gudaulin

From the very beginning, I have always said that the foundation of a film is the script. The Silent One, however, is a rare case where directorial and acting dedication can work wonders and turn a typical B-movie storyline into a great story and a powerful drama. Lino Ventura gets caught in the midst of a clash between secret services in Eastern and Western Europe and soon becomes a pawn in his own country. His paranoia reaches its peak, but those who expect the worst are usually prepared for anything. And as it is known, fortune favors the prepared. The Silent One is a dark and suspenseful film, where I willingly overlook the obvious flaws in the script. Among other things, it involves a whole army of spies capable of organizing an assassination at a moment's notice. Fortunately, reality was somewhat different even during the height of the Cold War. I also overlook the almost operatic unveiling of the villains and ultimately give the film the highest rating. Overall impression: 90%.

The world of secret services, complex conspiracies, masonic lodges, and organizations operating in a sphere that dislikes unwanted eyes. The world of secret couriers, agents, informants, executioners, and their victims. One mistake, one unfortunate case of mistaken identity, and a witness who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to have much fun. Instead of fear of torture or death, they face fear of the unknown and get entangled in a strange labyrinth of incomprehensible intrigues, peculiar relationships, and conspiracies. Lino Ventura, who is sparing in his expression, is convincing even in this somewhat atypical role. However, I have a problem with the screenplay, which, in my opinion, succumbs too much to purposeless enigmatic elements. Moreover, Deray as director is not the best choice for having an absurd dark Kafkaesque atmosphere. Overall impression: 65%.

An interrogation of a witness, who possesses the gift of artistic talent, gradually transforms into a comic journey into French history. Under the strokes of the illustrator, not only the spirit of the 1968 revolt comes to life, but also memories of long-lost crimes, attacks, adrenaline-charged chases with the police, memories of lost love, and the botched life of a man who once made a wrong choice and paid a high price. In any case, it is an interesting combination of live-action film and comic media. Overall impression: 75%. This is a film that counts on attentive viewers.

To fully enjoy Lucas's film, I would have to be a few years younger, or a few years older. It is a film about American teenagers for American teenagers. There is no sensitive exploration into their lives. Fast cars, aimless wandering, first love experiences, and boys' rivalry - in short, the usual offer for this age category. This piece from overseas really doesn't have a lot of depth. If I give it 3 stars, it's only because of the enjoyable soundtrack, which features quite famous tracks, some of which can be considered part of the golden age of pop music. Overall impression: 60%.

Recently, I visited a bookstore and after some hesitant wandering between the shelves, I surprised the staff with a question about the sci-fi section of books. They directed me to shelves that were abundantly filled with titles and images full of magic, dragons, witches, and vampires. This is a logical consequence of long-term development, where the interest of readers and viewers has shifted in favor of fantasy, which doesn't burden the brain as much and is usually more entertaining. Fairy tales have always been popular. Sci-fi titles are produced very rarely, and the sci-fi genre is usually just a disguise for horror, western, or comedy set in a sci-fi backdrop. Thanks to Interstellar, I got the feeling of a genre renaissance because we finally got a pure sci-fi spectacle without magic, mysticism, and mythology. Simply science fiction as traditionally understood. Science, the struggle with nature and oneself, and humans relying on technology. Moreover, in the case of Interstellar, the film is a typical blockbuster where a large budget allows for a grand spectacle with top-notch special effects and a star-studded cast. Not only sci-fi fans can experience large doses of emotions during the journey through a black hole, landing on alien planets, and traveling through interstellar space. The film can be considered a kind of continuation of Stanley Kubrick's legacy, with a touch of Steven Spielberg. Personally, I was bothered by a certain amount of unnecessary pathos and emotional manipulation of the viewer, as well as the overly contrived positive ending, because for me, the story could have ended 20 minutes earlier. Yet despite all my reservations, I don't have anything to compare it to, or which film to use as an example for Nolan. This simply stands out in a very obvious way over the last decade. It is one of the few cases where a blockbuster produced by a major studio breaks free from the traditional pattern of fairy tale storytelling for a family audience and becomes an adult film. Overall impression: 90%.

