gudaulin

I liked this film as a child, as it was one of the genres I grew up with, but when I returned to film years later, I realized that I had moved on and that this style of humor didn't appeal to me that much anymore. However, for fans of classic comedy, it is undoubtedly a great choice. Overall impression: 55%.

A typical three-star American mainstream comedy that includes a few successful gags and relies on several stars, led by the popular Jim Carrey. He carries the movie to a large extent with his extravagance and facial expressions, while Téa Leoni merely plays along appropriately. It's decent for one viewing, but I certainly don't intend to watch it again. Overall impression: 55%.

Belle is a perfect example of a contrasting film that presents the viewer with dual aspects. The first aspect showcases highly professional production values with a strong cast and corresponding performances, excellent set design, and overall well-executed craftsmanship of the project. The second, less sympathetic aspect of the film is its perfect predictability, which can be likened to a primitive children's puzzle. A new character appears, and you immediately assign them the appropriate role - that's the lecherous seducer, that's the devoted admirer with a pure heart who leads the heroine to the altar, and so on. Practically never making a mistake, the film's script could easily be written by even you, as practically nothing in it can surprise or astonish you. Three stars are as good as guaranteed, and I can even imagine a fourth star for fans of Emily Watson or Tom Wilkinson. Overall impression: 60%.

In its time, it was possibly the most controversial film, and that is saying something because it was the 1970s, full of wild antics and echoes of the sexual revolution, with the invasion of pornography into the public space. Fierce debates between guardians of morality, for whom Salo was the devil, and those who considered the same film to be the pinnacle of tormenting art to which contemporary critics simply did not measure up, filled all media outlets, and censorship even got involved. With the passage of time, Pasolini's final film no longer impresses me as something worth arguing about, nor is it a shock or surprise. Pigsty already convinced me that if Pasolini's final films deserve any attribute, it is unfortunately the word "boring." From my perspective, 120 Days of Sodom can be considered a perfect artistic failure. Just compare it to Klimov's masterpiece Come and See, where the filmmaker does not shy away from brutal shots, but they fit organically into the narrative, only make up a small part of the runtime, are never gratuitous, and yet have a devastating emotional impact. Klimov often only hints at things and works with the viewer's imagination and expectations. Pasolini is embarrassingly literal, static, and unoriginal. Furthermore, someone with a complicated and, dare I say, distorted sexuality should not have worked on this similar subject. It is practically impossible not to notice how often the camera satisfies Pasolini's homosexual desires and fantasies. Such a sensitive and demanding theme would have to be handled by someone bold, yet artistically exceptionally talented. I can think of Haneke or Lars von Trier, for example. The majority of Salo is filled with tedious, boring, and irrelevant stories of young women or pseudo-intellectual ramblings of the four owners of the human circus. Pasolini couldn't secure the presence of quality actors, which is especially evident in the fascist bosses who seem to have come out of some slightly artistically disguising soft porn, and their sliminess borders on caricature, sometimes even crosses it. Only in the last five minutes, when unusually brutal scenes of violence occur even for a jaded viewer, is Pasolini able to grab one's attention, but unfortunately in a manner that is far too cheap. Overall impression: 10% for the theme.

The first half an hour looks very promising and will probably intrigue you in anticipation of a dark conspiracy thriller. However, as the minutes go by and Edward Dmytryk reveals more than necessary, and especially when it takes a naive direction, you realize that you will only give it stars for the presence of the legendary Gregory Peck and out of politeness. Although the film was made in the mid-60s, it feels like it's at least 15 years older. The ponderousness and naivety of the villains are sometimes even amusing. There is no reason to waste time with Mirage today and pay too much attention to it. Overall impression: 45%.

