gudaulin

I could say that this is a horror comedy, but that would mean that fear would have to mix with laughter, and that is not true in this case. It is actually a crazy comedy with a popular zombie theme. At first, it feels quite fresh and funny, but soon the ideas run out and in the second half, the film falls into tiresome stereotypes. Overall impression: 45%. If you are a fan of trashy horror productions, you can give it any number of stars you want. The screenwriter knew exactly what he was doing.

After the commendation of The Unfaithful Wife by film critics and the favorable reactions of the audience, Chabrol decided to return to the proven cast, genre, and subject. Michel Bouquet may have been born as a murderer, and he was perfectly suited for roles of unsympathetic men; but here, the script prescribed him a psychologically demanding role of a man who cannot cope with a guilty conscience. One uncontrolled outburst of emotions will forever change his life and condemn him to the role of a mental wreck tormented by doubts. Traditionally cold and psychologically convincing, Chabrol enriched the film with a grotesque dimension and ingeniously conceived social criticism, which we know, for example, from Buñuel's films. The feeling of guilt leads Masson to confession, which, however, as soon becomes apparent, those around him do not care about at all. In the eyes of his loved ones, a social scandal is apparently less acceptable than murder. It is not important what things objectively are, but how they appear on the surface. Where another director would have made a crime drama, Chabrol presents a psychological study of traditional middle-class values, where the moral dilemma of the (anti)hero clashes with the tough pragmatism and the feignedness taken to a pathological dimension. Overall impression: 75%.

I really like British costume conversational comedies cast with proven actors like Colin Firth or Stephen Fry. In this case, my expectations were too high, and accordingly, disappointment followed. I understand that not every author can write dialogues as brilliantly crafted as the king of bon mots, Oscar Wilde, but this is seriously a level that would fit into a Czech operetta from the 1930s. I don't know if the level of the theatrical source, the work of the screenwriter, or even the director himself had a greater impact on this. The result is an ordinary and forgettable title that simply lacks the stamp of quality that I am used to from British works. Overall impression: 45%.

Three times is enough. I revived the slogan of uncompromising morality followers who, after the 3rd crime, are willing to send pickpockets to life imprisonment, and applied it to a series of classic Bond films. I told myself that if any old Bond title has a chance of success with me, it will be Goldfinger, which features a truly charismatic villain and is based on a book that I read as a teenager, so I should feel at least some nostalgia for it. However, I definitively verified the fact that the phenomenon of Bond films only started to become at least partially interesting to me with GoldenEye. This is unattractive, and outdated, with a long-expired warranty, but surprisingly still has a great reputation. The power of the brand does a lot. Overall impression: 40%.

You have to admit that Marine Vacth is charming and exudes a "decently provocative" sexuality, and she could instantly become one of the classic Bond girls from the past. Marine works as a model, as she knows how to pose and present herself well. Unlike other models, she is undoubtedly capable of delivering some acting performance, albeit limited. She simply doesn't look like the new Marion Cotillard. These types of girls are often heavily utilized in film in their youth and usually disappear from the screen at a certain age... As for the film itself - it is strange that I want to write again about Marine's sensuality... Ozon is undoubtedly a professional, but this film is not among his best pieces. It is unfinished, superficial, and psychologically implausible. A comparison with thematically related Belle de Jour by Buñuel logically suggests itself, but Buñuel clearly had something else in mind and his film was more thought-provoking, while Young & Beautiful perhaps only tempts masturbation... Ozon evidently aimed to provoke viewers with the theme of an underage prostitute from a respectable middle-class family. In France, as well as anywhere else in Western Europe, prostitution at a lower level is usually practiced by drug addicts and other "lowlifes," while at the higher level, it is composed of emigrants who cannot afford to lose their social prestige. A girl from a better family will damn well reconsider risking the loss of moral integrity, which could have a devastating impact on her professional career and current and future family. Isabelle doesn't offend me, but I also don't make excuses for her and her behavior, and I don't seek complex meanings where there most likely aren't any. Of course, you can endlessly debate the torn inner soul of a girl and talk about a deep dive into the female psyche, but I, on the other hand, see a bored Euro-brat, well materially provided for, who never knew real problems thanks to her family background, and consequently, responsibility... Considering Marine's physique, I remain at three stars, but without any enthusiasm. Overall impression: 50%.

