Necrotongue

The White Lotus chain of hotels pleased me with its Sicilian resort because what could be funnier for a European than American tourists? The pilot episode had a much faster pace than the previous season's opening episode. I'm just not sure if the creators managed to create characters for the second time that would evoke my sympathy with their internal decay like last time. Well, I'll wait, see, rate, and review. / Lesson learned: The most significant difference between a sunset and a penis is their practical use.

Arvéd is clearly an artistic-philosophical film. I know that because I was bored heavily for at least ninety minutes. The only things worth praising are some of the performances. Everything else was utterly beyond me (similarly to the repeatedly mentioned Kafka). I don't need things to be spelled out; I'm happy to reflect upon a film's message. On the other hand, I don't like movies that the filmmakers make just for themselves and a narrow audience. By a narrow audience, I mean only the viewers who actually liked the film and got something out of it. I don't include all those who rate it highly just because they try to appear as intellectuals and art lovers. I am on the exact opposite side of the barricade; the screenplay and direction failed to hypnotize me despite the relentless repetition of the same. I don't express enthusiasm when I don't feel it, and if I look ignorant in front of others because of it, I'm happy to take on that role because I'm completely indifferent to it. The film evoked emotions in me only when I realized that I had lost two hours of my life. / Lesson learned: You can tell a perfect informant by their ability to be useful under any regime.

Topkapi felt somewhat outdated. The running time was too long for what the plot had to offer. The perfect Swiss plan was not complex enough to require so much time, and the creators decided to fill the gaps by showing the beauties of Istanbul and Turkish folklore, which I couldn't find it in me to appreciate. Instead of enjoying the clever tricks of seasoned thugs, I was sometimes brought to the edge of sleep. Credit goes to Peter Ustinov, whose performance was the only one I found entertaining throughout. 3*-

Well, this was...interesting. I don't know Emil Křižka, but his mental processes are odd, to say the least. So was this movie, to whose genres I would add psychological and horror. Seriously, this was such a weird film for Czech standards that I am still a bit taken aback. The atmosphere was great from the first seconds, and after a while, I got used to the unconventional storytelling with all the cunning time jumps. The screenwriter shrewdly avoided being accused of writing poor dialogue by hardly writing any. And despite the lack of verbal communication (or maybe because of it), the cast delivered performances I am not accustomed to in Czech movies. Štěpán Kozub and Pavla Gajdošíková were perfect, and the rest of the cast tried their best to keep up with them. I was sometimes even enthusiastic, and when I wasn't, I was at least satisfied. Satisfied and slightly disgusted, which was probably the goal of the director-screenwriter duo. Unconventional, unexpected, and excellent. / Lesson learned: Even knitting can be life-threatening. 4*+

Honestly, I was expecting another comedy disaster, and even though it definitely wasn't a film that I have the conscience to recommend to anyone, I had a surprisingly good time during certain moments. I'm just sorry that there weren't more of them. Finally, a Czech film that I didn't expect much from, which surprised me with its hilarious dialogue. It's great that Sandra Nováková knows how to make fun of herself and that she didn't spare Sylva. I enjoyed the submissive "yes man" played by Jakub Prachař; I enjoyed Jitka Čvančarová, whose arrival turned the three-room apartment into a two-room one. I also liked the father, played by Ondřej Pavelka, and I was surprised by how the whole cast overshadowed Hynek Čermák. Like it or not, I had to give it three stars because I laughed at the dialogue and liked watching Sylva think. / Lesson learned: Think twice before you sell.

What should I tell you? I wasn't as thrilled as Harry. I don't mean to say it was a bad movie. It's just that the story and its execution didn't really grab me. The premise wasn't very demanding. Still, if the creators had focused only on the insurance event, they could have made a comedy worth four stars. Walter Matthau was great in the role of Willie Gingrich, a generous advocate for single mothers, and stole the film for himself. By combining three different themes, the whole thing fell utterly flat. I had to cool down afterward to be able to give more than two stars. Walter Matthau's performance deserved more than that. / Lesson learned: Having a lawyer in the family is priceless.

The 1930s Britain was still the time of Victorian morality (which I find pretty small-minded), so I initially liked the unconventional teacher, although I had a few issues with her. Gradually, it became increasingly clear why schools need a curriculum. I am not saying teachers should not have their own opinions, but they should not vent their political or religious views on those who are easily influenced (especially when any internet nonsense can easily influence the teachers themselves; of course, this sentence does not apply to the time in which the film is set or to the time of its creation). Originally, I wanted to give it three stars because everything seemed somewhat disjointed, and the creators introduced more plot twists than necessary, but in the end, I think the little discomfort was worth it. And I was also pleased to see a young Maggie Smith, and Cowley was hilariously smitten:-) / Lesson learned: Admiration for dictators is often contagious.

Despite my high expectations, I was disappointed. The creators did not take advantage of the film's extensive running time to strive for historical accuracy (I understand that no one knows precisely how it was back then, but it was still possible to stick to specific reference points). They dedicated a significant amount of time to shots of children and older co-slaves in an apparent attempt to tug at the viewers' heartstrings. Due to these unnecessary digressions, Spartacus never actually becomes a gladiator in this movie, and the liberation of slaves is limited to exclamations of "Come with us!" and it all seems as if the slaves only perform their duties so that they wouldn't be bored all day. I felt like I was reading a book with occasional pages and even entire chapters missing. Plus, the Americans portrayed Spartacus as an idiot who openly confides in his enemies about his strategic goal for no legitimate reason (such as a knife to his throat or sensitive parts over an open fire). I understand that the film is pretty old, but I have recently seen some similarly old films that didn't feel as archaic. There were a few minor details I liked about the movie, but I found it mostly disappointing. / Lesson learned: If you're making a historical film, it's not enough to just remember a few names (although they are often complicated). 3*

I had a better time with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau than yesterday because the creators bet on eloquent dialogue and avoided sketchiness, which did a lot of good for the movie. Everything relied on the two protagonists, which was the movie's potential weakness. It would have been a problem if you didn't particularly like either of the two actors. Jack Lemmon is the kind of actor who can portray emotions extremely convincingly, but I feel differently about Walter Matthau. In some roles, I wouldn't trade him for anyone else, while I can't stand him in others. Luckily, Oscar Madison belonged to the first group. I enjoyed watching the cohabitation of this tough guy with the caring housekeeper Felix while fully understanding the life decisions of both their ex-partners. Although I didn't laugh out loud once during the movie, I had a smile on my face the whole time and enjoyed those great dialogues, so I didn't hesitate to give it four stars. / Lesson learned: A brown or a green sandwich? Choose wisely; the stakes are high.

I am very fond of chamber comedies based on stage plays, so I was looking forward to this one. Maybe too much. I enjoyed the theme, especially when it turned out that some practices in the journalistic industry have not changed much since the 1930s. The characters were excellently written and performed, but the overall execution occasionally fell short. Of course, I expect to laugh with a comedy, but this time, I felt the creators wanted to force laughter out of me. I have no idea why they pushed so hard at times, considering it was an experienced team from whom I wouldn't expect such a mistake. It was really unpleasant, and I would compare it to a not-that-loud but persistent and annoying sound that you almost stop noticing, but you still know it's there. This excessive effort, which at one point turned into a mediocre slapstick, truly disappointed me, spoiled my overall impression, and cost the film at least one star in my rating. / Lesson learned: If your work is your hobby, you risk becoming a workaholic.