gudaulin

A psychologically charged crime drama that relies on a sophisticated screenplay and a cast led by Tim Roth. It's not so much a film about a brutal murder as it is a cat and mouse game, where until the very end, it's unclear who exactly is the mouse and who is the cat. The clash between two investigators and one suspect manages to sustain itself for the majority of the runtime with just one room and one lie detector. The drama is built on dialogue, camera work, and the outstanding performances of the three main male characters. Thanks to them, the chemistry between the adversaries works splendidly, and the film is strongest in those moments when their intellects clash. It's a film about lies and manipulation. The women in the film are not significant, not even Renée Zellweger gets much screen time, as the film was made before she became a recognized star. The problem is that similar thrillers are often overly sensationalized, they are simply constructed to shock the audience as much as possible, and the whole complicated game usually doesn't take into account several crucial details; in other words, the logic of the characters' actions is somewhat flawed, and the most brilliant plan doesn't account for the possibility that the victim might take a step aside. It's simply a Hollywood film that's better not to think too deeply about. The film's structure somewhat resembles the much more famous Basic Instinct, with the difference being that Sharon simply appealed more to the male audience than three brooding guys. The best actor on the screen for me was Chris Penn, who is, unfortunately, an underrated actor, but who managed to imbue his policeman with humanity and naivety at the same time. Overall impression: 60%.

Unrivaled best adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's novel. An exceptionally powerful film with an interesting theme, a clever screenplay, and a star-studded cast. For me, Nick Nolte delivers his best performance. The film, and maybe it's not worth adding the word "surprisingly", hopelessly failed on the American film market and was not particularly appreciated by film critics. It is a tragicomic story of a man who sacrificed his entire life, his past and future, and even his personal identity in the name of a higher purpose, namely victory in war, and ultimately paid for it with the irony of fate. Overall impression: 90%.

Dead Again is obviously an ambitious film directed by one of the most respected British film and theater creators, and as such, it is masterfully cast and competently acted. Kenneth Branagh was the life partner of Emma Thompson until their infamous divorce, and so the chemistry between the two main characters truly works. Unfortunately, the form clearly outweighs the content. The screenplay is overly complicated, with a tendency toward pathos, and Branagh fails to understand that today's era is more civilized than the Shakespearean one. Also, the mysterious content goes over my head and I don't really understand the reincarnation and playfulness with fate. The pathos is dominated by the theatrical bloody finale. Overall impression: 50%.

Decent, but too routine thriller relies on quality star cast led by Harrison Ford and professional, experienced direction by R. Zemeckis. Good entertainment at first glance, but I don't feel the need to revisit this film. In this case, I also disliked the combination of a criminal case with supernatural elements. Overall impression with squinted eyes: 70%.

Shadows in Paradise could be characterized as a "proletarian romance" - but only if that were true. It is definitely not a film about mutual love, and labeling the film as a romance either means not understanding the rules of the genre, or what happens between the central couple. I have a feeling that even the director himself was not clear about the protagonists he created and where their relationship was heading. Nikander is a fool, inexperienced, and clumsy in relationships. Kaurismäki later exaggerated this type of character into absurdity in a subsequent film. Ilona has a very practical approach to relationships and never reached a state of falling in love with Nikander during any phase of their "interaction." In the beginning, there was a desire to have fun, but later a pragmatic inclination toward someone who could and wanted to offer more. Unlike the naive and manipulable Nikander, the lover from the middle class did not change Ilona's social status. Therefore, the final scene cannot be perceived as a traditional happy ending, certainly not for Nikander. Kaurismäki has always been known for his economical dialogues. Either they did not work for him, or he underestimated them. Here, the dialogic minimalism combined with "naive" acting, which the director traditionally requires from his actors, leads to the characters appearing somewhat retarded or at least temporarily "out of it." Even the endless cigarette stubs (almost everyone smokes almost everywhere, similar to early Fassbinder films) now seem strangely unnatural. I classify the film as one of Kaurismäki's works that did not impress me but also did not disgust me, and my overall impression is 55%.

This is a film in which the director ventured into experimental territory and deviated from the usual intellectual conversations toward an atmospheric homage to old German expressionist films. In the film, the dialogues are not important, although there are a few decent moments here as well, for example, when the protagonist in the form of a nobody with a Jewish name approaches a priest and a police officer as authorities and they clearly engage in compiling a list of inconvenient individuals... On the contrary, the film focuses on playing with shadows, omnipresent fog, dark decorations, and mysterious characters emerging from the alleyways. The problem is that even though the film is teeming with stars, their utilization is very modest, and overall, Shadows and Fog falls into the category of films that evoke a lot of hope but fail to fulfill it over time. It lacks a proper dramatic arc, more humorous dialogues, and some meaningful culmination of individual scenes, as well as a stronger narrative for the main character. Overall impression: 55%.

