gudaulin

Pignon is the name that screenwriter and director Francis Veber bestows upon his film protagonists on a whim, or perhaps for another reason with remarkable regularity. It is not a case of the same character, nor is it portrayed by a specific actor. What they have in common is perhaps a certain plebeian nature and humanity; they are not people at the top of the food chain. Pignon from the film The Dinner Game is one of those characters that one must be wary of. He is not a bad person and, in terms of intelligence quotient, he is not stupid either. However, he lacks what is known as social intelligence, social tact, and sensitivity. It cannot be said that he thinks slowly; rather, it is more accurate to say that he speaks too quickly and words precede thoughts with an iron regularity, going their own separate ways. When Pignon encounters a confident businessman played by Thierry Lhermitte, he quickly realizes that he has found an ideal victim who is capable of embarrassingly and entertainingly amusing the guests invited to the party. However, intentions change and circumstances unfold… Watching The Dinner Game, albeit after many years, has made me take away one star, but it still has its charm, and the entertainment value remains reliable. Overall impression: 75%.

I understand completely the reason for the phenomenal success of Casablanca during its premiere. Ingrid Bergman was a beautiful and respected star and Humphrey Bogart, who broke through just two years earlier, became desirable as a representative of tough charismatic men at the time of Casablanca's release due to the war. Casablanca combined exoticism, love, adventure, and wartime commitment, i.e., all ingredients appreciated by the audience of that time. It was part of the genre of popular melodrama, and the premiere was cleverly timed for February 1943, shortly after Churchill's and Roosevelt's Allied conference, when the city was in general awareness due to media interest. I no longer know what enchantment Casablanca holds today and I am simply immune to it. I see in it only an average period melodrama, where Hollywood screenwriters demonstrate their usual ignorance towards reality. The love triangle does not work because the relationship chemistry between Bergman alias Ilse Lund and both lovers is negligible, and one could say that it is the complete opposite of the couple Bogart and Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep, where the relationship chemistry worked perfectly. The only thing that can be appreciated with the benefit of hindsight is the relationship between Bogart's cynical bar owner Rick Blaine and the crafty police chief, played by Claude Rains. Their sparkling dialogues full of hidden meanings are a lively and decorative element of the film. Perhaps worth mentioning is also the rogue played by Peter Lorre. Everything else deserves to gather dust. Overall impression: 40%.

A Kafka theme in the Czech style and also a title that can be considered a symbol of the Czech New Wave. It is a medium-length film about a cat rental, the futile search for a man named Kilián, and life in a country full of absurdity, uncertainty, and fear. Last but not least, it is also a film about loneliness and a sense of alienation. Josef K. faced a trial, while Herold, the protagonist of the film story, only faced a fine of 30 crowns for not returning a borrowed cat. It's seemingly banal, but tension and nervousness can be felt in the events of the film. After all, in a country where people and institutions disappear and bureaucracy has power over people, losing a cat can have unforeseen consequences. There are also hints of criticism towards the cult of personality and Stalinism. You can perceive the character that needs support as an allegory and as a peculiar comedy (the sign in the cat rental says: "Misuse of borrowed cats is punishable. The consumer acknowledges that they are entitled to use the borrowed cats only for their own needs."). Some parts of the film could have been edited out, but overall, it is an interesting film reflection of the 1950s. Overall impression: 75%.

I have a mix of emotions regarding Petr Zelenka's distinctive films. Some of them have impressed me, while others have left me with an average impression. However, I have no problem admitting that Zelenka is one of the most interesting filmmakers that the lackluster Czech film scene currently possesses. I have never associated his name with any significant disappointment. Actually, I cannot speak of disappointment even now. Based on paradoxically enthusiastic responses, I didn't believe in the film, and my instinct did not let me down. Zelenka served me two films in one, but I don't get either of them and I conclude that they don't harmonize together at all. Although the author is inspired by the ideas of historian Jan Tesař, he interprets them in his own way. This time, Zelenka's mystification didn't entertain me; I felt a similar self-centeredness in it as I have perceived in the surrealistic performances of a certain Prague theater in the last two decades. Those people are also content with entertaining themselves and their fan club. Overall impression: 35%.

A film romance that relies on the names of two big actors in the lead roles. Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino deliver their decent (above average) standard, but they cannot elevate the project to sky-high heights on their own. In the first half, where the Greek restaurant setting and the vibrant characters of the employees and guests come to life, the film maintains a level of weaker 4 stars. In the second half, where the film shifts to a more intimate tone and the central duo starts to deal with their feelings, instead of escalating, the film starts to lose its momentum. The screenplay simply lacks the strength that it needs. Overall impression: 60%.

Several waves of scientific and technological revolution have significantly raised our average standard of living and allowed us to surround ourselves with interesting technological toys, but the development of society lags behind the capabilities of technology. We are still slaves to our emotions and our biological nature, facing very similar problems that previous generations had to deal with. Corruption, abuse of official positions, and populism appeared in the politics of ancient Rome and we still face them today. We continue to fall ill, age, and die; today, we strive to start families and succeed in the job market, i.e., to succeed in life. Black Mirror is a series that depicts people in the not-so-distant future, exploring where specific inventions can take us, how they will influence our lives, and how easily they can be misused. Technologies have no morality or ideology; it always depends on people how they handle them. However, because the creators of the series added the adjective "black" to that mirror, I think it is clear that skepticism prevails among them, and the visions of the future are disturbing and tuned in dark tones. Although some episodes contain elements of irony and comedy, it is a sarcastic and dark humor. While the quality of individual stories may vary, as a whole, I consider Black Mirror to be one of the most successful achievements in the field of television production in the sci-fi genre. Overall impression: 90%.

