gudaulin

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%.

An engaging, incredibly intense film filled with emotions and energy, and the most interesting premiere of 2021 for me. A luxurious dessert served by a team of British actors led by Stephen Graham. His performance in Boiling Point and his role as a prison guard in the miniseries Time made me consider placing him among my favorite creators. During one hectic evening, the long-standing personal crisis of the chef and restaurant owner culminates, and things start happening... Philip Barantini, without much directorial experience and with a modest budget, managed to shoot a great action film in the space of a restaurant, in which I couldn't find any significant weaknesses. However, if I had to highlight something besides the acting, it would definitely be Lewis's brilliant cinematography; 90 minutes in one shot is not something you see every day. I wish all film enthusiasts Bon Appétit while watching Boiling Point. Overall impression: 90%.

Projects by Guy Ritchie usually stand out for their playfulness and lightness, which this time has been replaced by straightforward action full of violence, testosterone, developed musculature, and a sullen gaze à la Sylvester Stallone on the face of Jason Statham. Although he is not usually cast by directors in roles of intellectuals, here his unchanging frosty expression is a bit of a shame. The simple story about a journey to get revenge wouldn't bother me if Ritchie hadn't made it into such a popcorn flick. Supermen who knock down six opponents with six shots from dozens of feet away belong in fairy tales that I don't appreciate. Additionally, I get the impression that the team of screenwriters did not do a good job in this case, and a few times I incredulously raised my eyebrows at the strange shortcut in the plot or the behavior of the characters. However, Ritchie is too good of a director to make an outright bad film, especially since this one appeared at just the right time after the forced fasting imposed by the COVID epidemic. Within the genre, it is clearly above average, and any fan of action spectacles can confidently add a fourth star to my overall impression of 60%.

An interesting, skillfully made attempt at a generational film, the acceptance or rejection of which largely depends on whether you are, or consider yourself to be, part of the generation that is the subject of the director's interest. Speaking of Joachim Trier, it is of course speculation on my part, but I would bet that he put a large part of himself into the character Axel. The unfortunate Axel is the character that I relate to the most in terms of age and life attitudes, and he is also the most sympathetic character. I consider his media battle with the assertive feminist to be the most entertaining and intellectually valuable moment of the film. The pleasant Renate Reinsve plays (for me) an unpleasant Julia because she is scattered and emotionally unstable, constantly searching for herself until the final credits. She represents a growing group of people who delay important life decisions for as long as possible, mainly because life on the increasingly economically suffocating but still damn rich West seems to offer (seemingly) endless opportunities and risk-free experimentation. Few people realize that this world and the life strategies that stem from it are irreversibly ending due to the ecological crisis and the unprecedentedly rapid transfer of wealth to emerging East Asia. The variety of topics that Joachim Trier presents in his film gives every viewer a chance to find "their own thing" among them. Overall impression: 75%.

I might be a heretic for it, but I will not join the large fan club of this film. I have, let's say, a reserved relationship towards Adam McKay's work, we don't understand each other, and Don't Look Up is unfortunately no exception. In my eyes, satire should be smart and sophisticated above all. However, this film is kneaded from the same material that it wants to make fun of. It is a pop culture comedy for viewers who are satisfied with little effort in character development, who want to have things served nicely, and, above all, who want to reinforce their view of the world. The film has such a strong cast that I was almost certain I would give it at least three stars, but in the last third, it really annoyed me. If there are comments comparing Don't Look Up to Wag the Dog, with the claim that Don't Look Up is superior, I see it the other way around. Wag the Dog defeats McKay's film not by one or two horse lengths, but at least by a whole stadium. Overall impression: 45%.

No, I will not throw out superlatives and I will remain significantly reserved in my evaluation. Some directors successfully fit the adaptation of a several hundred-page novel into a two-hour blockbuster, but Hamaguchi managed to stretch the adaptation of a short story one-tenth of the size into three hours. It took me three tries to watch the film and that's not a good sign. I constantly felt like I was watching a snail on vacation, not in a rush to get anywhere. The film drags on and even though it introduces interesting motifs regarding the artistic creative process and the psychological aspect of coping with the departure of a loved one, it really doesn't deserve a higher rating. Overall impression: 55%. I am horrified at the thought of how long the adaptation of a thick tome of a 19th-century Russian classic would stretch in the hands of this director.

