gudaulin

To be honest, 2 stars are perhaps too luxurious a gift for a B-movie with a terrible screenplay and clumsy acting performances, but I will be accommodating today and will appreciate primarily the atmospheric music of my favorite Queen, led by Mercury, and a few impressive flashbacks to medieval Scotland. Nothing else holds up today, even though it is evident that this title greatly elevates the nostalgia of older users and the conformism of younger ones. Overall impression: 40%.

I watched this documentary on the recommendation of my colleague, who was shocked by Waiting for Superman and wanted to know my opinion on the issue. Well, the problem is real and urgent, but the way it is presented is quite American and more suitable for commercial television. It's not a coincidence that it appeared on TV. This type of documentary works more with emotions and tries to push storytelling everywhere at the expense of deeper analysis. I definitely can't label this film as trivial, but the way it is presented is disruptive to me. What Waiting for Superman tells me could have been expressed in a much more concise way with a one-hour runtime. Maybe more than the crisis of American education, which has long been known, I was intrigued by the differences in mentality among Americans. Certain excessive confidence or even arrogance is quite typical for their upbringing, and I was taken aback a few times. Overall impression: 60% for the topic.

Hadewijch can be exaggeratedly compared to Viagra. If the impotent men could get their arousal in the way that Bruno Dumont clumsily tries to tell his story, they could consider themselves cured. Hadewijch is exactly the reason why I avoid festival screenings, as such desperation is usually present in excessive amounts and people are not usually warned. I have no idea from the way Dumont directs his main character if Julie Sokolowski has any acting potential because her tormented character basically doesn't change. The idea of ​​confronting the religious zeal of a young Catholic girl and radical Muslims might not be bad, if Dumont didn't talk absolute nonsense. That's not how it works in real life and the whole plot is on very shaky ground. The characters have no depth and the whole film actually reminded me of the tormenting self-indulgence of religious fanatics. If I'd seen this in a movie theater, they would probably have removed me for inappropriate behavior. My only star is mainly for the potential that the material had. Conservative Catholicism has a lot in common with Islam and the wonderful supporters of both religions complement each other in certain life positions and resistance to secularism and liberalism. But unfortunately, this didn't fit into Dumont's construct. Overall impression: 20%.

Bobby is an informal name that suggests that its bearer was liked and had a close relationship with people. Unfortunately, this film is unable to convey this informality of the legend of American politics. The presidential candidate speaks to us only through his speeches, from which quite extensive passages have been selected. I have nothing against big ideas when they are presented in an unobtrusive way. However, here I felt as if the director was somewhat inspired by the famous Oprah Winfrey Show. I do not relate to this method of communication. In my opinion, it is both pathetic and soaked in ingratiating sentiment. The moving music, as the minutes went by, turned into torture. Bobby deserves one star for the idea of depicting the last hours before the assassination through a kaleidoscope of hotel guests and employees, thus using the method that Robert Altman made famous in the United States and another star for the stellar cast and their acting. On the other hand, I felt that some characters were unnecessary and I would like to learn more about others. Overall impression: 45%.

