gudaulin

Wolf Hall describes events that are among the most well-known and frequently depicted in the history of medieval Europe, both in popular culture and in literary works. The reign of Henry VIII and his romantic affairs were, after all, a challenge even for Shakespeare himself. Wolf Hall offers a different perspective, as the creators of the series view the events at the royal court through the lens of one of the most interesting figures in English history - Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell, who was considered insignificant by the powerful feudal lords due to his humble origin, gradually rose to the top of the power ladder thanks to his extraordinary abilities, strong nerves, and political instincts. The casting of the main character greatly contributes to the series. Mark Rylance's portrayal of Cromwell is compelling and exudes authority and Rylance's minimalist acting style is perfectly suited for the role. Perhaps the best characterization of his Cromwell can be found in two brief dialogues: "What will you do now, Moore?" - "Write a lot and also pray." - "I recommend writing less and praying considerably more." And the second: "You are a capable man, Cromwell. It's a shame you're a Lutheran." - "Come now, I am a banker, after all." The series does not distort history and proves that great stories do not necessarily need to be twisted and embellished to fit the imaginations of Hollywood screenwriters. The production design is also a strong point, as it is definitely not a cheap production with poor visuals. Overall impression: 90%.

How many American films can you recall that start with a scene in a factory and their protagonists are workers, ordinary employees earning a living with their hands? American cinema is swarming with stories of white-collar workers, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen, but it has been rather stingy in mapping the destinies of blue-collar workers. The Deer Hunter is considered one of the three most significant movies about the Vietnam War, but I always perceived it much more as one of the few films about poor white men, the current supporters of President Trump. I will probably be one of the handful of film viewers who are more interested in the first part of the film devoted to a group of friends from a foundry, how they enjoy themselves after work and celebrate the wedding of one of them. The war part actually represents only a small portion of the film, and on top of that, it is the least successful one. Including drafted soldiers from the same locality in one unit may have been a practice of the American army, but the capture of the group of friends and their joint escape already reeks of typical cinematic opportunism. I don't harbor any illusions that the Vietnamese treated their captives with kid gloves, they had no reason to, but it seems unlikely to me that they would eliminate Americans so wastefully - they represented too valuable a commodity and a propagandistic trump card. The motif of Russian roulette apparently belongs to Southeast Asia soaked with gambling, but it seems nonsensical from a psychological perspective that it would be embraced by a soldier who has just survived frontline deployment and hit rock bottom. I would understand addiction, a propensity for violence, or the inability to reintegrate into the community, but this? The motif of Russian roulette always seemed artificial and significantly disruptive to me, Nick's alienation could have been described in a more realistic way. Ultimately, what stuck with me the most from the movie were a few impressive scenes from Saigon just before the fall of the regime and the stellar cast. However, I can't say that I associate it with any exceptional viewing experience. It will also be a problem for the average viewer to deal with its length and pace, as 183 minutes is truly a big chunk. I don't perceive The Deer Hunter as a war film but rather as a drama about a generation of American men whose youth was shaped or deformed by the war in Vietnam. Overall impression: 60%.

Fans of comic book blockbusters can rest assured. My sole star does not mean that they would be in any way deprived of a hefty portion of special effects, action, and adventure of their favorite heroes, presented undoubtedly on a decent craftsmanship level. My rating is mainly related to the fact that adaptations of superhero comics are a genre that I have a decidedly negative relationship with. I consider myself a rational person and prefer the scientific method when exploring the surrounding world. Superhero comics have always repelled me with their close connection to the sphere of paranormal mysticism. The exceptional abilities of superheroes stem from religious beliefs and their world is based on the idea of ritual supernatural forces. Scientific discoveries and technology usually serve as mere props, and the X-Men superheroes are much closer to pagan gods than to characters from my favorite sci-fi genre. So Superman and X-Men have a particularly hard time with me. If they still want to impress me, they must come up with significantly deeper psychology than what is customary in typical blockbusters (unfortunately, the psychology of the characters in X-Men: First Class is very shallow), and with fully developed characters (in First Class, even such crucial decisions as choosing sides on the barricades seem like the actors just flipped a coin). The director must come up with ingeniously structured storytelling (compare the incredibly polished intro of Snyder's Watchmen with Vaughn's First Class, which reeks of popcorn from afar). I understand that exaggeration is essential in the genre, but even here, I appreciate moderation and, to the extent possible, prefer adherence to natural laws. The final nail in the coffin is Vaughn's ability to cater to the needs of entertainment-hungry teenagers. He simply knows what to make for teenagers, but in my case, it's precisely the opposite and I simply do not belong to his target audience. Overall impression: 25%.

