gudaulin

Polemics about the controversy of Antichrist passed me by at the time, but the first information about the film reassured me that it goes beyond what interests me, so I decided to avoid it. However, a few days ago I received a DVD of the film as a gift, and as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't have a problem with Lars von Trier, just like the majority of creators, but at the same time, I have no problem mercilessly sending my favorite director or actor to fiery hell if their film doesn't resonate with me. I became fond of Trier when I watched his cult series, The Kingdom, and I highly appreciated the content of his "theatrical" films. But some time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the fundamental characteristic of Trier's work is the manipulation of the viewer and facts, which he adjusts according to his artistic visions. Furthermore, the problem with him is that since the time he drunkenly devised Dogme 95, he has become a fashionable director in the true sense of the word, satisfying the intellectual snobs' ideas of true art in film and becoming a pampered celebrity of the festival audience. Unfortunately, this has become an integral part of his personality and his filmography. He caters to his snobs with plenty of things, from supposedly encrypted messages through provocative and genre films promising titles to the necessary reference to Tarkovsky in the end credits. The trouble is that there is an absolute antithesis in the ideological foundations between his film Antichrist and Tarkovsky's work, not to mention that Tarkovsky could afford to ignore the viewers because a film industry did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the decisive factor for filming and permission to distribute the film were not the reactions of the audience or the intentions of the producers, but the approval process, where it was necessary to overcome several officials at the relevant ministry. Tarkovsky could therefore subjugate everything to his artistic expression and his artistic ideals. Lars creates his films under real capitalism and calculates both with the controversial content of his films and with the scandals that his outspoken mouth and behavior regularly provoke. He knows very well that one or two failures are enough to tarnish his star status. Antichrist should not be a highly reviewed film on FilmBooster with over five thousand ratings simply because it is not a film that corresponds to the mass taste of film viewers in any way. It is a film that caters to the festival and club audience, so we see a lot of three or four-star reviews and comments like "I didn't know what to make of it, but it's a wonderful piece of work..." rather speak of user conformity than the real qualities of Antichrist. The genre identification with horror is confusing; it is more of a surrealist dramatic-mysterious game on the subject of the decay of a partnership. Unfortunately, it is pretentious, tiresome, and unbridled. Of course, Trier hasn't forgotten his filmmaking skills, and one can revel in the camera or other elements of film language, but they should also form a cohesive film. Antichrist is simply an unengaging film that wants to provoke with its controversial content and violent or pornographic scenes. Typically, I would give such films at least one star for craftsmanship, but in this case, I am happy to make an exception, which can be seen as a counterweight to the many uncritical users. I was startled once and disgusted three times, but the majority of my feelings fell into the category of disinterest, and this film is simply one of those that amuse me with the comments of many fans and how many meanings one can find when you are looking for them. I did not find in this film much of a story, good dialogue, interesting characters, and catharsis because the final third of the film is utterly unnecessary. Yet the prologue seemed so interesting... Overall impression: 5%.

This is one of those films for nostalgics who feel obliged to give a higher number of stars than would correspond to their subjective feeling about the film. It's simply a classic. The famous book by Zola, the famous director Renoir, and the legendary Jean Gabin in the lead role. However, I won't deny that I was bored while watching and even dozed off several times. So yes, the film certainly has a lot to offer to admirers of film classics, those who diligently visit film clubs to fill in the gaps in their quest to map out world cinema. It will definitely please those who are professionally involved in cinema, as well as film critics who can extensively praise the work of the camera and other film professions, but as a viewer, the film simply did not captivate me. Nowadays, we have a different film pace, movies are more civil without pathos and theatrical poses in actors' performances, and perhaps the source material and genre are to blame from my perspective. Overall impression: 45%.

David Thewlis wanted to make his own unique film and tried very, very hard. It shows in his acting performance and the entire film, but the result is uncertain due to the screenplay that oscillates between several genres and ultimately fulfills neither of them. It is neither a comedy nor a drama, and stylistically it keeps fluctuating back and forth, just like the characters and situations that are not utilized as the audience would imagine. In the end, it comes closest to a melodrama, dealing with coping with the loss of a life partner and mother. At the beginning, however, it seems like a poetic clown show, then a sarcastic satire in the style of the successful film The Full Monty about declining television competitions. The final result is somewhere between 2 and 3 stars, although in this case, it's quite a shame. Overall impression: 45%.

Each subsequent continuation of a commercially successful blockbuster usually means that its creators wanted to surpass the previous film by increasing the budget, adding more bombastic action, more special, more of everything, and yet occasionally a film comes along that surpasses its predecessor. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is no exception to this rule. It is a case of screenwriting orgies, where the screenwriters literally went of their way to fit as many "shocking" twists, betrayals of the main characters, and lightning-fast changes in the situation into one film. As a result, the script does not work, and even though it is a comedy, at times it reeks of self-parody. But there is still the bombastic set design with plenty of successful digital tricks, relatively decent action, mutual teasing, and lots of small jokes, which allows me to give it three stars. It is a typical popcorn movie, where it is better not to think much and just perceive the visuals and movement on the screen. Overall impression: 50%.

