gudaulin

From the royal chambers and noble palaces, we move into the despair and filth of the trenches of World War I, where the Black Adder, as a cynical experienced professional of the British colonial army, tries to maneuver among the limited British officers who attempt to apply combat experiences from long-fought colonial wars of the past on the modern battlefield, facing the deadly German machinery on the other side of no man's land. The humor becomes even darker - such joking before the firing squad or just before an attack against the wall of enemy machine guns truly becomes gallows humor. Yet it is precisely thanks to the proximity of death that traditional light banter takes on a more serious tragicomic dimension. The final scene, where all the characters rise for a senseless attack and then through editing, the war-torn field, riddled with grenades, transforms into a meadow densely covered with red poppy flowers, is one of the strongest scenes I've ever seen in a sitcom. Overall impression: 95%.

In Belmondo's rich filmography, this is a title that film fans often accept with undisguised unease. There are actress chameleons who alternate between various types of roles and characters, but generally, directors seek suitable actor types and when the respective actors prove themselves, they are regularly cast in the corresponding roles. A successful TV role or genre film can easily become a curse for an ambitious actor. However, such associations suit the viewers, as they know in advance what they can expect from their favorites. Belmondo has been identified as the type of witty charming adventurer cast in criminal comedies, whether on the side of the law or the underworld. Belmondo's racing driver and criminal Ho does not differ so radically from the usual expectations. Besides the fact that his role is more civilian than viewers are accustomed to, there is another significant detail that sets Belmondo apart from the usual heroes - his character is not successful. He loses not only in his long-lost sporting career, but also in love, money, and freedom. That is something that viewers cannot forgive Belmondo for, which is reflected in their ratings and comments. The film shows how little is needed to create a legend and how little it takes to bring them down to earth. Belmondo has created an interesting study of a man who believed he was capable of more than what was expected of him. Overall impression: 75%.

In the film, three stars of French cinema came together, and the whole film exudes the ambition to shoot an impressive crime thriller in the spirit of the best traditions of French crime films. The introduction, combined with the arrival of the unpredictable fugitive Mickey, played by Gérard Depardieu in an animalistic manner, as a member of the new generation of a gang unrelated to the rules of the old underworld (we witness the unnecessary brutal murder of two police officers), is promising and seems to be a return to the gritty school of the 70s. However, soon false tones of sentimentality, strange character psychology, and unconvincing social criticism presented by an ambitious police officer creep into the film, and the good impression is gone. I can declare that I disagree with the behavior of some of the film's characters; here, the final actions of Montand and Depardieu are more of an enigma to me on a human level... Overall impression: 55%.

An intimate psychological drama depicting an uncompromising clash between a bigoted nun who seems to be stuck in the 19th century and a priest who acknowledges both the demands of the modern era for new ideas and methods and the fact that love for God should not be an obstacle to human relationships. The dispute is not only about the methods of pedagogical influence at the local church school and the interpretation of religious values but gradually evolves into deep personal antipathy by the nun, who begins to suspect that the priest's interest in one of her charges may not be as innocent as those around them think. Those who have no doubts can be more convincing, and therefore more successful, but some victories are Pyrrhic... The film's strength lies in its position, which leaves the viewer uncertain until the end - in other words, in doubt about what actually happened, as well as the emotionally powerful conflict between two distinct personalities, successful dialogue, and above all, exceptional acting by two major stars of contemporary American cinema. Overall impression: 90%.

The evaluation of Black Hawk Down has two levels. The first level is the technical aspects of the film, which are simply brilliant. Ridley Scott started the production of the film when he already had a long filmography behind him, and it shows in the result. This was made by an experienced top-notch craftsman who perfectly masters the camera work, sound, editing, directing the actors, and also has a very decent budget, resulting in a magnificent action shooter, one of the peaks of the action war genre. You literally feel the firing around you, bullets whizzing, holding your breath over dynamic battle shots. For this, Ridley receives 4 stars from me, because it is decent entertainment, no doubt about it. On the second level, I would like to say that Scott fails, but that would not be true. The film is missing another dimension - depth, what lies behind the facade of street fighting. And it is missing because Scott did not aim for something like that. He simply made a propaganda film about the heroism, determination, and self-sacrifice of American soldiers who defend the most humane goals and protect the local population from genocide on a foreign continent. Of course, the reality was much more complicated, and if it were not for so many human lives at stake, it would be reminiscent of a comedy. The American units were tasked in Somalia with nothing less than a demonstrative operation to capture General Aidid, the leader of the most powerful Somali clan. Aidid was an experienced veteran of wars in East Africa and as the head of the Secret Service, he cooperated with the Americans, with whom he had truly exceptional relationships. His son, as was quite common, studied in America, where he also obtained citizenship and became a military professional. As a volunteer, he applied for action in Somalia, where the Americans, enthusiastic about finally having an expert on local conditions with language skills, also engaged him. Nobody thought to verify their family ties, so the son, who was a member of the US Navy, was supposed to catch his own father. In reality, of course, General Aidid had a very good overview of what was happening, thanks to this bizarre situation, so the American units encountered strong resistance from a poorly-trained opponent armed only with light infantry weapons, but nevertheless determined and familiar with the terrain. Of course, due to the enormous material superiority, the ratio of African losses was many times greater, but given that euro-American public opinion is much more sensitive to losses, it could be clearly spoken of as a failure. The units were withdrawn, and General Aidid, who until then was losing the civil war and practically controlled only the capital, significantly strengthened himself and became the president. Many things that a thoughtful filmmaker could incorporate into the film, and which would be worth it, are simply missing. It would be worth asking where the captive arms dealer obtained the material with which he supplied Aidid's militiamen, and so on. But as I already mentioned, Scott is taking a different path. The result is a film that could be broadcast with positive responses anytime on Fox News station and that American recruiters could successfully show to those interested in joining the army. Overall impression: 75%.

