gudaulin

The content is shocking and provocative, but the strength of the film lies in its theme and content. I haven't watched Hanna Polak's films enough to make categorical judgments about her, but it seems to me that the editing could have been better, and the film could have been shortened by fifteen minutes, as the director sometimes lingers on unnecessary images. Overall impression: 85%.

The art of leaving on time, unfortunately, is not common to everyone and it is understandable that Brian De Palma wanted to say goodbye to the genre he dedicated himself to and has immense experience in. Unfortunately, both the script and, more painfully, the direction fail in perfect harmony here. The film is not bad enough to discourage you from watching it, let alone so disastrous that it is entertaining in its incompetence. It is one of those cases where you say to yourself when watching the last scene: "God, I wasted my time again." It wasn't worth it. The main protagonist, a police officer, immediately proves himself to be a fool in the first scene, only to demonstrate an incomprehensible short circuit in the second scene that should cost him his job immediately, and probably even lead to criminal prosecution. There is no point in elaborating on the cheap production, poor editing, and camera work. Overall impression: 25%.

I understand that in a time when comic book adaptations and epic fantasy dominate the film landscape, Triangle of Sadness represents a sympathetic civilian deviation for a more adult audience. On the other hand, it is not an exceptional piece, let alone film of the year. After a promising start, where Östlund takes shots at the superficial world of modeling (I know, it's an easy target, but the hits are accurate), with each subsequent chapter it becomes increasingly annoyingly didactic. Not to mention that the middle part on the boat with the puking scene is somewhat funny, but it is also somewhat cheap humor that could also appear in undemanding Italian comedies from the 70s. I have higher expectations for satire. In my opinion, the casting is also problematic. Woody Harrelson functions as expected, Harris Dickinson delivers, and Vicki Berlin in the smaller role of the chief stewardess is interesting. Unfortunately, that exhausts my positive feelings about the ensemble. With all due respect to the prematurely deceased Charlbi Dean, she was merely a model cast in a film role, and I can think of a dozen actresses who, besides a glamorous face, could deliver acting performances two or three levels better. Dolly De Leon in her variation of the Rat King completely missed the mark, and Henrik Dorsin is forgettable. I will give it a weak four-star rating, but there is something missing here. The TV series The White Lotus was able to tell a similar story with considerably better results, and it's not just because of the larger space that a series offers. Overall impression: 70%.

It cannot be denied that the film's production was done well. It is not an interchangeable pop-cultural product, and the Balkans can be clearly felt in the series with all its cultural features and historical atavisms, such as a tendency towards violence, blood feuds, and pervasive corruption. The interesting, unknown actors help, and when it comes to the casting, I don't see any weaknesses, and the sadistic sociopath Mima will definitely rank very high among iconic villains. Radoslav Milenkovic did a great job with his character and they probably won't even sell bread rolls to him anymore in Serbia. As for the form, I only have words of praise, but as for the content, there are some more substantial criticisms to be made. The plot itself is convoluted. The leader of a criminal clan, who has an army of capable killers, chooses an extremely risky and, from a practical point of view, a senseless form of revenge through a civilian with zero criminal experience. Turning a regular person into a contract killer is as bizarre as hiring a random pedestrian for the national team in the FIFA World Cup. Some other moments could also be pointed out but that would go into spoilers. Nevertheless, my overall impression is positive, and I hope I will get to see the second season. The first one ended at its best. Overall impression: 75%.

An attempt to capture the European Tinder generation, which is meant to appeal to its members. In my eyes, it fails because it clings too much to everything that is photogenic and attractive, and the dramatic aspect of the project suffers as a result. It is a typical example of a film where the director presents characters that, according to his opinion, I should identify with and root for, while I see them in a completely different light. If I were to rely solely on my emotions, I would categorically discard the film without hesitation. I did not see eye to eye with my favorite Audiard this time. It is strange that the Finnish film Games People Play, which deals with the same age group burdened by similar emotional instability and social unanchoredness, captivated me and earned a full five stars. In this film, with the partial exception of Nora, whom the director manipulates in a different way than I would have imagined, everyone was terribly annoying, including the explicit depiction of eroticism. I never thought I would end up as a moralist, but here I have the impression that I see a lot of self-centered, immature thirty-year-olds who are setting themselves up for loneliness and will not be able to form functional families. Overall impression: 35%.

I can't really criticize the film much. Donaldson didn't really have to try too hard (it's not really about dazzling creative filmmaking) because the historical events, when the world was just a step away from World War III, guaranteed a spectacle filled with emotions and tension. I would appreciate less pathos, references to religious faith, and blatant invocation of family values. But as I've heard others say, that's just part of America and the director actually held back. There is a bit too much of Kevin Costner in the film but considering his involvement in the production, it's understandable. Moreover, this film is among the best in his career. Overall impression: 75%.

