gudaulin

Some comments compare this film to Eastwood's much more famous film Gran Torino. The characters of both pensioners who have decided to stand against injustice and stop the rampage of a criminal gang somewhat suggest this, but personally, I consider the thematic similarity of the two films misleading. This British film develops the tradition of stories about a lonely avenger who takes justice into his own hands and cleans the streets of the city from crime. This theme, once so popular in the western genre, was newly taken up by Michael Winner when he made Death Wish. That film became extremely popular in the United States during the turbulent 1970s when crime in New York spiraled out of control in several neighborhoods, and it led to several sequels. Harry, who, after the murder of his friend, remembers the years spent in Her Majesty's Navy, has, despite his advanced age, a precise aim in reducing the number of members of a youth gang that controls a vast housing estate on the outskirts. Within this category of films, I consider Harry Brown to be the best work, not only thanks to the acting performance of the famous film veteran Michael Caine in the lead role. The script is also of high quality, as it effectively works with emotions and carefully doses tension. Overall impression: 90%.

The basic idea behind the final form of Doctor Who is: is it possible to compete in the field of sci-fi and fantasy series with the money-driven and visually demanding television series from American studios like Battlestar Galactica, which are in no way inferior to summer blockbuster films in terms of entertainment value? Yes, but only by making a virtue out of necessity, and if my budget is not enough to create attractive alternative worlds, I rely on exaggeration, humor, naivety, and in this case, significantly old-fashioned stylization. The spaceship takes the form of a telephone booth, the Doctor manages with very little in his battles with aliens, and the monsters do not bother to hide their trickery more than necessary. Accept it, dear viewer, or move on. I knew Doctor Who from several randomly watched episodes (mostly specials, which receive more attention during production because they serve as a showcase for the project). Based on those few encounters, I was able to join the numerous fan base of the series. The problem arose when I started watching Doctor Who diligently during a TV re-run, episode by episode, day by day, starting from the first episode. The first series was still searching for its final form and the atmosphere of the series, but even that is not an excuse for me losing interest in Doctor Who soon after. After the seventh episode of the second series, I definitively gave up. Doctor Who simply does not have the power to compel me to return to the series at regular intervals. From similarly themed projects, I prefer the Canadian series LEXX, which I find more entertaining due to its deliberate and degraded nature. Overall impression: 45%.

The Danish original and the American remake of the same name can serve as an excellent comparison between European and American (specifically Hollywood) cinema. The European version tends to be more raw, not shying away from controversial topics, and is able to film them in a controversial way. The American version, on the other hand, films the same themes more pleasingly and tames the edges. Both films deal with the aftermath of wartime trauma, but while the Danish version is merciless towards its protagonist, gradually stripping him of everything, including hope, the American version is watered down and lacks the courage to thrust its characters into irreconcilable conflict. The family crisis is actually caused by a misunderstanding and is resolved in a compassionate way leading to forgiveness. Nevertheless, I would not condemn Sheridan's version because the Danish film is burdened by their adherence to Dogme 95. Like any dogma, it restricts, flattens, and irritates. The American version is simply more cinematic, more colorful, and features internationally acclaimed stars. However, I also have a complaint with the American version in that Tobey Maguire and Natalie Portman are too sweet and young for the characters they are supposed to portray. It's as if the producer wanted to sell this serious topic to American teenagers. Natalie looks like she had her children while still in high school, and Tobey, who is supposed to play the older, more mature of the two brothers, would be better suited for the role of a younger, immature troublemaker. And one last thing - as selfish as young children can be in their love, what escalated the family conflict is something they would probably never say in the real world, and certainly not think about at their age. Overall impression: 60%.

Rather than being really good, Matějovský's Solitaire is interesting. It is an attempt at an absurd drama of a closed community caught in a trap with no escape, where the actors are gradually killed by despair and cabin fever. It is also remarkable for its top-notch cast and corresponding performances. However, what brings it down is the artificiality of the situation and, above all, Hubač's script, which rushes the moods and reactions of those involved and definitely doesn't take advantage of the potential that this model situation offers. The most interesting character is probably Rudolf Hrušínský, who demonstrates how a guide can quickly become a guard and manipulator. His performance would be a highlight of any psycho horror and reminds one of Mr. Kopfrkingl from Herz's The Cremator, who also transformed into a monster under the pressure of circumstances. It didn't take much for him to achieve it, and fear can be seen in Hrušínský's eyes and posture. The black and white camera and stone walls create a feeling of gloomy atmosphere that dampens any positive emotions. But I must repeat, overall I got the feeling of a certain incompleteness, and although this wouldn't be bad as a theater performance, I expect a little more from a TV movie. Overall impression: 60%.

Within its genre (namely crime thriller) and the film era of the 80s, The Seventh Target is undeniably an above-average film. Nevertheless, enthusiasm is not warranted. Although the screenplay, in terms of its objectives, generally functions well and the individual scenes evoke roughly the emotions intended by the screenwriter, there are still moments where it feels strained. And unfortunately, this is most evident in the climax , when the story moves to Berlin and the tension is supposed to peak during a car chase through the city streets, in close proximity to the Berlin Wall. Lino Ventura was an experienced matador of French cinema and a seasoned professional. His favorite stylization as a tough guy who doesn't really need the police to restore order and protect his rights is limited by his age here - after all, Ventura was nearly 65 years old during filming. In a scene where he takes down a gang member roughly half his age, one cannot help but be reminded of Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, as the frail old man delivers a beating to a gangster two generations younger. Overall impression: 70%.

