gudaulin

Dexter is a series that relies on a charismatic character, and we have not seen this type of interesting serial killer with such a well-constructed and audience-appealing nature since the days of Doctor Lecter. The series has everything - tension, crimes, intrigues, passions, perversions, well-written typified characters, and a series of unexpected twists. It's a top-notch, cleverly structured commercial product that earns points primarily due to the atmosphere and Dexter's internally detached ironic commentary. Do you like cool entertainment, provocation, and deviation from the mainstream, but at the same time nothing that is profound and hard to digest? Give Dexter a watch. That is, assuming you don't mind the moral relativization that goes very far in the series. To understand, Dexter is a psychopath and a serial killer who is fortunate enough to work as a forensic investigator for the Miami police, and from his position, he has a unique opportunity to hide his tracks, regardless of his intimate knowledge of police methods. Apart from the two mentioned minor flaws, Dexter is a nice guy with good manners and a carefully maintained appearance, who sincerely serves the purpose of becoming normal, starting a family, and overcoming his handicap. At least he still adheres to the code - torturing and killing exclusively those who deserve it, i.e., criminals and immoral people. To make it even easier for the viewer, they are generally unsympathetic people, additionally shown in unfavorable situations - simply characters that you won't miss and won't sympathize with. Dexter's battles with underworld opponents are as thrilling as the knowledge that Dexter is treading on dangerous ground within the police district, and the screenwriter occasionally exposes him to dangerous tests. Granted, from a psychological standpoint, the concept of the character is absolutely nonsensical, and the resolution of the first season is insultingly stupid, or as if it was something out of a crazy parody. The successful plot is constantly recycled in all the seasons, and the series ends in the most banal way just when the audience is tired of it and its ratings are declining. Overall impression: 60%.

Some people criticize that the film is too naive and sentimental, that it has an unbelievable view of war, that it's typical Hollywood kitsch, and so on. We must realize that The Book Thief is a stylized spectacle, where we observe the horrors and cruelty of war and Nazi orders through the eyes of a child who approaches the threshold of adolescence and platonic love during the narration but does not cross it. There is a certain naivety and innocence that pertains to this age. The story is not particularly innovative, but the execution is fine, the director knows how to play with details and is able to work with chilling poetry in certain places. In addition, the cast is quite luxurious, Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson are among the best in their categories that film studios can hire, and even though I had a small problem with Sophie Nélisse, I cannot deny that she has a certain charm. Yes, the film wants to move you, but you don't have to be ashamed of being moved by it. If American studio productions were always like this, then we could congratulate ourselves. Overall impression: 75%.

Experienced viewers and television fans have long known that the most interesting offerings in recent years are usually not movies, but American TV series that defy typical commercial templates and set the bar of television productions very high. Even with the most famous and discussed shows, however, I felt a sense of manipulation and the presence of various tricks or cheap motifs. To increase viewership, they rely on various "cool" characters and unrealistic plots or moments. Breaking Bad is a series that works without these tricks, firmly staying grounded while remaining visually attractive. The story of an aging middle-class man worn down by family stereotypes with lots of debts and problems, who suddenly realizes that instead of a pension plan, he should have taken out a proper life insurance policy, and whose lifespan is suddenly not calculated in decades or years, fascinated me from the very first moment with its exceptional craftsmanship, from the outstanding performances, direction, and editing to the story itself and its ability to show real life and real problems of present-day America alongside the main storyline. Have you ever wondered how little it took for the fates of famous historical figures to take a completely different direction? Walter White was once an exceptional student and promising scientist with a great career ahead of him. In the end, he became a deeply indebted chemistry teacher at a meaningless high school and, at the same time, a man under the thumb of his dominant wife. Sudden illness and a medical examination bring him closer to the end of his life journey. Suddenly, he has nothing to lose, and the prospect of imminent death mobilizes his will, energy, and willingness to take risks. He witnesses a police raid on a drug lab and realizes that his creativity, intelligence, and determination could succeed and provide for his family in a world of uneducated criminals. He gradually loses his inhibitions and discovers previously unknown talents as a manipulator and a liar, climbing step by step in the hierarchy of the criminal underworld. He learns to navigate a world that was previously foreign to him, removing obstacles and being on the best path to becoming a legend in the eyes of both the underworld and the police. The old Walter remains only a shell, giving birth to Heisenberg, a cook of the highest-quality methamphetamine that drug addicts have ever had the chance to taste, and at the same time, a man who experiences the taste of power and what ambitions really mean. At the last moment, he tries to fulfill his dream of greatness without looking back at his surroundings. Breaking Bad is a great story of a person's moral downfall, an impressive and brilliantly written drama in which I fail to find any significant flaws in more than 60 episodes. It is an incredibly well-crafted ride where the quality of the script not only does not decline but tends to increase and culminates in a finale that is truly unforgettable. The scene where he tells his terrified wife with burning eyes, "I am not in danger, I am the danger," quickly became iconic within the realm of television production. Breaking Bad combines high artistic demands that satisfy the critical community with excellent entertainment for viewers. The series can be thrilling, darkly humorous, and always surprising. Furthermore, its strength lies in the fact that, unlike other works, it does not use relativizing morality, and it never trivializes the actions of its antiheroes or seeks excuses for them. It calls things by their proper names. Overall impression: 100%.