The world of uneducated tough guys from the streets, who were destined for a career as pimps, drug dealers, bouncers, or thieves, and instead successfully started a music career and became famous rappers. The new position and self-confidence often became associated with old habits in the event of success, so the gentlemen appeared in public with a large security detail, adorned with gold chains, famous for their boastfulness, usually accompanied by black females dazzled by bling. Notorious does not stand out as a biographical film, nor as a drama, and not even as a representative of the music genre. It has significance for fans of black rap, specifically Christopher Wallace. Overall impression: 40%.

A charismatic serial killer is a safe bet for a movie. Kevin Costner no longer has the same status as he did in the 90s, and Mr. Brooks is one of the more promising attempts to return to the limelight. He convincingly plays his killer for pleasure, and if one villain wasn't enough, the screenwriter also uses the hallucinogenic alter ego of Mr. Brooks in a stylish performance by William Hurt. The dialogue of the main character with his uncompromising and straightforward self is ultimately the most interesting part of the whole movie. The script is somewhat overdone, but what can you do, in today's inflation of movie titles, you simply have to grab attention somehow. The biggest disadvantage for Mr. Brooks is the absence of an opponent at his level - unfortunately, Demi Moore is not that. Not so much because of her dull acting, but rather because of the script, which doesn't give her as much space and opportunity. Overall impression: 60%.

Zafranovič, of course, did not change his directorial style compared to the previous two parts of the loose trilogy about Yugoslavia tormented by the madness of World War II. The final part only differs in that it has a larger scope - instead of focusing on one sensitive point in history and specific events, we witness the transformations of the country's social atmosphere through the lives of one person and his loved ones. The main protagonist organizes resistance against the occupiers, intimately experiences the comfort of a German concentration camp, and after the war, the sensitivity of political engagement during the Stalinist era and Tito's cult of personality. For its time, it is a rather open testimony - at least compared to the rest of the socialist camp. If you want to capture a quarter of a century in the history of such a complicated country, you cannot avoid some simplification and flattening of certain characters that deserve more space. However, I have no problem giving it four stars and an 80% satisfaction rate. From a single scene where two Ustasha members return from hunting Jews, one realizes the horror of genocide and the reason why the modern history of the Yugoslav territory is soaked in blood.

My partner was surprised after the final credits at how I could be so cynical and give only two stars to a movie full of beautiful, likable, and positive people who love each other. Well, I can. Juliette Binoche is indeed an actress, about whom I wrote some time ago, that she could instantly be a candidate for Miss Sympathy Universe, and Steve Carell belongs among the most versatile American comedians with a wide range of acting and a cultivated manner of speech. However, Dan in Real Life is a typical representative of a sterile and undemanding spectacle - a mixture of romance and an appropriate dose of family values. It is simply too shallow, generic, and not of this world. Overall impression: 40%.

The antihero is an exemplary virtuous husband, a partner so non-conflicting, reliable, and loyal that his wife has the impression that he has something in common with the number one on a ten euro banknote... which also carries a zero throughout its life. The feeling of boredom of a secure bourgeois lady tempts her to spice up her life with a love affair. However, the feeling of humiliation from the revealed infidelity also means the limit at which the dark corners of the partner's mind are exposed, and the racially serious husband transforms into a cold-blooded avenger on the hunt. The film doesn't belong so much to the crime genre, as it has too simple a plot line and plays its cards too openly from the beginning. Instead, it is much more a psychological drama, a cool and distant study of a man who took a shortcut and bet everything on one card. Chabrol, besides his traditionally refined sense of detail, is also helped by the casting. Stéphane Audran is perfectly cast and for the role of a closed emotionally starved man, the director could not have chosen anyone better than Michel Bouquet. Overall impression: 80%.