gudaulin

If Happy End was filmed today, it would become a sensation and would tour a few festivals, eventually entering the Oscar race. There would be talk about it in superlatives and international feedback would surpass domestic praise. However, at the time of its premiere, the audiences in movie theaters rewarded it with polite disinterest and saw it more as a curiosity, without any significant reactions, and surprisingly, even the film critics let it fizzle out. In the following decades, it was not utilized by television either, so it remained hidden from the wider public for a long time. It is a clever playful experiment, where the story is told in reverse. It has finely crafted and coordinated dialogue that, when juxtaposed with the events on the screen, usually gains a secondary ironic meaning. The biggest mystery associated with Happy End for me is why I don't feel like giving this entertaining game of cruelly punished infidelity the highest rating. Overall impression: 85%.

The script just dusts off a real scandal that stirred the stagnant waters of American journalism a few years ago. The curious editor of an online newspaper was inspired to follow in the footsteps of a successful journalist from a prestigious magazine who had made a name for himself with a series of witty and captivating articles from an attractive environment and extract more material from his exposure. To his surprise, he discovered that his colleague from the industry had apparently "pulled the story out of thin air." Subsequent investigations revealed manipulation of facts and blatant lies in dozens of other cases, shaking the trust in the entire journalistic community. However, the film is not an analytical probe into the current state of affairs in American journalism, nor does it generally contemplate the question of journalistic ethics. It simply seeks to maximize the specific case and tell the story of an ambitious liar and manipulator who hides the pathological traits of his character behind the facade of a cheerful guy. A decent but not exceptional television film was created about the fact that it is good to trust, but from time to time it is also necessary to verify. Overall impression: 65%.

Recently, I visited a museum where I could admire ladies' dresses from leading tailor salons of the First Republic, which were intended for women from higher society. I say "could admire," but I didn't, because it was clear that the ravages of time had worked relentlessly not only on the faded colors but also on the once bold patterns and cuts. What used to dazzle is now just an item in the museum's inventory. I have a similar feeling about the early Bond films. The series about the unbeatable agent of Her Majesty has always been considered by me as a purely marginal part of cinema, and above all, the films from the 60s and 70s are fixed in my mind as museum exhibits. Bond films from the 90s started to become interesting with their sets, special effects, and action, but I only fully embraced their universe with the arrival of Daniel Craig - he became the first Bond whom I believed in as this invincible action hero. The trashy nature of From Russia with Love is evident, but not significant enough to make the film entertaining in and of itself. Some detachment is noticeable in the film, but it is not sufficient. It takes itself too seriously considering how naive the whole plot appears today and how clumsily it works in terms of the action. While I can choose from four genres in the film's header, the only one that would hold up today, namely comedy, is missing and unfortunately was not intended this way. I almost dozed off during the most dynamic action scene, the attack on the gypsy camp. I give the claim that Sean Connery is the only authentic Bond the same weight as the claim that little green men from Mars control us. Overall impression: 45%.

From the royal chambers and noble palaces, we move into the despair and filth of the trenches of World War I, where the Black Adder, as a cynical experienced professional of the British colonial army, tries to maneuver among the limited British officers who attempt to apply combat experiences from long-fought colonial wars of the past on the modern battlefield, facing the deadly German machinery on the other side of no man's land. The humor becomes even darker - such joking before the firing squad or just before an attack against the wall of enemy machine guns truly becomes gallows humor. Yet it is precisely thanks to the proximity of death that traditional light banter takes on a more serious tragicomic dimension. The final scene, where all the characters rise for a senseless attack and then through editing, the war-torn field, riddled with grenades, transforms into a meadow densely covered with red poppy flowers, is one of the strongest scenes I've ever seen in a sitcom. Overall impression: 95%.

In Belmondo's rich filmography, this is a title that film fans often accept with undisguised unease. There are actress chameleons who alternate between various types of roles and characters, but generally, directors seek suitable actor types and when the respective actors prove themselves, they are regularly cast in the corresponding roles. A successful TV role or genre film can easily become a curse for an ambitious actor. However, such associations suit the viewers, as they know in advance what they can expect from their favorites. Belmondo has been identified as the type of witty charming adventurer cast in criminal comedies, whether on the side of the law or the underworld. Belmondo's racing driver and criminal Ho does not differ so radically from the usual expectations. Besides the fact that his role is more civilian than viewers are accustomed to, there is another significant detail that sets Belmondo apart from the usual heroes - his character is not successful. He loses not only in his long-lost sporting career, but also in love, money, and freedom. That is something that viewers cannot forgive Belmondo for, which is reflected in their ratings and comments. The film shows how little is needed to create a legend and how little it takes to bring them down to earth. Belmondo has created an interesting study of a man who believed he was capable of more than what was expected of him. Overall impression: 75%.

