gudaulin

This is one in a long series of films that attempt to convey the horror of the Holocaust to contemporary audiences. However, I certainly didn't feel like I was having an exceptional cinematic experience. Some of the reservations mentioned in the comments have a real basis. The film is a bit rough in places and some scenes look unnatural, and yet the foundation, i.e., the drama of people condemned to death, who are herded into cattle cars and die of thirst in tropical heat, still functions. The incident with the spilled bucket, the small dramas resulting from a lack of personal space, and clinging to futile hopes, are all powerful moments that make the film function decently, and the cast is certainly not bad. The film is most harmed by the fact that it was produced in a German setting and tries to justify the idea that many Germans thought differently and tried to "help and protect" however they could despite the repulsive nature of Nazism. That is why there is a scene where German soldiers returning from the eastern front share their supplies with a Jewish transport and even come into conflict with the guarding SS officers, risking a shootout with their commander. Anyone who has any idea about the intense indoctrination of anti-Semitism that the Wehrmacht was subjected to, the strong tradition of anti-Semitism even before the fascists came to power, the extent to which units in the east were involved in war crimes, the level of identification with the regime that existed in the army, and the draconian punishments for any cooperation with the enemy, can only laugh at such fantasy. Especially when they realize the strict discipline that service in the Wehrmacht demanded and the privileged position that the SS units held. No, not even my fondness for Dana Vávrová will lead me to give it four stars. Overall impression: 65%.

I admit that I don't like activists for their one-dimensional view of complex issues. Activism, at the very least, flattens and hinders discussion; I simply look at its expressions with suspicion. However, I don't primarily blame Fruitvale Station for its activist stances and emotional manipulation; the film simply falls into the category of engaged cinema. Although I somewhat identify with its goals, I also note that I haven't seen a title for a long time that so blatantly owed its victory in the festival battle to its subject matter. It is simply too unexciting and unremarkable, lacking emphasis and provocativeness, an incorrect rebellion in the style of Spike Lee. I don't find any directorial or screenwriting mastery here either. I'm giving three stars this time more out of courtesy and for the subject matter. Overall impression: 50%.

An excellently written drama that raises very uncomfortable questions about morality, responsibility, guilt, and punishment. It is shortly after the Second World War and the Danish coast is infested with a huge number of mines. No one wants to risk the worst possible outcome while disposing of them, and the logical consequence is to call on prisoners of war. The soldier in charge of supervising the unit has no reason to be lenient towards the Germans - in fact, he wants to repay them for years of humiliation and suffering with interest. But at the end of the war, there were no experienced war veterans on the Jutland Peninsula, and the collapsing German Reich needed battle-ready men on critical sections of the front. To one soldier's surprise, he finds himself in charge of a group of young boys in military uniforms. His determination to humiliate and crush the prisoners begins to crack. The culprits of the war and the defeated side are clear, but how severe should the punishment be and who exactly should be guilty of paying it is no longer so clear. Land of Mine is a film that humanizes the enemy by showing their faces. It stands in opposition to the ancient eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality. At the same time, at the time when the story takes place, European countries were dealing with the problem of collaboration and minorities composed of members of defeated nations. Where passions could be tamed from the beginning and efforts for retaliation could be curbed, and where a stop to moral depravity was declared, they ultimately fared much better and resisted the allure of political radicalism. On the other hand, it is good to look at events and problems from all sides and to understand the motives of the supervisor, I would recommend watching films like The Pianist, Come and See, or Son of Saul. Overall impression: 95%.

All of us have our own ideas about happiness and contentment, but not everyone can fulfill them. Adam lives in a poor and turbulent Central African country, but fate has been kind to him for a long time. He had a decently paid job that was also his hobby, and his family was doing well. But happiness cannot last forever, and one day Adam loses his job. He loses his social status and, above all, the purpose of his life. What is he willing to pay to maintain his position? The price may seem acceptable, especially if someone else pays it. But the consequences of our decisions and actions sometimes catch up with us unexpectedly and hit us in the most sensitive spot... I really wouldn't want to bear Adam's burden. A Screaming Man is an intimate low-budget arthouse film where you have to deal with a slower pace, but emotionally it is a strong experience. Overall impression: 80%.