Some time ago, by pure chance, I watched the final episode of the trilogy and the result was 4 stars and a feeling of time well invested. Before Sunrise had an even higher rating on FilmBooster than the last part, and there were enthusiastic comments to be found as well. So, I invited my wife to watch it, thinking it would be a pleasant romance and a safe bet. After a while, I looked at her, and in her eyes, I didn't see desperation, but definitely disinterest and the unspoken words "I really don't want to watch this..." After a bit, she actually said, "Couldn't that train at least derail?" I myself felt that it wasn't right. I didn't have a problem with the fact that there was continuous talking in the movie. The problem lies in the quality of the dialogues, in their content and message. It's basically just babbling. True, young Julie Delpy is nice to look at, but that's actually all the movie can offer me. The power of thoughts and emotions is not present for me. The success of the film lies in the ability and willingness of the viewer to project their own memories of a first date and love into the meeting of the two travelers. But I have never been this sentimental. Before dawn doesn't affect me at all, and it seems too banal and empty. Overall impression: 40%.

I became aware of the existence of the series when I accidentally came across an enthusiastic comment comparing it to the successful series The Black Adder. Intrigued, I watched the first episode and encountered straightforward cheap humor, sometimes truly coarse. I quickly lost interest in continuing to watch because it doesn't come close to the qualities of The Black Adder. Provocative topics can be handled without resorting to vulgarity, it just takes sensitivity, the ability to stop in time, and to only imply and play with words and situational comedy. The truth is, even the aforementioned Black Adder was searching throughout the entire first series, but it was never bad. I give the overall impression of the first episode 25%, with the possibility that I might eventually find a star to add to it in the other episodes. But there are plenty of better works, so why waste time on this...

I've never been a big fan of movies with big attractions and effects and it's just something I'm not into. However, every now and then I let myself be enticed by dazzling visuals, as evidenced by my rating of the first Pirates of the Caribbean. However, I need a meaningful story and well-written characters for that. In the case of Mad Max: Fury Road, there is practically no story, the characters' motivations are, to put it mildly, weak, and the characters themselves serve only as tools for the director to shape an endless series of action scenes and evoke the simplest of emotions. They are mere controlling elements of the vehicles, ready to be attackers or victims for the entertainment of the audience. The mythos of the depicted world is highly reduced, and it is clear that the director does not expect anyone to ask questions or, God forbid, use their brain while watching his film. You would search in vain for any logical structure in the world depicted by him. While in the case of the new circus, there is a tendency to build a plot from uncomplicated acrobatic acts, to tell a story, and thus move towards theater and film art, Mad Max, on the other hand, operates on the principle of a classic circus performance. Here, the action genre has stripped away all impurities and exposed itself in its essence. Mad Max will be appreciated by viewers focused on dynamism and action, top-notch acrobatics, and choreography. For the target audience, the film can offer excellent camera work and clear editing, beautiful women, machines with powerful engines, and adrenaline. This is not nothing, and I understand that it can excite many male viewers. But I need a lot more for a film experience. Overall impression: 30%.

In the opening scene, the viewer witnesses two prisoners being escorted on an airplane to some prison. The men have bags over their heads and the leader of the escort tries to mentally break one of them and probably force him to confess. He opens the door and pulls the prisoner to his knees facing a bottomless pit that can scare not only those who suffer from a fear of heights. Automatically, I would expect the next step to be the removal of the bag, as otherwise, the act does not make sense. However, that does not happen. The purpose of that bag was not to disorient the prisoner but to surprise the guards and especially the viewer with a moment of revealing the prisoner's identity. In the world of Nolan's Batman trilogy, everything is done for immediate effect and you cannot find any logic or functionality in it. It was only here that I fully understood when it came to The Dark Knight why some people were irritated by the total brevity and stupidity of practically everyone on the set. I also agree with the sentiment that people don't know why The Joker was trying to bring chaos with his plans when in the end he is almost the only one whose actions make sense to some degree. All the others, Batman - the police, and the mafia - exhibit such a heap of insanity that cannot possibly come from a member of the Homo sapiens species equipped with self-preservation instincts. Something like that might belong in a comic book, but this is outwardly presented as a sophisticated detective story with elements of noir and psychological drama. Nolan does not spare any special effects and generously provides attractions, but in terms of content, there's not much to be ha. Batman Begins had the reputation of being a dark drama in which the comic had finally matured and successfully transferred the literary source to the real world. I don't fully agree with that, but I agree that the mentioned tendency was there and that it was an interesting step within the genre. The Dark Knight Rises is evidence that Nolan got stuck in a dead end when it came to grasping the material. It is pompous, megalomaniacal, and content-wise, excuse my language, stupid. Forget about any deeper psychology, this blockbuster only pretends to be mature and is about as good at it as little children playing mommy and daddy. I consider the last part to be unquestionably the weakest part of the trilogy, partly due to very problematic ideological starting points. Frank Miller, the author who has most influenced the current form and mythology of the Batman world, is known as a right-winger and represents a counterbalance to left-leaning anarchist authors like Alan Moore. However, here his individualism and contempt for "scum" has essentially become a manifesto for questioning democratic orders and for authoritarians like Spanish caudillo Franco and especially for General Pinochet, and for them, Batman would undoubtedly be an ideal movie hero and this piece would occupy a very honorable place in their film collections. Overall impression: 25%. If Dunkirk and The Prestige represent the peak of Nolan's work so far, then The Dark Knight Rises represents the bottom.