In the film, three stars of French cinema came together, and the whole film exudes the ambition to shoot an impressive crime thriller in the spirit of the best traditions of French crime films. The introduction, combined with the arrival of the unpredictable fugitive Mickey, played by Gérard Depardieu in an animalistic manner, as a member of the new generation of a gang unrelated to the rules of the old underworld (we witness the unnecessary brutal murder of two police officers), is promising and seems to be a return to the gritty school of the 70s. However, soon false tones of sentimentality, strange character psychology, and unconvincing social criticism presented by an ambitious police officer creep into the film, and the good impression is gone. I can declare that I disagree with the behavior of some of the film's characters; here, the final actions of Montand and Depardieu are more of an enigma to me on a human level... Overall impression: 55%.

An intimate psychological drama depicting an uncompromising clash between a bigoted nun who seems to be stuck in the 19th century and a priest who acknowledges both the demands of the modern era for new ideas and methods and the fact that love for God should not be an obstacle to human relationships. The dispute is not only about the methods of pedagogical influence at the local church school and the interpretation of religious values but gradually evolves into deep personal antipathy by the nun, who begins to suspect that the priest's interest in one of her charges may not be as innocent as those around them think. Those who have no doubts can be more convincing, and therefore more successful, but some victories are Pyrrhic... The film's strength lies in its position, which leaves the viewer uncertain until the end - in other words, in doubt about what actually happened, as well as the emotionally powerful conflict between two distinct personalities, successful dialogue, and above all, exceptional acting by two major stars of contemporary American cinema. Overall impression: 90%.

The evaluation of Black Hawk Down has two levels. The first level is the technical aspects of the film, which are simply brilliant. Ridley Scott started the production of the film when he already had a long filmography behind him, and it shows in the result. This was made by an experienced top-notch craftsman who perfectly masters the camera work, sound, editing, directing the actors, and also has a very decent budget, resulting in a magnificent action shooter, one of the peaks of the action war genre. You literally feel the firing around you, bullets whizzing, holding your breath over dynamic battle shots. For this, Ridley receives 4 stars from me, because it is decent entertainment, no doubt about it. On the second level, I would like to say that Scott fails, but that would not be true. The film is missing another dimension - depth, what lies behind the facade of street fighting. And it is missing because Scott did not aim for something like that. He simply made a propaganda film about the heroism, determination, and self-sacrifice of American soldiers who defend the most humane goals and protect the local population from genocide on a foreign continent. Of course, the reality was much more complicated, and if it were not for so many human lives at stake, it would be reminiscent of a comedy. The American units were tasked in Somalia with nothing less than a demonstrative operation to capture General Aidid, the leader of the most powerful Somali clan. Aidid was an experienced veteran of wars in East Africa and as the head of the Secret Service, he cooperated with the Americans, with whom he had truly exceptional relationships. His son, as was quite common, studied in America, where he also obtained citizenship and became a military professional. As a volunteer, he applied for action in Somalia, where the Americans, enthusiastic about finally having an expert on local conditions with language skills, also engaged him. Nobody thought to verify their family ties, so the son, who was a member of the US Navy, was supposed to catch his own father. In reality, of course, General Aidid had a very good overview of what was happening, thanks to this bizarre situation, so the American units encountered strong resistance from a poorly-trained opponent armed only with light infantry weapons, but nevertheless determined and familiar with the terrain. Of course, due to the enormous material superiority, the ratio of African losses was many times greater, but given that euro-American public opinion is much more sensitive to losses, it could be clearly spoken of as a failure. The units were withdrawn, and General Aidid, who until then was losing the civil war and practically controlled only the capital, significantly strengthened himself and became the president. Many things that a thoughtful filmmaker could incorporate into the film, and which would be worth it, are simply missing. It would be worth asking where the captive arms dealer obtained the material with which he supplied Aidid's militiamen, and so on. But as I already mentioned, Scott is taking a different path. The result is a film that could be broadcast with positive responses anytime on Fox News station and that American recruiters could successfully show to those interested in joining the army. Overall impression: 75%.

The world of uneducated tough guys from the streets, who were destined for a career as pimps, drug dealers, bouncers, or thieves, and instead successfully started a music career and became famous rappers. The new position and self-confidence often became associated with old habits in the event of success, so the gentlemen appeared in public with a large security detail, adorned with gold chains, famous for their boastfulness, usually accompanied by black females dazzled by bling. Notorious does not stand out as a biographical film, nor as a drama, and not even as a representative of the music genre. It has significance for fans of black rap, specifically Christopher Wallace. Overall impression: 40%.

A charismatic serial killer is a safe bet for a movie. Kevin Costner no longer has the same status as he did in the 90s, and Mr. Brooks is one of the more promising attempts to return to the limelight. He convincingly plays his killer for pleasure, and if one villain wasn't enough, the screenwriter also uses the hallucinogenic alter ego of Mr. Brooks in a stylish performance by William Hurt. The dialogue of the main character with his uncompromising and straightforward self is ultimately the most interesting part of the whole movie. The script is somewhat overdone, but what can you do, in today's inflation of movie titles, you simply have to grab attention somehow. The biggest disadvantage for Mr. Brooks is the absence of an opponent at his level - unfortunately, Demi Moore is not that. Not so much because of her dull acting, but rather because of the script, which doesn't give her as much space and opportunity. Overall impression: 60%.