gudaulin

At first glance, Flickering Lights fall into the category of so-called "Tarantino" films, i.e., films imitating the success of Pulp Fiction and Tarantino's directorial style, which relies on violence presented as entertainment and bizarre underworld characters. All of this can be found in Anders Thomas Jensenn's film, but because he is a European filmmaker, his approach is very different from what we are accustomed to from American productions. Rather than a comedy, it is more of a psychological film with a crime theme and numerous comedic elements, which explores the phenomenon of friendship, specifically male friendship. Even though an experienced viewer will understand the direction the film is heading in and the likely outcome, especially when the quartet of thieves arrives at the dilapidated inn, the way the director works with the characters and how they reach their goals was interesting to me. At the moment when a relaxed scene comes, setting a comedic atmosphere, a divergence occurs, redirecting the plot elsewhere. The entire film revolves around male characters, whether it be the quartet of criminals and their underworld adversaries or the eccentric neighbors. Overall impression: 75%.

A morality play that derives its decent rating from a provocative theme, but a theme isn't everything, and the scriptwriter and director neglected to give their play an appropriate and credible framework. Many things are out of place. Despite its relatively short runtime, it feels like a muddled TV production, lacking attention to detail. Even if I overlook the incomplete script, such a theme might be more successful in the Anglo-American environment, which emphasizes classic family values for socially engaged individuals and does not forgive infidelity of public figures. In our pragmatically Czech environment, infidelity is seen as a personal matter, as evidenced by the reactions to the infidelities of our leading politicians. Overall impression: 40%.

I have a reserved attitude toward guaranteed blockbusters that the film community considers serious contenders for the best film of the year. I usually prefer films outside the mainstream and am often enthused by a true film outsider. However, in the case of Gran Torino, I have to admit that it is a very decent melodrama, where Clint Eastwood has capitalized on his extensive experience in directing and acting. It's not that the old good Clint is such a great director, but he is rather a very high-quality and reliable craftsman who knows his limits well and steers his film into waters where he feels at home. His character is actually a direct continuation of his most popular protagonists, i.e., the headhunters from old Sergio Leone westerns and, above all, the tough inspector Harry Callahan. Add 40 years to Callahan and you have the grumpy retiree and devotee of true American values, Walt Kowalski. The plot is predictable for most of the runtime and its message is clear to any slightly experienced viewer after a few minutes, but Eastwood manages to enrich his film with a series of pleasant, audience-friendly scenes, such as the initiation of an Asian teenager into the language of real men or amusing multi-ethnic clashes between the grumpy American and his Asian neighbors. Where the director maintains a tragicomic tone, his story and performance are believable and highly sympathetic. However, when elements of a fateful drama and self-sacrifice creep in, the film teeters on the edge of self-parody - for example, the moment when the nearly 80-year-old man with cancer-ridden lungs knocks down a member of a criminal gang three generations younger. Generally, Clint Eastwood's films and his characters are indeed the perfect essences of the purest American values, and his films should be obligatory screenings at Republican Party conventions. They include firearms, a tough cowboy attitude, outspoken patriotism, and social conservatism. However, if the director can lighten and complement them with, for instance, a parody of political correctness, when he and his old friend from the barbershop make subtle jokes about their nationalities, it is not only digestible but also good. Overall impression: 80%.

Here we have a burnt-out man who spends most of his time being an engineer and is only interested in his work. He is drained, incapable of deeper emotions, and, due to excessive self-control and by being uptight, he is unable to share friendships with anyone and bitterly perceives his small popularity among colleagues. Then something happens that changes his previous life, and thanks to a chance encounter, he once again feels joy in life. Excellent performances by both main actors and a clever script are the main benefits of this unpretentious independent film. Overall impression: 90%. I feel close to the main character - hopefully not by our nature - but we do work in the same industry. :-)

I have never really liked films by Mel Brooks because my sense of humor is simply set differently. On the other hand, the film received a few awards, including an Oscar for the screenplay, and the reviews and comments were very decent, so I eventually invested in The Producers. Although I acknowledge that it is Brooks' best film, I certainly didn't go crazy about it. Honestly speaking, it is the only film where I didn't roll my eyes at the humor used in moments when I felt it was slipping into awkwardness. The most valuable thing is the idea itself, but its execution tends to get lost in it. I miss that refined word humor of someone like Francis Veber and truly clever gags. With the exception of Gene Wilder, the actors in the lead roles didn't sit well with me either. However, I think there was potential here and it would have been interesting if a specialist in comedies had filmed a remake based on a quality screenplay. I haven't seen the new version of this film yet, but according to reviews, it is weaker. Overall impression: 55%.