Costa-Gavras has never been the type of director to mind the label of an activist creator, especially one with a clear political profile. He makes this perfectly clear with his new film. Even the title, which deliberately evokes associations with the world-famous title by Karl Marx, connects the world of bankers and financial corporations with the world of political ideas. While Oliver Stone once made Wall Street, where his left-wing political convictions occasionally flashed through the dialogue of a suspenseful thriller about an unscrupulous stockbroker, Costa-Gavras made a film that proudly embraces leftist ideals and sometimes transitions into straightforward proclamations. The (anti)hero of the film turns to the camera and addresses the audience in key moments, thinking out loud and revealing even what would normally remain cloaked in diplomatic phrases. Paradoxically, he becomes a more interesting character than Stone's Gordon Gekko, who is essentially a one-dimensional predator driven by the pursuit of profit. Marc Tourneuil, on the other hand, is a player with more complex motivations and thought processes, aware of the consequences of his actions but determined to stay in the game and to win. With his drama about the rise of an intelligent and ambitious careerist against the backdrop of a power struggle in a globally influential bank, Costa-Gavras has become the spokesperson for those who increasingly observe scandals in the world of high finance with disgust – the irresponsibility and arrogance of the elites, the ruthlessness with which speculators conduct their shady dealings on or beyond the edge of the law. It is important to realize that the described managerial and business practices were not invented by the author of the source material; he drew on intimate knowledge of the environment and specific cases. Gad Elmaleh, known primarily in France, handled the demanding role with honor and is well on his way to breaking into the club of internationally acclaimed film stars. Despite a few minor reservations (such as the rather unnecessary romantic fling with a supermodel, which dilutes the main storyline), I argue that Capital is a film that has balls and has arrived at the right time, marked by an economic crisis and its repercussions. Sometimes it's good not to hold back and to say what needs to be said for it to be heard. Overall impression: 90%.

If I didn't know that I was watching a Czech documentary, directed and produced by Czechs, I would have been convinced that I was watching American work. An American guide, a professional modern style, and a high level of production. After all, Misha Votruba has been in the USA for a long time and has learned a lot of things. These are typical talking heads, staticness, and lack of expression when it comes to Czech documentary films. The creators know how to evoke and maintain attention, even though their methods are somewhat "manipulative." The film warns against manipulation, but it doesn't shy away from manipulative practices and suggestive techniques borrowed from advertising. Add to that the scatteredness and argumentative inconsistency, and I can only give it a mere 2 stars. Overall impression: 40%. It's a typical case where the form overwhelmingly outweighs the content.

Joss Whedon is not only a name in Hollywood, but a worldwide phenomenon when it comes to original screenwriting. He is bursting with ideas from every direction, and when he manages to bring something to completion, it is often an event. Or maybe not, because he is also able to fascinatingly kill some ideas. If there is something really interesting about The Cabin in the Woods, it's the concept that combines the good old Lovecraft style with modern teen massacre stories and plenty of horror props, all presented with a sympathetic perspective. The trouble is that The Cabin in the Woods is cluttered, and unfinished, oscillating between several genres, and what it does best, namely comedy, is hardly mentioned. Drew Goddard lacks directorial experience and probably even sufficient cinematic sensitivity to give the film a style, comb through Whedon's ideas, and above all, imprint it with atmosphere. Scenes that are potentially horror-inducing do not evoke fear. Those that could be suspenseful are rushed or wasted. The ironic elements do work, but they could be much more effective - they don't even come close to the best works of Sam Raimi. In the end, the film turned out to be a disappointment, although it cannot be said that it is a complete waste of time. I have no problem watching The Cabin in the Woods once, but I won't go back to it. Overall impression: 55%.

It is human to make mistakes, but only a fool would make the same mistake twice, I said to myself last year when I stumbled out of the movie theater after watching Holy Motors during the French Film Festival, feeling disgusted, and looking forward to avoiding similar mistakes in the future. A year has passed and I made the same blunder at the same event. A more detailed investigation would soon reveal to me that behind the name Claire Denis hides the author of an incredible film called Trouble Every Day, which occupies an honorable place among my top ten scariest film experiences. Denis is also an indefatigable worker at film festivals, where her creations are evaluated by a handful of film enthusiasts, so even though the film is featured in red, with only 22 ratings, it is somewhat confusing information. Denis has created a puzzle with her psychological drama through honest effort, which takes the form of a jumble due to the careful rearrangement of scenes - but don't worry, there are also other types of riddles. In some films, you clearly feel that the director doesn't care about the audience and is strictly pursuing their artistic vision. Claire, on the other hand, intentionally confuses the viewer. However, unlike other directors who pull the audience's strings, it is not entertaining. She is simply not Nolan or Lynch. The film drags on unbelievably and instead of making you think and provoking you, it bores. When you glance at your watch for the eighteenth time in five minutes, it is a certain signal that something is not right. With this kind of film, it is better to sit on the edge of the row because when you suddenly feel the urge to go to the bathroom, you are not obliged to disturb several fellow sufferers in the row. When the film finally limps towards its goal, you are already indifferent to where the point is hidden. The final impression is reminiscent of a festering inflammation. Those who are looking for something "different" and feel elevated above the usual film production might enjoy this film. Unlike Carax, Denis is not such a weirdo and her imagination is much more limiting, so don't expect any flight of fancy. Overall impression: 10%.

A bit of simple nonsense for a late evening after a demanding workday, assuming that you suffer from acute insomnia. It's not clever, original, or funny, but on the other hand, it's not offensively stupid or tasteless either. One cannot expect cinematic miracles from music comedies of this kind. The presence of famous people from the music world gives this nonsense more weight than it objectively deserves. The music used in the film is not essential, but it is primarily what keeps the film afloat. Many things can be hidden under the broad embrace of rock 'n' roll, and this music fits comfortably into it. Overall impression: 35%.