A (well-deserved) phenomenon was soon born from Breaking Bad. This is one of the rare cases where both critics and television viewers agree on the exceptional quality and appeal of the series. It was therefore logical that the producers would try to get the most out of the project. Because the fate of the main protagonist had been fulfilled, a spin-off became the solution. However, very few members of the criminal gang remained, whose life stories could be further developed. The solution then became a prequel. Attention focused on two characters who, with their charisma and intelligence, stood out from the one-dimensional criminals. Better Call Saul is not just the story of a seasoned lawyer who knows how to operate on the fringes of the law and can arrange things beyond the scope of standard legal services, but also that of police veteran Mike, a former top criminal investigator who decided to change sides and only play by his own rules. Better Call Saul reveals the mark of an experienced screenwriter right from the beginning, intentionally using elements and techniques proven in Breaking Bad. The cool characters, who are believable and placed in the real world, have a sense of absurdity, black humor, and knowledge of different levels of crime. The series is capable of offering what only true elite television works can. It does not romanticize crime, it does not belittle it, it does not simply reduce it to certain social environments and groups; it is analytical and reveals the functioning of the system. And yet, it is incredibly entertaining. However, despite all its qualities, Better Call Saul falls short of Breaking Bad. Saul Goodman's journey to success is complex and brings with it the bitterness of knowledge several times, but it is by no means as painful and revolutionary as Walter White's journey. Breaking Bad provided a great human story and a shocking transformation of character; it was fascinating to see how far a model citizen, caring husband, and father is willing to go on his path to the top of organized crime. He had to deal with extremely sensitive dilemmas and cope with extreme existential uncertainty, and all of this eluded Saul. For Breaking Bad enthusiasts, the series is enjoyable for the intimate nods from the creators to the audience, but at the same time, the element of surprise disappears. You simply know where it is inevitably heading and what price each character will pay. On the other hand, after three seasons, I unequivocally give it a thumbs up and say that it is top-notch work which, in reality, forms a cohesive whole with Breaking Bad. I'm now raising my review to five stars and a 90% overall impression.

From an artistic standpoint, it's just an average affair, a typical TV movie of which there are many, and there's no point in going into detail about the acting or directing. But as a fictionalized documentary of the painful history of the Balkan wars and a reminder of the largest war crime since the end of World War II, it works like a charm. Overall impression: 60%.

A typical American B-movie, which is based on an idea that is unacceptable to me. I have been in the industry long enough to have an idea of the path that an aspirant for constructing a nuclear bomb must take. Great and wealthy countries have failed at it, investing unimaginable resources and focusing large scientific teams, all auxiliary technology and logistics, toward a successful outcome. Iran has been trying to obtain a bomb for a few decades now, with one-tenth of the country's oil-soaked national budget going towards this activity. So far, it has been without any results. Dear Kim from Korea reached his goal after thirty years of effort, sacrificing a quarter of the national budget and the lives of millions of his fellow citizens during famines. Here, it's managed by one guy, who can easily construct several of these bombs. I know you'll say, he's an American and they can do anything. If he sacrifices a few more weekends, he will even build an intercontinental missile and threaten the whole world. Those guys are really good. Only an incorrigible dreamer can find some artistic value in it, so there remains a certain documentary value. The countdown functions as a reflection of the paranoia of a time that fell prey to the hysteria of the war on terrorism. I could give it 2 stars for its B-movie entertainment value, but I find its political and ideological message not at all sympathetic. Similar script premises, contemplating the justification of torture during interrogations, have appeared multiple times and in better form. The 1 star is for Samuel L. Jackson's consistently outstanding performance. His character carries with him a lot of demons and negative charisma. Overall impression: 25%.

Bibliotheque Pascal could be anything. A drama of a mother trying to find her way back to her child, a crazy surrealist game, a poetic comedy with fantastic elements, a crime story, or an erotic film about the bizarre world of sexual fetishism. It has the potential for many things and raises many expectations. However, the film fails to fulfill them. In the end, it is just a screenplay that is not fully developed, an interesting festival trick that shows how wide it can spread across genres. It resembles a billiard ball that innocently bounces off the edge of the table several times and eventually rests in the middle without energy, without successfully pocketing the ball. It is capable of appealing mainly to film fans for whom it is most important to distinguish themselves from mainstream audiences and to discover and decipher messages that are inaccessible to ordinary mortals. It is a strange film that sends a signal about its creator's ambitions more than anything else. If the only explanation for what is seen is the desire to see oneself in a better light and to excuse one's mistakes, then I have already seen much better films and better scripts on similar themes. Overall impression: 45%.

Hašek's Shweik is undoubtedly, in both its book and film form, a Czech national classic. An unpleasant characteristic of such a classic is the fact that everyone has a precise idea of how the film should be, which lines must be included in which scene, which actor is indispensable, and which scenes are crucial. The trouble is that the novel belongs to a handful of works that have crossed national borders and gained worldwide recognition. And therefore, it has caught the attention of foreign producers and directors. There is nothing more unjust than shooting down a film with a vague justification that it lacks an understanding of Czech mentality and realities. I quite enjoyed this Ukrainian-British animated version and consider it a pleasant variation of the world of the Good Soldier Schweik. Overall impression: 70%.