Dune came to the film industry at the right time to support struggling movie theaters and generate interest in grand epic spectacles primarily designed for the big screen. For this category, the choice of the Canadian visionary as director is ideal, and it must be noted that Denis (not only) fulfilled expectations to a T. The film looks and does not function exactly as I anticipated. My relationship with the source material was shaped by my encounter with Lynch's Dune, which was very problematic even during filming and now, years later, looks painfully tacky and ridiculous. The motif of almost half-kilometer-long worms traversing the sand dunes and devouring giant mining machines is unbearable to me in any refined presentation, and above all, I generally do not have a liking for fantasy combined with caricature of the sci-fi genre. Spaceships and intricate machines combined with mysticism and magic, which infected and devalued a significant part of the sci-fi genre, irritate me, and I see the origin of this degeneration precisely in Dune. Unfortunately, I cannot praise Herbert for that. It is true that Dune is not Star Wars, at least not in the sense that the SW world is intended for a childlike and childish audience, whereas Dune aims to appeal primarily to more mature teenagers. But thanks to Villeneuve's top craftsmanship, it is possible to consider it the ideal family entertainment of the present. As I mentioned before, when a screenwriter presents me with a "voice" or "power," I turn the other way. I do not like the use of religious motifs such as the coming of the Savior. Additionally, Dune is clearly influenced by Islamic apocalypticism. My last complaint is that I do not like the cinematic world where elite super-fighters are attacked only to be subsequently massacred in personal combat by a hero who, mind you, is an ultra-super-cool fighter. So why the weak 4-star rating? Because I appreciate Villeneuve's ability to create monumental images and an equally monumental soundtrack, and I am a big fan of Villeneuve. Because I understand that world cinema needed Dune. Because going to the cinema this time was a social event for me in the form of having my daughter with me, whose enchantment with the film has somewhat transferred onto me. Overall impression: 70%, with the understanding that I will not be present for the sequel to Dune. It has nothing more to offer me, nor does it have anything to surprise me with.

When the screenwriter miraculously revives a dead character from the past and when you start to feel a certain repetitiveness and fatigue in the endless bloody shootouts between rival gangs in Naples, combined with the feeling that the number of dead is approaching Syrian civil war battles, it occurs to you that it may be time to end the series. Though it still works to some extent. The harsh and tough soundtrack, guys who just need to give you a fierce look to make you drop your wallet and run away in despair, charismatic villains with whom you experienced their victories and defeats in previous seasons. But in the fifth season, the approach of the screenwriter changed, maybe due to fatigue from the subject matter. He started playing strangely with his characters and it no longer adheres to elementary logic. Strange conflicts that make no sense, go against the interests of the actors, deny their psychological profile, and ultimately even the development in previous seasons. It was fine, but it's good to end on the highest note, and the fifth season falls a bit short. Overall impression: 65%.

A swamp is a simple metaphor for a society that has undergone several significant shocks in the 20th century, when, as one supporting character notes, one whore succeeded another. The filth needs to be drowned in the swamp, which is extensive and can accommodate a lot. The series is adept at capturing the atmosphere of the post-communist hangover and the chaos of the wild nineties, which the more cunning ones saw as a great opportunity to enrich themselves and had no problem eliminating obstacles by the most brutal means. 1997 is a solid and intriguing crime series, with the script being particularly noteworthy for skillfully intertwining the destinies of numerous characters and not being afraid to confront skeletons from Poland's past. Overall impression: 75%.

I have heard words of praise about Oriol Paulo's work, but for some reason, I hadn't watched any of it. The first two episodes were captivating and gave me the feeling that I was watching a scriptwriter's polished gem in the hands of a director who has a good sense for the genre and a perfectly studied understanding of modern thrillers. However, with each subsequent episode, doubts and sobering thoughts gradually began to creep in. The way Paulo works with characters, the transformations they go through, the challenges they have to face, and the (inevitably fatal) obstacles they must overcome, strikingly resemble the creation of Latin American soap operas, of course, on a completely different production and craftsmanship level. It's the same emotional manipulation, shocking and far-fetched twists, melodramatic elements built for effect, excessive complexity, and, last but not least, the same reliance on attractive faces and enticing bodies of actors of both genders. It must be noted that they are not limited to their attractive appearance, as the selected ensemble also delivers solid acting performances. If you don't mind the overall exaggeration and excessive plot twists, and you are capable of switching off your brain at the appropriate moments, The Innocent can provide you with an intoxicating experience. For me, three stars and an overall impression of 50% is a messy compromise between obvious craftsmanship and mediocre content. Paulo didn't offend me, but one look into his creative workshop was enough for me...