This was undoubtedly a satirical gem for its time, mocking traditional conservative morality, hypocrisy associated with the protection of so-called honor, the dominant influence of the church, and the outdated Italian countryside lifestyle that corresponded to the social structure of the 19th century while Italy was living a consumerist life in the second half of the 20th century. Today, the film is somewhat outdated, not only because the storytelling pace has accelerated, but mainly because society, not only the Italian one, is completely different and facing completely different problems. Not only are divorces allowed in Italy today, but like elsewhere, they are so easy that it would be worth considering making them a bit more difficult and complicated for those who consider it a permanent party. If politicians have mistresses and get divorced without any reservations or the need to hide anything, it suggests that we may be too tolerant. In Germi's film, one must still appreciate the excellent performances, led by the slick and fashionable Marcello Mastroianni in the role of a nobleman going through a midlife crisis who wants to replace his worn-out wife. Overall impression: 75%.

Of all the creators of the French New Wave, I have watched the most from François Truffaut, and I also understand him the best. I have to say that within his work, Shoot the Piano Player does not represent anything significant, let alone a masterpiece. It is rather a plaything where the director tested the possibilities of combining several genres. While watching it, I felt that he mostly improvised and followed his current intuition. I don't see any order, well-thought-out, and coherent plan in it. Unfortunately, the script is far from perfect, and Truffaut's intentions were realized much more successfully in later decades by directors like the Coen brothers or the creators of modern multilayered TV series such as Better Call Saul or Breaking Bad. These creators are able to mix often seemingly contradictory genres more cleverly and effectively for the audience (without being cheap or superficial). Truffaut's experiment from the early 60s falls short by two classes. Truffaut's directing and the cast are interesting to me, but if the story doesn't absorb you and the characters are more or less irrelevant to you, you can't consider giving it a four-star rating. The selection of genres also harms the result. Truffaut truly didn't understand thrillers, and he should have avoided them altogether. What ultimately emerged will probably appeal much more to an art-house circle of viewers than to regular fans of genre productions. Overall impression: 60%.

I saw three essential Hallström films 15 years ago and I highly appreciated them. They were, after all, his showcase in the form of Chocolat and The Cider House Rules. Then I took a long break and now, with a significant time gap, it was time for The Shipping News, which, to put it kindly, leaves me puzzled. Hallström should have never gotten his hands on this material. It contradicts his nature and filmmaker vision. It is too sweet and sunny for a story set in the harsh nature of Newfoundland. It fails to work with the atmosphere and add the necessary elements of rawness and pain. The result is an insignificant "something" that evaporates from one's mind in a few hours. The protagonist, Quoyle, is one of those passive losers, whom I thought existed only in the world of Aki Kaurismäki's films. The catastrophic marriage (the end of which any reasonably sane man would welcome as liberation from hell) would fit more into the genre of a crazy comedy than a romantic drama. Quoyle is, in any case, a character to whom negative or positive things "happen." While I consider Kevin Spacey an excellent character actor, this is not the type of role that suits him. The cast is strong, but it can't save the unhealthy foundation. Overall impression: 40%.

I am struggling to find an adequate rating for Basov's series. Basically, any rating is possible because I have many objections. Naturally, we cannot avoid the necessary dose of propaganda while watching it, the black and white characters, the fact that the Soviet action elements, which are very rare here, are laughable, and we can end with the fact that furious female Nazis in the film are played by actresses with typical Slavic features, in which even a shortsighted person could reliably identify their Russian origin. The pace of storytelling and the characteristics of film language have, of course, fundamentally changed, but it is still interesting that even though the series is long, it contains a lot of nonsense and in the end, the individual characters and their adventures are depicted inadequately. The fragmented storytelling is also influenced by the large time span because the four-part series takes place in the entire first half of the 1940s. Overall impression: 35%. It is almost amusing how the official Soviet policy affects the series, with individual characters often declaiming the relevant political stances. It is an "international" series, intended for the market in the friendly countries of the Warsaw Pact, so the partisan unit is multinational and composed of members from countries with whom the Soviet Union had the best experiences. Due to the existence of the German Democratic Republic, a surprisingly large number of German anti-fascists appear in the series.