This is one of those early Woody Allen comedies that is bursting with energy and a huge supply of various catchphrases and gags. In terms of the compactness of all the film's components, it may not be his best work, but for the torrent of humor, irony, and exaggeration, I can't go below an overall impression of 90%. Woody Allen may not understand sci-fi, but that's not important at all because the backdrop of the future world for him is only a starting point for situational and verbal humor. It is one of those films where I still carry a number of scenes and phrases in my memory, and when I need to get in the right mood, I think about them.

In the film, it is evident that Ray Liotta tailored it to himself after his career took a downward trend and agents offered him only repetitive and uninteresting roles. He doesn't act poorly, but his best performance is still the released prisoner character in the film Control. In this crime film, the manually shot digital camera and editing are worth noting, but the script boils down to ingredients that are notoriously well-known and have been seen many times. I simply don't get an overall impression of more than 60%, even despite the relatively impressive ending and plenty of stylish characters from the underworld and police officers.

It wasn't great when it was made because Stanley Donen just casually switched from romantic comedies and musicals to sci-fi - his field is simply elsewhere and he doesn't understand the genre's principles. Not that it's a downright bad movie, it's just unengaging and simply boring. I'd rather watch entertaining trash than a dedicated effort that leads nowhere. It could get two stars, but the film's sets have also become outdated, which is typical for films without any impact, so nowadays it's only worth one star and an overall impression of 25%. The only positive aspect is perhaps the charming Fawcett, but she seems more like a decoration.

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days is exactly the type of film that collects stars for its theme and main character. That character is a true resistance fighter executed for anti-Nazi activities. Although I liked the film as a whole, I had and still have a feeling of a certain schematic approach and view of Sophie Scholl. I have no problem with Julia Jentsch's performance, rather with what the script prescribes her. For the overwhelming majority of the film's runtime, her character is simply brave, never stepping out of character, and except for two moments, does not show her emotions, even though she is in a hopeless situation and is facing the worst. She almost always smiles and reacts very quickly to the interrogator's verbal attacks. I read several real stories of resistance fighters and their trials in Nazi prisons, at the Gestapo, in German courts, and later in concentration camps. The Gestapo and the state court in Berlin represented very well-functioning machinery that aimed to break and destroy those being judged. Of course, it was not always necessary to physically torture the interrogated, sometimes they confessed voluntarily. The methods were similar throughout the Reich and physical punishments, threats, and various forms of torture were never far away. For Scholl to dare to give an educational lecture to her interrogator on the advantages of democracy and the sins of Nazi Germany, and later to do the same, albeit on a smaller scale, to the notorious Roland Freisler as the head of the state court, seems highly unlikely to me, although I am not familiar with the details of the trial of The White Rose. However, the People's Court in Berlin was able to break even very tough opponents, among other things, experienced war commanders collapsed under Freisler's roar during the trial of Hitler's assassins or communist resistance fighters accustomed to long years of illegality and hard conspiracy. In short, the film seems a bit too cliché and predictable to me. Overall impression: 65%.

Vantage Point has such dynamic direction that I momentarily forgot about my prejudices toward action movies and even considered giving it five stars. But as the minutes went by, the simplicity of the film started to surface, with the script piling up one cliché after another and logical holes appearing in the plot. The moment when the kidnapped American president bravely started fighting with terrorists ultimately led me to give it a mere three stars. Nevertheless, it's not below average, as the film has a fast pace and offers a number of thrilling scenes. Overall impression: 65%.