hour episodes because there simply isn't enough room in this format for the development of characters and the viewer's acceptance of them. Despite the long runtime, many things are rushed through, and the viewer mostly follows a group of refugees walking through the taiga, desert, or high mountains without witnessing the small but characteristic moments, conflicts, and decisions for the survival of the characters. For example, the escape from the gulag is rushed, and many scenes are highly improbable. Escapes from the camps, for understandable reasons, took place during the hot Siberian summer, not in snowy blizzards and at -40°C... Overall impression: 55%. Despite good intentions, watching The Way Back is at times as descriptive and hastily done in its dramatic aspect as the suffering of the refugees themselves.

I have had the book of the same name in my library for a few months now, but I haven't been able to get to it yet, as is usual for me, so I can't compare it with the film version. Nevertheless, or perhaps because of that, the film captivated me. The unusual combination of genres, where the film gradually transitions from a comedic road movie to a serious drama, worked excellently in this case. The events on the screen are accentuated by music, which is a variation of Jewish klezmer. A young Jewish man from a well-to-do American family searches for his roots in Ukraine and gradually uncovers the dark secret of the destruction of a large Jewish settlement during World War II. The emotionally intense scenes almost brought me to tears, which is a sign for me that the film didn't have fake tones or cheap sentiments, but genuine emotions. It's clear from the film that Liev Schreiber has been involved in the film industry for a long time and, even though he doesn't have directing experience, at least not in the film world, he has learned a lot and has talent. Elijah Wood is a reliable and talented actor who easily handles the main role, and Czech viewers can also be satisfied with the presence of some supporting characters played by Czech actors and can get to know Czech realities, as this film was shot in the Czech Republic. I didn't give it a fifth star because I don't understand how the founder of the American branch could travel from occupied Ukraine to the USA in March 1942, or why the Ukrainian witness never got into a car until the late 90s. A few times, the script and dialogue were a bit off, and it's also evident that it was filmed by Americans unfamiliar with Eastern European mentality. The owner of a travel agency would hardly transport his American clients in a rattling Trabant on perfect highways. Here, the brand of the car is a sign of belonging to a certain social class and wealth, so it would be the opposite. Overall impression: 85%.

The comparison to American Beauty, which operates in the same combination of satire and drama genres, is fitting because in my eyes, that film overwhelmingly beats The Chumscrubber. Recently, I harshly criticized a film whose main character acted foolishly and detached from reality, while here, everyone behaves foolishly in order to confirm the efforts of the screenwriter and director. It's quite clear what the film wants to criticize. It's a matter of exaggerated individualism, egoism, consumerism, and moreover, it tries to confirm the claim that the US population is most affected by various psychiatric disorders. However, it chases too many rabbits at once and offers only functional moments and individual lines or scenes, instead of functioning as a whole. Overall impression: 40%. It's a typical festival film that can resonate with a certain audience.