Dexter is a series that relies on a charismatic character, and we have not seen this type of interesting serial killer with such a well-constructed and audience-appealing nature since the days of Doctor Lecter. The series has everything - tension, crimes, intrigues, passions, perversions, well-written typified characters, and a series of unexpected twists. It's a top-notch, cleverly structured commercial product that earns points primarily due to the atmosphere and Dexter's internally detached ironic commentary. Do you like cool entertainment, provocation, and deviation from the mainstream, but at the same time nothing that is profound and hard to digest? Give Dexter a watch. That is, assuming you don't mind the moral relativization that goes very far in the series. To understand, Dexter is a psychopath and a serial killer who is fortunate enough to work as a forensic investigator for the Miami police, and from his position, he has a unique opportunity to hide his tracks, regardless of his intimate knowledge of police methods. Apart from the two mentioned minor flaws, Dexter is a nice guy with good manners and a carefully maintained appearance, who sincerely serves the purpose of becoming normal, starting a family, and overcoming his handicap. At least he still adheres to the code - torturing and killing exclusively those who deserve it, i.e., criminals and immoral people. To make it even easier for the viewer, they are generally unsympathetic people, additionally shown in unfavorable situations - simply characters that you won't miss and won't sympathize with. Dexter's battles with underworld opponents are as thrilling as the knowledge that Dexter is treading on dangerous ground within the police district, and the screenwriter occasionally exposes him to dangerous tests. Granted, from a psychological standpoint, the concept of the character is absolutely nonsensical, and the resolution of the first season is insultingly stupid, or as if it was something out of a crazy parody. The successful plot is constantly recycled in all the seasons, and the series ends in the most banal way just when the audience is tired of it and its ratings are declining. Overall impression: 60%.

Some people criticize that the film is too naive and sentimental, that it has an unbelievable view of war, that it's typical Hollywood kitsch, and so on. We must realize that The Book Thief is a stylized spectacle, where we observe the horrors and cruelty of war and Nazi orders through the eyes of a child who approaches the threshold of adolescence and platonic love during the narration but does not cross it. There is a certain naivety and innocence that pertains to this age. The story is not particularly innovative, but the execution is fine, the director knows how to play with details and is able to work with chilling poetry in certain places. In addition, the cast is quite luxurious, Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson are among the best in their categories that film studios can hire, and even though I had a small problem with Sophie Nélisse, I cannot deny that she has a certain charm. Yes, the film wants to move you, but you don't have to be ashamed of being moved by it. If American studio productions were always like this, then we could congratulate ourselves. Overall impression: 75%.

Experienced viewers and television fans have long known that the most interesting offerings in recent years are usually not movies, but American TV series that defy typical commercial templates and set the bar of television productions very high. Even with the most famous and discussed shows, however, I felt a sense of manipulation and the presence of various tricks or cheap motifs. To increase viewership, they rely on various "cool" characters and unrealistic plots or moments. Breaking Bad is a series that works without these tricks, firmly staying grounded while remaining visually attractive. The story of an aging middle-class man worn down by family stereotypes with lots of debts and problems, who suddenly realizes that instead of a pension plan, he should have taken out a proper life insurance policy, and whose lifespan is suddenly not calculated in decades or years, fascinated me from the very first moment with its exceptional craftsmanship, from the outstanding performances, direction, and editing to the story itself and its ability to show real life and real problems of present-day America alongside the main storyline. Have you ever wondered how little it took for the fates of famous historical figures to take a completely different direction? Walter White was once an exceptional student and promising scientist with a great career ahead of him. In the end, he became a deeply indebted chemistry teacher at a meaningless high school and, at the same time, a man under the thumb of his dominant wife. Sudden illness and a medical examination bring him closer to the end of his life journey. Suddenly, he has nothing to lose, and the prospect of imminent death mobilizes his will, energy, and willingness to take risks. He witnesses a police raid on a drug lab and realizes that his creativity, intelligence, and determination could succeed and provide for his family in a world of uneducated criminals. He gradually loses his inhibitions and discovers previously unknown talents as a manipulator and a liar, climbing step by step in the hierarchy of the criminal underworld. He learns to navigate a world that was previously foreign to him, removing obstacles and being on the best path to becoming a legend in the eyes of both the underworld and the police. The old Walter remains only a shell, giving birth to Heisenberg, a cook of the highest-quality methamphetamine that drug addicts have ever had the chance to taste, and at the same time, a man who experiences the taste of power and what ambitions really mean. At the last moment, he tries to fulfill his dream of greatness without looking back at his surroundings. Breaking Bad is a great story of a person's moral downfall, an impressive and brilliantly written drama in which I fail to find any significant flaws in more than 60 episodes. It is an incredibly well-crafted ride where the quality of the script not only does not decline but tends to increase and culminates in a finale that is truly unforgettable. The scene where he tells his terrified wife with burning eyes, "I am not in danger, I am the danger," quickly became iconic within the realm of television production. Breaking Bad combines high artistic demands that satisfy the critical community with excellent entertainment for viewers. The series can be thrilling, darkly humorous, and always surprising. Furthermore, its strength lies in the fact that, unlike other works, it does not use relativizing morality, and it never trivializes the actions of its antiheroes or seeks excuses for them. It calls things by their proper names. Overall impression: 100%.