From Fargo, movie fans most often remember the human body disappearing into a wood chipper and the distinctive faces of the exemplary psychopaths and criminals played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare. The number of corpses that line the story, as well as Fargo's typical dark humor, invite comparisons to Tarantino's films. However, the Coen brothers have a different film technique. Their humor is not obvious, but rather clever and inclined towards biting irony. The Coens toy with the crime genre, but unlike Tarantino, it is not done for its own sake. They break conventions not for cheap audience effect, but to explore the possibilities of genre evolution and to shape the atmosphere. Scenes of shocking brutality are combined with comedy resulting from the fact that the main characters are not charismatic, brilliant criminals, but rather nobodies. When an inexperienced, ambitious weakling with average intelligence hires two brutes with the intelligence of horses to execute a kidnapping, it is no wonder that events quickly spiral out of control and descend into a terrifying disaster. Originally, it was supposed to be a precise and cleverly planned operation in the delusional mind of its creator. However, due to a series of coincidences and, above all, the incompetence of the protagonists, it turns into a bloody farce. The Coens build the atmosphere using contrasts. Behind the facade of bourgeois suburban family life lies envy, greed, and chronic dissatisfaction. The snowy white landscapes of Minnesota become stained red with blood. By the way, the portrayal of their homeland did not sit well with the residents of Minnesota, and they made that very clear to the Coens. I'm not saying that Fargo is the best Coen brothers’ piece, I would unequivocally place No Country for Old Men higher, but still, I have an itch to give it five stars. Fargo simply has a lot going for it. Overall impression: 85%.

Perfect Strangers starts as a light and enjoyable relationship comedy about a group of long-time friends who, along with their partners, come to a party wanting to forget their worries, reminisce about the past, and enjoy the lunar eclipse undisturbed by their kids. Playful banter and a relaxed atmosphere lead to a foolish idea of revealing their privacy (after all, they have nothing to hide from each other) and conducting their phone calls with the speaker on. The voices of dissenting parties are silenced - those who disagree have something to hide. Soon skeletons start coming out of the closet, characters are exposed, and communication begins to dangerously falter. Positive emotions are replaced by distrust and bitterness. The comedy subtly becomes a moralistic drama. It is accurate and true to life, but I feel that for this film it applies more than to others that you need to have some life experience to fully enjoy it. It is simply a film for the middle generation who knows what a mid-life crisis is. I liked both the comedic and dramatic aspects, and I also appreciated the civility of the performances and the fresh quality of the actors. It is a movie that I will definitely come back to in the future. Overall impression: 90%.

In Scanners, Cronenberg focuses on what has excited him since his debut: scientific research devoid of ethical barriers that can be dangerous to the whole world, and technologies that aim to "enhance" the mental and physical abilities of humans. The director is once again original, and provocative, and showcases himself in the position in which his fans have always loved him, that is, as a "deviant" with an exceptional talent for creating a unique atmosphere and unafraid to push the boundaries of the ordinary. The film deals with telepaths, who are the result of a side effect of a drug. Cronenberg views telepathy in the film as a direct connection between nervous systems and also as a flow of energy that is even compatible with computer data flow. In his interpretation, the Scanners are not only capable of influencing the behavior of the people they attack, but they can also physically destroy them and, following the example of cyberpunk, connect to computer systems without needing any connection. Scanners once had such an impact that the film required a (clearly weaker) sequel, and within Cronenberg's body of work, that film is among the more well-known. Personally, I remember most the presence of the prominent villain Michael Ironside in the role of the evil scanner Darryl Revok. Overall impression: 70%.