Haunted Summer reveals why Ivan Passer, unlike his Czech New Wave counterpart Miloš Forman, failed to properly establish himself overseas. Forman knows how to bring a significantly greater atmosphere and sparkle into biographical motifs. A film about the greatest social troublemakers of that era should provoke and shock, but unfortunately, it instead bores. It is tiresome, overloaded with dialogues, without ideas, and the only positive aspect for me was the presence of the young Laura Dern. Also, Philip Anglim did not convince me of his acting qualities in the role of Lord Byron. Overall impression: 40%.

I remember the comic by Riad Sattouf "One day you will be an Arab", where he processes his childhood experiences in the Syrian countryside. He describes the murder of a girl by her closest relatives as a punishment for an unacceptable love affair. The murderers became the most respected individuals in the local community and were presented as a moral example of society. Ali Abbasi didn't intend to make a regular thriller about a mentally disturbed sociopath. He was intrigued by the religious motive of purifying society from sin, which the perpetrator defended during his rampage in court, as well as the support of a significant part of the Iranian public that he enjoyed. Through his protagonist, the journalist Rahim, whom he confronts with the incompetence and prejudices of the local authorities, the director presents a bitter testimony of how the Iranian religious regime appears and operates. Abbasi, as an immigrant from the country where he spent his adolescence, understands and thanks to him, the Iranian realities look authentic, even though it was naturally filmed elsewhere. Audiences should not be surprised that it reveals more than usual in terms of both intimacy and violence, in order to create a compelling effect. The thriller element works smoothly thanks to the appropriate use of music and editing. The acting is flawless. Overall impression: 90%.

From time to time, a person unexpectedly comes across a gem of a series that takes unexplored paths and combines something you previously assumed couldn't be reconciled. At first glance, the town of Fortitude is a typical representative of the beloved Nordic noir genre. It boasts impressive shots of the desolate, harsh, and freezing landscape sparsely populated by people with complicated characters, whom fate has somehow brought there. It's not advisable to pry into their pasts, and it's better not to have any grand illusions about their motivations. When a shocking murder of one of the community members occurs, the darkness that was safely hidden deep within them begins to seep to the surface. In addition to the thriller aspect, gradually, a no less significant science fiction and horror element begins to make itself known. Its charm for me lies in the fact that it is seamlessly integrated into the series and gives off a believable civilian impression. Fortitude belongs to the series that don't rush and play with atmosphere. It explores the nature of individual characters, doesn't rely on gimmicks, and yet still manages to surprise. Superbly cast, written, and directed - what more can you ask for? Overall impression: 90%.

A worn-out joke that answers the question of who will be the next James Bond with a lesbian black woman, is coming true in the adaptation of Neil Gaiman's masterpiece – the comic book series about the ruler of the realm of dreams. The creative team has eagerly embraced all the fashionable ideological trends that excite American urban liberal elites. In one scene, a character tells his agent that he will sell the film rights to his novel on the condition that the producer guarantees equal representation of all races and genders. It sounds like an ironic shot at oneself. Unfortunately, the filming of the series followed this logic, so we encounter arbitrary changes in the gender of Gaiman's characters. In one episode, the medieval and early modern London is teeming with black characters and, above all, homosexual characters, and visually, half of the characters are same-sex couples. The LGBT phenomenon is presented schematically and clumsily, artificially grafted onto stories that resist it, and in a concentration that is at least disturbing. If Netflix wanted to cater to the needs of the LGBT community, it could have adapted better source material. This is just a mutilation of a comic book classic. The above-mentioned is, indeed, the most visible deformation of the series at first glance, but I have a much bigger problem with its literalness. Gaiman's comics are meant for adult readers, working with suggestions, and their greatest strength lies in the stirring of imagination. The Sandman series chews over, trivializes, and strips away its internal tension. It dilutes the philosophical overlay of the work into a consumable form for American teenagers. At times (like in the case of the cute dragon serving to restore Sandman's power), the series is disgustingly sentimental. On the other hand, in potentially strong scenes, it relies on actors who cannot transfer the charisma of comic book characters into the film world (Gwendoline Christie as Lucifer as Sandman's most dangerous opponent simply doesn't work). To be fair, Tom Sturridge in the lead role is spot-on and the final standalone episode works well. As for the rest – am I really supposed to be outraged that the writers (unlike in the Lucifer series, where the creators completely destroyed the comic book source material) more or less stick to the main storyline defined by Gaiman? I cannot find the quality of the screenwriting work, only remnants of myths and reflections of Morpheus' world. Overall impression: 45%.