Some time ago, by pure chance, I watched the final episode of the trilogy and the result was 4 stars and a feeling of time well invested. Before Sunrise had an even higher rating on FilmBooster than the last part, and there were enthusiastic comments to be found as well. So, I invited my wife to watch it, thinking it would be a pleasant romance and a safe bet. After a while, I looked at her, and in her eyes, I didn't see desperation, but definitely disinterest and the unspoken words "I really don't want to watch this..." After a bit, she actually said, "Couldn't that train at least derail?" I myself felt that it wasn't right. I didn't have a problem with the fact that there was continuous talking in the movie. The problem lies in the quality of the dialogues, in their content and message. It's basically just babbling. True, young Julie Delpy is nice to look at, but that's actually all the movie can offer me. The power of thoughts and emotions is not present for me. The success of the film lies in the ability and willingness of the viewer to project their own memories of a first date and love into the meeting of the two travelers. But I have never been this sentimental. Before dawn doesn't affect me at all, and it seems too banal and empty. Overall impression: 40%.

I became aware of the existence of the series when I accidentally came across an enthusiastic comment comparing it to the successful series The Black Adder. Intrigued, I watched the first episode and encountered straightforward cheap humor, sometimes truly coarse. I quickly lost interest in continuing to watch because it doesn't come close to the qualities of The Black Adder. Provocative topics can be handled without resorting to vulgarity, it just takes sensitivity, the ability to stop in time, and to only imply and play with words and situational comedy. The truth is, even the aforementioned Black Adder was searching throughout the entire first series, but it was never bad. I give the overall impression of the first episode 25%, with the possibility that I might eventually find a star to add to it in the other episodes. But there are plenty of better works, so why waste time on this...

I've never been a big fan of movies with big attractions and effects and it's just something I'm not into. However, every now and then I let myself be enticed by dazzling visuals, as evidenced by my rating of the first Pirates of the Caribbean. However, I need a meaningful story and well-written characters for that. In the case of Mad Max: Fury Road, there is practically no story, the characters' motivations are, to put it mildly, weak, and the characters themselves serve only as tools for the director to shape an endless series of action scenes and evoke the simplest of emotions. They are mere controlling elements of the vehicles, ready to be attackers or victims for the entertainment of the audience. The mythos of the depicted world is highly reduced, and it is clear that the director does not expect anyone to ask questions or, God forbid, use their brain while watching his film. You would search in vain for any logical structure in the world depicted by him. While in the case of the new circus, there is a tendency to build a plot from uncomplicated acrobatic acts, to tell a story, and thus move towards theater and film art, Mad Max, on the other hand, operates on the principle of a classic circus performance. Here, the action genre has stripped away all impurities and exposed itself in its essence. Mad Max will be appreciated by viewers focused on dynamism and action, top-notch acrobatics, and choreography. For the target audience, the film can offer excellent camera work and clear editing, beautiful women, machines with powerful engines, and adrenaline. This is not nothing, and I understand that it can excite many male viewers. But I need a lot more for a film experience. Overall impression: 30%.