An American independent film based largely on dialogues between two municipal service employees. One of them is shortly before retirement, with a lot of life experience, mature, but also somewhat worn out by life. The other, portrayed convincingly by Liev Schreiber, has had a few ups and downs in life, including a prison stay, a feeling of frustration with his current life, and an honest effort to change it, but also an explosive temperament that constantly leads him into conflicts. His older colleague represents an anchor point for him, and a masculine friendship develops between them in a short time. It's a small, unassuming film, without big gestures, action, or turning points, but still emotionally impactful. The characters evolve through seemingly small conflicts and incidents. Overall impression: 75%.

In Russia, Michalkov's big film met with passionate resistance and the critics eagerly feasted on it, which undoubtedly is largely related to his position and political views. It is undeniable that Burnt by the Sun 2 represents, to a certain extent, a forced continuation of the original film, which is a very compact work culminating in the death of all the main characters, thus practically prohibiting any further continuation. When one character miraculously comes back to life, it is a pleasant surprise, but in this case, it resembles certain biblical scenes. Michalkov simply wanted to make a war epic and used the popularity of his Oscar-winning film, even at the cost of violating his previous artistic work. It is also true that Burnt by the Sun 2 is far from reaching the artistic level of the first film or film 12. The screenplay is too fragmented, with constant shifts in time and numerous characters that are not always adequately utilized. On the one hand, it is seasoned with Hollywood clichés - those miraculous last-minute escapes or instant divine retribution for the villain's immoral act, while on the other, it reflects most of Michalkov's filmography over the past twenty years, with his political views saturated with Russian nationalism and "Slavophile" sentiments that blend Orthodoxy with communism in the name of building a strong state and defending the nation. The film can also be criticized for some smaller script shortcomings, but Michalkov still demonstrates that he is a great director of the present, primarily because he has a sufficiently large budget to present a series of grand war scenes with massive comparisons and a convincing depiction of the apocalypse in the summer months of 1941. No other Russian filmmakers dare to present aerial bombings with period technology or a mass assault of German tanks and infantry on the position of a criminal unit. Overall impression: 45%.

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%.

This is how American studios imagine comedy for everyone. They cast a well-known actor and a charming actress as the main couple, use a few jokes, add some kind of plot, mix it all together, and create something hopelessly mediocre and interchangeable. Matthew Perry has basically had a template for his characters since the days of Friends and he still uses the same facial expressions, which, to be fair, are quite enjoyable if you don't watch him consistently, but they're not enough for a feature film. And Elizabeth, well, she may be attractive, but she's not a good enough actress to solely maintain the film at an acceptable level. Simply put, the film lacks a good script and quality jokes. Overall impression: 45%.

In comparison to Centurion, Kevin McDonald's direction is noticeably more sober, without the presence of wild women with a layer of make-up and without hectoliters of spraying digital blood and flying severed limbs and heads. I prefer his more realistic approach, and after 2/3 of the movie, I considered giving it four stars, because as a historical adventure film, The Eagle worked well up until then without any serious slips. However, in the last third, a large group of Roman veterans came along, who after 23 years remembered their military oath, and were apparently mobilized by the slave Esca through the internet, as they emerged from all corners of the Pictish Empire in the appropriate gorge in record time. Here, not only the internet could have played a role, but probably also helicopters. In addition, other screenplay motifs also faltered, such as when the Celts, who had endured a long and exhausting pursuit, demonstratively executed a "traitor" child whom they had apparently carried the entire time in a basket on their back. That final battle between young warriors and grandfathers in rusty Roman armor would also have turned out completely differently in reality, as the life expectancy back then was roughly half of what it is in our era... Despite all this, I appreciate The Eagle's more psychological style with its attempt at developed characters in contrast to the superficially efficient Centurion. Additionally, both main protagonists are appropriately likable, so the viewer can identify with them. Overall impression: 60%.

The Coen brothers are known for their maximum precision, with which they approach every tested genre and film being prepared. In True Grit, this can be seen in every aspect, whether it is the casting, prop selection, the well-crafted screenplay, and above all, traditionally high-quality directing. This film is a return to the traditional western, which experienced its golden age about 60 years ago and has been rather languishing in recent decades. Precisely because it is a return to the roots of the respective genre, there are no major surprises and it is not a modern genre variation like Dead Man or Dances with Wolves. This is a classic battle of good and evil, tough men and wilderness, where law and justice are far from what we imagine in today's courtrooms. However, it is rawer, less romantic, and somewhat more sober than the famous films of the golden era. Furthermore, the presence of a stubborn girl who stubbornly seeks to avenge her father's death and bosses around the gunmen brings important lightness to the film. It is unnecessary to highlight other film elements, such as the camera or music because in the case of the Coen brothers they always work perfectly. Overall impression: 80%. If I were a fan of the genre, I would not hesitate to give it 5 stars.