Hat's off to his! Afterimage is more than just a dignified farewell to the incredibly long, prolific, and successful creative career of the most significant Polish filmmaker Andrzej Wajda. The majority of his colleagues are unable to come close to what he managed to shoot at the age of 90 throughout their entire body of work. His last film belongs to the best he has ever made, even though it is apparent that at this age he no longer experimented and conservatively relied on what he knew. However, each shot reveals a filmmaker with a clear idea of what he wants and how to achieve it, capable of working with the language of film and, above all, capable of telling a story and conveying information about his characters through images. Wajda chose a subject that allowed him to present a strong, extraordinary personality of Polish history and at the same time confront, through this subject, the fact that he himself had dealt with the regime a bit in his youth. Unlike his protagonist, he did not confront the system, even though from the beginning he surpassed the local conditions and time. Wajda's portrayal of the 1940s and 1950s, when Stalinism gained maximum influence in Central Europe, is suggestive, perhaps also because he personally experienced that era. Poland from that time is portrayed by Wajda as inhospitable, full of oppressive atmosphere, with no place for optimism, only occasionally surviving defiance and islands of human solidarity. A separate chapter is the performance of Boguslaw Linda in the lead role. He delivered such a fantastic performance that you really feel like he actually had his limbs amputated for the sake of the role. I give it a solid 4 stars, knowing that I will still think a lot about whether to give Wajda the fifth star for his lifelong merits. He deserves it. Overall impression: 85%.

When Paterson premiered in movie theaters, I was experiencing a small biographical withdrawal and desperately looked around to satisfy my "craving" for a movie theater. Although the reviews, comments, and professional reviews were great, based on my own experience, Jarmusch belongs to a group of creators where this way of gathering information and forming an image of the film doesn't work because the director's cult distorts qualified debate. Personally, I divide Jarmusch's work into two groups. The first includes Dead Man or Night on Earth, and the second Only Lovers Left Alive. The second group openly bores me and evokes indifference; I would rather place Coffee and Cigarettes in the second group. The first two stories set my expectations at a freezing point. I wanted to give up, but fortunately, I knew that there would be better stories, like the dialogue of the sisters in the charming double role of Cate Blanchett. This dialogue is often used as an acting exercise in art schools. However, there are fewer of the more interesting stories and they cannot lift the whole to an average level. Jarmusch often works with banality and stereotype, but not in any innovative way. It's rather tiresome, and shallow, sometimes based solely on the presence of a celebrity, other times on a single joke that is stretched to several minutes and cannot fill the space. Several of the stories that have a point have essentially banal messages. That Jarmusch's numerous fan club probably considers it a discovery of America and so on, and is also fascinated by the static form based on repetition, is a different matter. Jarmusch often works with minimalism but here it sometimes borders on insulting the viewer. The only interesting thing about his movie for me is that he filmed a tobacco-infused film at the same time when tobacco was being rapidly pushed out of public spaces in the USA. Regardless of whether Jarmusch intended the film as a nostalgic reflection of past times or an artistic protest against the loss of a certain freedom and experience, I do not share his stance. Overall impression: 45%.

This is how I imagine the fulfillment of the phrase "digital plague." Peter Jackson is diligently stealing from himself and showing that in the name of financial gain, he is capable of sinking low. The first Hobbit film already showed all his weaknesses by padding the plot with filler, and the inability to lead the storyline meaningfully, and the third film just tops it all off. Those who like attractions will enjoy the films but towards the end, I only felt resignation and disgust. Overall impression: 40%. I don't know how Tolkien would react to The Lord of the Rings films, but this piece of crap would surely hurt him...

This could have been a great neorealist drama supported by the presence of great film stars, led by Alain Delon. It could have brought the audience closer to the difference between the lifestyle in the Italian countryside and in the industrial metropolis, as well as the contrast between the value system of the conservative Italian south and the liberal view of the world by the northerners. It could have if Visconti hadn't drowned it in sentiment, overacting, and disgustingly melodramatic sentimentality. I wonder what the truth is behind Italian temperament. I have seen a number of Italian movies where the characters behaved civilly and contrary to the common stereotypes we have about hot-blooded Italians. Here, I find the behavior of the characters strangely affected and exaggerated, and I have a similar problem with historical films by Akira Kurosawa. Where the film was supposed to emotionally climax, i.e., the confrontation between Simon and Nada, the overacting by the actors bothered me so much that the whole impression was ruined. I cannot forgive the traditional criticism of Visconti's repeated flaw, that is, the three-hour runtime. There is a lot that could have been edited out. I also disagree with Visconti's idealization and worship of the "unspoiled" countryside based on tradition and family ties, which he contrasts with the urban lifestyle. The defense of a peculiarly conceived honor, morality, and family cohesion is, in fact, the reason why the mafia and its regional mutations, clientelism, and corruption still thrive in Italy today. Overall impression: 45%. Once again, Luchino, you have not pleased me. I'm not going to please you either... But don't worry, this really is the last time.