The Adventures of Tintin is brought down by its comic book source with the central hero, who, in my opinion, lacks charisma and earns no sympathy from me. I completely missed out on the comic book series, even when I was part of the target age group. On the other hand, it is necessary to acknowledge Steven Spielberg for making the most out of the limited space offered by the comic book world and creating a typical Indiana Jones-like adventure ride, lightened by plenty of clever jokes and crazy action stunts. However, Indiana Jones has a big advantage in terms of the main character - a likable adventurer with a careless appearance and definitely not perfect, whereas Tintin, with his slick hairstyle, simply lacks spark and is rather boring. In comparison to Indiana Jones, the supporting characters are generally not interesting, except for the perpetually alcohol-soaked captain and his villainous adversary. Truth be told, the story itself doesn't have the potential to captivate the audience, but then again, we have Spielberg's amazing ability to enchant mainly male audiences of all ages with an adventurous spectacle, which makes even old dads gladly return to their early teenage years when they devoured cheap paperback books with eye-catching covers. We also have Spielberg's traditional professional perfectionism and the generous budget afforded by previous commercial hits. The result is a very decent and, within the current pop culture, highly above-average commercial spectacle, essentially an action blockbuster for the whole family. Furthermore, Spielberg understands the possibilities of animated film and knows how to work magic with both the camera and computers, adding a dimension to the traditional Indiana Jones stunts that are only possible in an animated film. Spielberg, at the same time, indulges his viewers a little by including references to his previous famous works. Try to guess who his Moroccan emir resembles, for example. I may not come back to Tintin anytime soon, but of all the highly anticipated animated blockbusters this year, it appealed to me the most and unquestionably surpassed films like Rango and many others. Overall impression: 85%.

The title of the film may evoke an adventure spectacle, but it would have worked much better if it had focused on the relationship between two close friends, disrupted by the entrance of a beautiful woman, and their long-tested friendship was put to an unexpected test. The story about a wreck at the bottom of the ocean and a clash with a gang of foreign mercenaries is artificially attached to the plot, and the crucial meeting on a romantic island is poorly directed. Joanna Shimkus in the role of a fateful woman doesn't showcase much acting skill, as she is a typical case of a model who sold her charms in her youth to then marry advantageously and disappear from the world of cinema. What works completely, however, is the presence of two giants of French cinema, Ventura and Delon. Overall impression: 60%.

The Addams Family shows the better side of the American studio system, i.e., the ability to gather and utilize a sufficiently large budget to create an alternative fairy tale world filled with bizarre props, fantastic sets, and audience-pleasing gimmicks. At the same time, also the ability to attract notable actors and make a film without compromises - by that, I mean compromises that would arise from limited technical resources. Unlike many others, this film has not noticeably aged, even though it is evident that the producer aimed at a family audience, so it simply isn't as provocative, sarcastic, and darkly humorous as it could have been if it didn't take into account the child audience. But that is naturally my problem, as I am no longer a child or a teenager. From my perspective, it's definitely not a perfect 4-star movie but this time I will round up in a positive direction because children's eyes would definitely see it differently. Overall impression: 70%.

I understand the boundless enthusiasm of film fans and I understand that it is almost a duty to give Day for Night 5 stars, but I don't have any obligations and I avoid them in every possible way. This film represents a tribute to the world of film studios and all enthusiasts who have dedicated their lives to cinema. It exudes an uncritical fascination with the glamour of film and is essentially a unilaterally positive journey into the world in front of and behind the camera, where even the death of one of the crew members is not a tragedy but a part of life and work, presented with a sense of humor. However, I get the feeling that making a film is primarily hard work and stress, not just a continuous happening, and the problems are far from comedic. Truffaut's film certainly has a number of great moments, but it also has average passages, and I do not consider it the best in his career. It's simply the theme that caters to film fans that catapulted it to such heights. Overall impression: 80%.

Yves Angelo cannot deny his original profession as a cameraman and the whole film is characterized by beautiful compositions, whether it be a battlefield, the streets of old Paris, or the interiors of old bourgeois houses. Just the opening nearly eight-minute scene of a field covered in corpses with the moaning of wounded soldiers, exhausted faces with strained features who have just survived their deaths, is a perfect example of the chaos of war. Even though this is not a war film but rather a historical drama with a romantic motif, very few war films can provide such a suggestive depiction of military craft. The film has an outstanding cast, with Gérard Depardieu showing why he became a star and an acting legend, and his animalistic officer, who grew up in poor conditions only to return to them after a catastrophic turn of events, is incredibly convincing. Fanny Ardant, on the other hand, plays a beautiful bitch who knows how to use her charms, intelligence, and social status to achieve her goals. And among them, Fabrice Luchini is an exceptional lawyer, who seemingly cannot be surprised by anything anymore yet is shocked by the fascinating life story with an improbable twist. This is how I imagine an adaptation of a literary classic. A lavish film that does not drown in and does not attempt to shock with special effects but focuses on the story and portrayal of the setting. Overall impression: 90%.