Mammon rode the wave of popularity of Scandinavian detective stories, but using the argument that it was introduced here or there to highlight its qualities is misleading. With the current inflation of television stations and other distribution channels, there is a huge demand for genre creation, and in every new project, the market wants to see a new The Bridge or The Killing. These undoubtedly represent screenwriting constructs; in the normal world, you won't encounter such sophisticated criminals and complicated branching cases. But they are cleverly written, with an understanding of human psychology, with corresponding motivations, and it doesn't grate or go overboard. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul convinced me some time ago that you can work with very unconventional radical characters and still make them feel believable if you put effort into the script. Mammon fails in the most fundamental aspect - it is poorly written. The concept is interesting, and the director works with proven thriller elements, but if the screenwriter relies on such obvious awkward transitions, commits such glaring logical somersaults, and piles up absurd coincidences, the result is lost. The screenwriter doesn't just need to write a sentence, they need to add an exclamation mark to it. The series lacks moderation and a sense of proportion. It is obvious that it is a mediocre work. Overall impression: 25%.

At the beginning of the 90s, Twin Peaks was a cultural shock and the first harbinger of the rise of the phenomenon of quality TV dramas. Frost and Lynch came up with the idea of combining the widely used format of soap operas with crime drama, turning all the previous principles of serial practice upside down and proving that television production can be done differently, i.e., cleverly and innovatively. The plot was no longer important to them; the murder of the student was bait for the audience to be lured into the maze of strangely fluctuating serial characters and the maze of relationships of the inhabitants of a strange small town. The success did not rely on the story, but on the characters, with whom the authors entertainingly played. The series gradually adopted elements of sitcoms and began to ironically criticize both genres from which it originated. Lynch was lucky when it came to his collaborators. The mysteriously sounding soundtrack by Angelo Badalamenti became a huge hit and a symbol of the series. Kyle MacLachlan, with his sympathetic talents and malleable acting, had no problem identifying with the philosophy of the series and passionately delivered the famous lines to his invisible secretary, Diane. The beautiful mysterious women with unpredictable behavior added an erotic dimension to Twin Peaks. The characters constantly surprised us. Outwardly positive characters carried the seeds of evil within themselves, unexpectedly showed their dark side, and fascinated us with their corruption. The intricate storytelling with many blind alleys, which did not burden itself with explanations and presenting information on a silver platter, attracted intellectuals to the television, who had previously scorned it. The screenwriters played with the viewers, mystified them, and diverted their attention to details that had no practical importance. Twin Peaks was at the forefront of a process that changed the rules of the game in television production and introduced cinematic aesthetics to it. Its success inspired many other television projects, and traces of Twin Peaks can be found practically everywhere today. The first season suited me perfectly and it was precisely this season that led me to discover the eccentric and crazy Lynch. Overall impression: 95%.

This two-part television thriller about the most famous criminal case investigated in Great Britain was created on the occasion of the centenary of the series of attacks by the mysterious Jack the Ripper. From today's perspective, when ambitious quality TV projects keep pace with filmmaking, it may not stand out as much, but in the second half of the 80s, it was a generously funded project that was intended to be a dignified tribute to this event. There is an evident effort to approach the subject matter as seriously as possible and at the same time create an atmospheric genre film with a socially critical subtext. Anyone who has ever dealt with the case of the London serial killer will not be too surprised by the choice of the perpetrator; his name has always been one of the debated ones in the case, and it is addressed in literary form, for example, in Alan Moore's successful comic novel "From Hell." Although the television film is by no means as multifaceted, it is not a work that tries to be a complete statement about Victorian England society, but as an unconventional detective story set in historical settings with a non-conformist protagonist surpassing the abilities of his surroundings, it holds up more than decently - undoubtedly thanks to Michael Caine's casting in the main role, because he couldn't act badly even if he wanted to. Overall impression: 80%.