Many classic westerns have long since fallen into oblivion, but Zinnemann's film can be considered a classic that rightfully belongs in the golden treasury of world cinema. This western transcends its genre boundaries and moves more into the realm of psychological drama. It is a study of human nature, fear, courage, and responsibility. A dangerous criminal is released from prison, and his comrades rejoice and expect the return of old orders, the rule of violence and intimidation. The "decent" citizens are afraid and some consider leaving. Only one inhabitant of the town is prepared to defend himself and tries to awaken a collective spirit of resistance in others. In the film, you will experience far more dialogue than panoramic shots of the wilderness or bloody shootouts. Some fans of westerns have a problem with this film precisely because of the absence of the usual genre clichés, but I consider it a remarkable example of film craftsmanship. High Noon is interesting in that it takes place in real time, and as you watch the moving hands on the clock, the tension escalates, and everything is permeated with a sense of inevitability. The direction is interesting in other ways as well. Zinnemann wanted the film to look like a classic newsreel at first glance, with grainy images and inferior lighting. Again, there are those who find this spoils their idea of a movie spectacle, but I have no hesitation in awarding it an overall impression of 85%, with the caveat that I am not a fan of westerns. Otherwise, I would give it a fifth star.

The development or decline of a genre usually represents a long-term process that cannot be symbolized by a single title or the name of a creator. A certain exception is the classic western, which could have the premiere of the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance listed as its date of death on a potential monument. It's not that the western hasn't already been declining for a few years now, but this title perfectly captures its stiffness, exhaustion, and above all, inability to entertain. It doesn't help at all that a strong proven team, led by experienced director John Ford and acting legend John Wayne, participated in its production. The film cannot escape the trap of genre conventions, and its creators cannot convincingly and impressively break those conventions, even where they try to do so - like in the motif of shooting the villain Valance from an ambush and the unjustly earned fame of the hero for neutralizing the criminal. The film attacks the boundaries of absurdity when it pays homage to the American legal system and political system. Sergio Leone later contributed to the renaissance of the genre with his spaghetti westerns, bringing new ideas, energy, and playfulness to them. I recommend watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Leone's film The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in one day. That is the best way to see what is wrong with Ford's drama. Overall impression: 40%.

I'll begin somewhat venomously. It seems somewhat inappropriate to label Cate Shortland a young director, as she is still described in the biography on FilmBooster. At 48 years old, she should have much more extensive results in her work. Considering the condition of Australian cinema, only two feature films suggest that either her abilities are not that famous or that she is such a creative loner that producers are discouraged in advance. It is certain that her film Lore enchanted a significant part of the European festival audience, so the name Shortland has gained wider recognition beyond the closed bubble of the club audience. The film may seem too slow and distant to a wider range of viewers. At least the context is explained, and the film is shot subjectively from the perspective of the main character who tries to take her younger siblings to their grandmother on the other side of Germany after their father, involved in war crimes, escapes, and their mother is arrested by the occupying authorities. Unfortunately, I have to say that I wasn't impressed by Lore. I didn't have any issues understanding the plot or the fact that the production was low-budget, so there can be no talk of grandeur in any way. On the contrary, I take issue with the instructiveness of the screenplay - Lore's companion on her journey from the south to the north was a German Jew with whom the attitudes of a girl from a prominent Nazi family can be perfectly confronted. Moreover, he was a boy of suitable age with whom Lore could experience not only a certain ideological transformation but also an unconventional rough romance. At that time, millions of refugees, military personnel, captives, deserters, and prisoners were surging through Europe, and German Jews were a tiny fraction among them. For understandable reasons, only a handful survived the concentration camps, and they also arrived from a different direction - from the less fancy camps in the northeast. Moreover, they arrived much later than Lore's story takes place. Secondly, I also disliked the absence of a distinct film language. Compare Lore, for example, with the thematically related film Landscape After Battle or The Europa Trilogy by Lars von Trier, and it should be clear where there is talent and quality and what is average filmmaking. Making art also requires talent. Overall impression: 60%.

When looking back, the film doesn't seem as clever as it did while I was watching it. Its screenplay tempts us to expect some kind of mystifying twist, similar to Sexmission, and meanwhile... The film is interesting in that, during its runtime, it changes genres, similar to a chameleon changing colors. It's not about intertwining different genre elements, it simply functions as a pure horror for a while, then transforms into a psychological drama of an isolated group of people, later on it becomes an authentic science fiction, and elsewhere it turns into a thriller about encountering a deranged criminal. By the way, the main heroine is really unlucky. Ending up in the company of the biggest lunatic in the district after a serious car accident is not fair at all. All three actors deliver an appropriate performance. Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the role of a brave girl who doesn't want to sell her life for free is likable and appeals to me more than in a similarly constructed character in the prequel The Thing. The real treat, however, is the presence of John Goodman in the role of an eccentric property owner with peculiar hobbies. This is an immensely gratifying type of character and John Goodman thoroughly enjoys it. Although after the final quarter-hour, when 10 Cloverfield Lane definitively reveals its true colors and the illusion of sophistication dissolves, the impression slightly decreases, I will ultimately give it 4 stars, as no matter what genre it belongs to, it precisely provides the emotions it intends to. Overall impression: 75%.