Whatever Works is essentially a malicious film. Woody Allen, as an atheist and typical urban liberal in the American environment, and significantly on the left, has always been at odds with social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and generally those who lean toward the opposite side of the political spectrum in America. In a number of films, this view of his can be clearly traced, and here and there he cannot resist making sarcastic remarks. However, this is the first film where he subordinates everything to his perspective and the religious zealots get a nice beating from him. Woody settles his account with them from the time of his divorce from Mia Farrow and the painful battles over their children. At that time, the conservative press discussed his life in a very distasteful manner, and the tabloids delightedly savored the details of his extramarital affair. In this film, which essentially has a very simple plot, Allen depicts how the façade of hypocrisy typical of a conservative Southern family quickly dissolves in the open-minded environment of New York. The mother discovers her hidden bohemian character with artistic inclinations and sexual hyperactivity, the respectable father admits his homosexuality to himself and his surroundings, and the daughter embarks on a journey with Allen's alter ego in the form of the pathetic spoilsport portrayed by Larry David. Woody Allen also takes shots at himself here because his embodiment is a symbol of skepticism in life and contempt for society. Within the framework of what the hyperactive Woody has created in the last decade, this is one of the best films that exudes the energy typical of Allen's youth. Overall impression: 85%.

As a drama of an aging man searching for an opportunity for sexual indulgence and finding his last true love, it deserves 5 stars because Penélope Cruz and Ben Kingsley belong to the elite of their acting generation and Isabel Coixet knows how to film it with elegance and sensitivity. As a film adaptation of Philip Roth's literary work, however, it barely reaches three stars. Personally, I haven't read the book but I know other books by Roth, and if he wrote like Isabel translates, he wouldn't be considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, American novelists. It lacks bitterness and selfishness, and it lacks that dark side of a partnership. Only romance remains, the tragedy of unfulfilled desires and serious illness. Overall impression: 75%.

After 5 minutes, I knew that this film would not be my cup of tea, and after 10 minutes, I realized that I was genuinely suffering. Nevertheless, as a typical weakling, I endured for another half hour, only to finally understand that every additional minute was an unequivocal waste of time and that there are plenty of more interesting activities in the world, starting with sex and ending with delicious food, to which I could give preference. Actually, anything deserves preference in this case. I could elaborate on the comic book aesthetics but it is influenced by a series of films that really appealed to me. I could go on about how this is a film aimed at the young generation, but so was Misfits, and I had a great time with that series. The best adjective to describe Scott Pilgrim is adolescent. Adolescently directed and tailored for teenagers. Furthermore, it is based on a stereotype and subsequently becomes boring. It had nothing to offer me, but undeniable professionalism compels me to give it one star. Overall impression: 25%.

If a film on FilmBooster has less than 60%, it usually doesn't bode well, especially when many comments don't hide their uncertainty. Yet in the end, I was pleasantly surprised. I consider Lungin's film significantly above average within its genre and it overwhelmingly surpasses many more famous and esteemed genre films that merely play with the label "historical." The trouble lies partly in the fact that Lungin is not very accommodating to his viewers, he doesn't explain things and throws them straight into the deep water. He also shows viewers something that doesn't sit well with some people - that Russia during the reign of Ivan was very different from what Western and Central Europe experienced. While the Renaissance was flourishing and manners were becoming refined, in Tsarist Russia, the ruler's power was only consolidating and the empire was starting to be built. Through brutal massacres, widespread violence, coercion, fear, and manipulation. Conquests and consolidating power were carried out in a way that was not far off from genocide. The extermination of whole families, communities, and ethnic groups was more of a norm than an exception. Lungin tells the story of the conflict between the ruler's power and the intellectual opposition of a prominent church representative. A story that we also know in a lighter version from Beckett's theatrical and film versions. I consider the depiction of medieval Russian realities and contemporary religious zeal, as well as the performances of the actors, to be very good. The editing is worse, which is confusing, especially in the crowd and war scenes. As for the set design, it is naturally limited by Russian capabilities, which do not reach those possessed by large American studios, but there is still something to see here. Overall impression: 80%.

Cadillac Records tells the great story of African-American blues and the beginnings of rock 'n' roll, depicting the events surrounding those who were the first to truly break free from the fate of the African-American ethnicity and emancipate themselves through success in show business. It is the success of the first African American stars, who have made their mark in the consciousness of the widest audience and left their imprint in music history, including their scandals and extravagant lifestyles characteristic of those who have risen from nothing. For a viewer who doesn't care about this music, the movie will be of no interest. For a fan who loves the soundtracks of the 50s and 60s and knows the names and biographies of famous artists of that era by heart, Cadillac Records doesn't really have much to offer either because a knowledgeable viewer will likely quickly notice the superficiality, unfinished characters, and overall average screenplay. Rather than an exciting ride into the pop past, Cadillac Records, directed by Darnell Martin, is simply an illustration of the events surrounding one record company whose owner had the intuition and courage to break societal taboos and appeal to a different clientele. American critics brutally tore the film apart, but Cadillac Records is fine for a one-time watch. As it is well known, critics feast the most on what is expected to deliver a lot and involve well-known names. The truth is that Beyoncé is not and will never be a good actress, and Adrien Brody may have charisma, but he doesn't have much to work with; nevertheless, it easily deserves 3 out of 5 stars. Overall impression: 55%.