I saw Platoon for the first time during its premiere back in the late 80s during totalitarianism. Oliver Stone, known as a left-wing activist and anti-war advocate, was considered to be the guarantor of the film's ideological independence, so the otherwise vigilant censorship slept on this occasion, and perhaps it was even intentionally done by the translator, who was pushing the boundaries of what was possible during perestroika. In the middle of the screening of an otherwise serious war drama, the deafening laughter of the audience began to echo through the hall. This happened because of the memorable line after the seizure of an abandoned Vietnamese bunker when an American marine reports: "There's nothing here, just four Czechoslovak machine guns." Today, it sounds like a banality, but back then, the fact that, per capita and in terms of GDP, Czechs belonged to the largest producers and exporters of weapons was a strict social taboo. Stone had only a short but personal experience with the Vietnam conflict, and unlike his colleagues, he artistically restrained himself and aimed to present the most authentic account of the Vietnam conflict. He had his acting team run around a tropical jungle on a Pacific island for three weeks, under the guidance of a Vietnam War veteran, who also had a small role in the film. Stone was striving for the maximum depiction of the conflict and, within this effort, he downplayed the main significance of this character. Although the idealistic newcomer goes through a baptism of fire and matures over time spent with the unit, the real collective hero becomes his platoon. The darker dimension is represented by Sergeant Barnes, a skilled warrior, and his patriotic humanistic counterpart, Sergeant Elias. The film does not have a linear narrative; it is divided into several war episodes with combat engagements and marches. Stone alternates the pace, slow and strenuous movements, and stressful patrols in the middle of the nocturnal jungle, which instantly turns into a bloody night battle. Stone shows how thin the line between heroism and war crimes can be, how ideals fall apart in an intense atmosphere, and how easily a drug epidemic spreads. For me, it is one of the best war films that I am always happy to revisit. Overall impression: 95%.

Fellini's alter ego is bitterly reflected in the film: "I had the impression that I had something to say. Something very simple. I wanted to make a film that would be useful to everyone." The trouble is that at the end of the screening, the viewer may come up with another line that will also be heard: "I have nothing to say at all, but I'll say it anyway." With the passage of years, it is clear that a significant part of Fellini's work was actually about himself, his life, his ideas, and his problems. Fascination with himself is clearly felt in every shot of 8½. Fellini was going through a creative crisis at the time, groping helplessly over how to make the material he intended to shoot. So, he took a step aside, and out of necessity, a film about a director was born, who - well, you can guess. Writing and shooting about oneself is easy. You have first-hand information, and you don't have to compromise or argue with the screenwriter. Fellini does look at himself with irony, but also no longer with distance. The film is about a creator who is admired, an artist who is the center of attention, and this aphrodisiac of fame is something he is already used to and enjoys. The famous Italian director has never been fond of editing, and it must be recognized that only a madman could edit himself. The result was exhausting for me, and soon, the pantheon of characters around the genius began to annoy me and despite my best efforts, I couldn't finish 8½ in one go - it took me two evenings. There was no catharsis at the end, but rather a feeling of relief that I finally got through it. Sadly, I can't give Fellini more than two stars. Besides – he had more than enough fun with himself. Overall impression: 40%.

For a sympathetic misanthrope, a life skeptic who prioritizes reason over emotions, and a stubborn atheist, this film represents the same symbol as a concentration camp for human rights defenders. With eyes widened in horror, I watched the influx of positive energy, love, and divine grace. I felt like a cowboy who, after a tiresome anabasis in the Midwest while herding cattle, comes to Kolaloka bar instead of the Trigger Whiskey Saloon, where I was served by members of the Salvation Army and preached to about God's grace. And it could have been worse. The more luck, love, and miracles condensed on the screen, the stronger the feeling grew in me that a dance festival was taking place on my testicles and Hannibal Lecter was toying with the rest of my body. With the closing credits, I felt relief like a traveler in the Sahara when they see an oasis in the distance. Overall impression: 25% for the acting.

I still don't know if heaven exists even after 93 minutes of Pialat's film. But I have no doubt that hell exists. I felt it every minute I spent with this creation, and I deeply, truly deeply, regret it. For Gérard Depardieu from the time when he was still in shape and basically at the peak of his creative career, Sandrine Bonnaire at an age when one understands why she became a favorite of French directors, I give one star. The rest of it speaks a different language that I partly understand, but those parts annoy me even more than the rest. In one scene, Sandrine says to Gérard that they have nothing to say to each other. The same applies to the movie and to me. Overall impression: 20%.

Under this uncertain title is a film that allows us to trace how the approach to film material changes in different environments and over time. Today, the same film would probably contain an environmental appeal. Shots of deforested hills, with the remains of former proud forest giants sadly reaching toward the sky, chainsaws and heavy machinery, which complete the work of destruction in a place where virgin nature and impenetrable jungle were not long ago, all contribute to the environmental perspective and condemnation of industrial civilization. In the film, giant logs fall to the ground and an unpleasant feeling arises from the clearings, but Paul Newman evidently pays tribute to the hard and dangerous masculine work of lumberjacks, which exacts a cruel toll. The beginning of the 70s simply did not take some things into account. European cinema would portray a group of lumberjacks in an unfavorable light as selfish strikebreakers who disrupt the principle of solidarity, while the American film comes across as a defense of traditional American individualism, perseverance, determination, and the ability to cope with adversity. In addition to taking place in a significantly atypical environment for American cinema, the film also offers top-notch acting, masculine characters, and a star-studded cast. Overall impression: 80%.