It doesn't often happen that I feel excited from the first shots of an opening and the initial tones of a ballad song accompanying intertwining images. With a series that rewrites the idea of what the detective genre and its protagonists should be and how they should function. The prevailing feeling while watching the series is uncertainty. It is felt not only by the confused detectives, who let the case slip through their fingers but also by the viewers, who are deprived of the usual support. What and who to believe when one of the investigators has a colorful drug past and an equally colorful alcoholic present, and the other is a testosterone-filled macho man who is never far from violence and has no problem hurting even his loved ones? Additionally, both are saturated with dirty pragmatism, which can only sprout in the destructive environment of the underworld of crime. The viewer sees too many contradictions between the depiction of the former policemen and the flashbacks that reveal their professional failures as former legends of the police force. True Detective is characterized by a sinister atmosphere supported by shots of gloomy swampy landscapes around the Mississippi. The series represents top craftsmanship in every aspect, starting with excellent camera work, through meticulous direction, to the animalistic acting of Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson. The series is not valuable for its plot, but for its sophisticated storytelling, playing with form, winking at the viewer, and openly playing with jokes in the seriousness of the situation, straddling genres - ultimately, it is more of an existential psychological drama than a crime story. Last but not least, the excellent portrayal of well-written characters - the cynical glosses of bitter Cole have the attractiveness of a black hole and the power of a supernova explosion. The series has an ideal length - it does not get lost in the narrative fog and does not lose its momentum in side plots like many genre-related projects do. Although it has a slow pace, it is able to incredibly intensify the tension. Perhaps only in the last two episodes, when evil begins to materialize and takes on a specific human face, does the overwhelming feeling disappear a bit. True Detective seemingly resembles the successful Scandinavian series, but those usually allow fo a certain scriptural construct. They take place in stabilized countries with functioning institutions and minimal crime rates. The clash of American detectives with human misery, the brutality of motorcycle gangs, and the slimy manipulativeness of sellers of religious phrases look uncomfortably realistic. I consider True Detective to be an absolute pinnacle in its genre category, a benchmark that Pizzolatto's followers and challengers will find very difficult to surpass. Overall impression: 95%. //// Season 2: When reviewing the first series, I wrote that it would be difficult for others, including Pizzolatto himself, to surpass it, and it doesn't make much sense to argue about which of the two previous seasons is better. The second one is completely different. Different protagonists, different crimes, different locations, and a different atmosphere. However, there are characteristics that connect both series and will likely be typical for future continuations, which we will undoubtedly see. We have the complicated psychology of the investigators, who are sometimes more preoccupied with battling their own demons than with fighting crime, and the intricately structured storytelling, in which the first season used different timeframes more, whereas this one focuses on different perspectives of multiple characters, who doubt and don't trust each other. Very interesting is the setting of the atmosphere, where the second season is dominated by sun-drenched California, where one can easily get lost in the desert and come to harm in the jungle of Los Angeles. Even the thousand-year-old sequoias play their role in the end. This change in atmosphere is best characterized by the opening scene, which is colorful, and sunny, and Cohen's rendition creates an atmosphere reminiscent of a city's erotic club. The most important thing is that the second season is just as good for me as the first one, and those who want to see a continuation of the first season with its protagonists and the Louisiana swamps may have a problem with it. Like in the first case, I feel like I'm watching one of the absolute peaks of genre television series creation. The performances are luxurious, and the actors are clearly happy to exceed the limits of the roles they have been cast in by casting agencies. Pizzolatto, just like the directors, clearly drew inspiration from the classic noir genre and did an excellent job. The central theme is ubiquitous corruption, the penetration of crime into government administration, and the tricky game with one's own conscience and coming to terms with one's own failures. The opening scene is one of the best ever created as an intro. Personally, I prefer it over the opening of the first season, although this is a matter of personal taste and choice. I don't need to change my overall impression. Keep up the good work, I'm looking forward to the third season.