gudaulin

Assuming you haven't seen enough slasher subgenre films (because if you had, you would soon realize that Kevin Brodbin took inspiration wherever possible, and in better films than Mindhunters) and if you can turn off your brain (but beware, really turn it off, there's no room for half-measures here), you might enjoy the film because Renny Harlin is a decent craftsman and he manages to create atmosphere quite well. But what's the point, when the screenplay is truly not for intellectuals and it contains all sorts of obvious foolishness? When you add to that the fact that the more well-known actors are rather lackluster and the film belongs to the B league, it's more likely a recipe for disaster. I have never mastered the art of shutting down my gray matter, so for me, it gets an overall impression of 25%.

The last days of life of a star from a significant theater ensemble during World War II, when the stone theaters of London were at risk of bombing and the solution became the ensemble's relocation to the countryside, where they spent most of their time in provincial stations with a stubbornly posh and affected man as their caretaker. This man has been serving the master for 20 years and he feels that it is only thanks to his care that the master has come this far, and it is only thanks to the service he provides to his master that the theater still functions. When you consider it all, British theater survives mainly thanks to the work of the caretaker and his devotion. Given that the theater provides support to the spirit of the British people and their war effort, the fate of the entire monarchy actually depends on the caretaker. The film, which shows a study of a slightly pathological relationship dependency, could have easily shifted into the realm of a dark psycho-thriller, but in the end, it remains primarily a showcase of great classical acting in the style of Shakespeare. Overall impression: 80%.

I've seen this movie before, but I only remembered that it was ridiculously long. However, the series of comments that found hidden values beneath the facade of the dragged-out runtime made me reconsider the film and watch it again. Clint attempted to venture into unexplored genre territory, but the result is quite depressing in my opinion. Eastwood simply isn't crazy enough to build an attractive and functional mysterious atmosphere through filmmaking techniques and to use truly bizarre characters that could sustain a 155-minute duration. While with other films I sometimes say that 15-20 minutes could easily be cut, here it could easily be a whole hour. I couldn't watch it in one go, I had to dedicate two evenings to it, and even then I nodded off twice during the first half. In such a case, however, I cannot give it even the average three stars. Despite Clint having a few acting stars in his team who tried to earn their salary, and despite the potential offered by the source material, an unsuccessful movie was created, one of the most problematic in Eastwood's career. Overall impression: 40%.

Before the start of the movie, flashy previews of blockbusters with enticing visuals and glossy advertisements appeared on the movie theater screen, which attempted to grab the viewers' attention with short-term effects. Then followed a grainy, blurred image that seemed to come from a TV screen from the 80s or a vintage documentary, and especially in contrast to the previous shots, it appeared as a shabby relative. I still vividly remember the events related to the referendum on Pinochet's stay in office. Practically nobody wanted to believe that with all the power he possessed, he would voluntarily relinquish the government and his convincing victory in the manipulated electoral process was expected. Well, it shows the way the general, who seemingly held all the aces, managed to return from the presidential office back to the barracks. I'm not talking about the undeniable crimes and certainly not the revolutions and protests but about the humor and advertising. Instead of dissidents, Pinochet was escorted by advertising strategists and creative minds. They won the duel against their government competitors because they bet not on fear but on hope. The best ideals, programs, or personalities are not sellable and enforceable without proper advertising. The charismatic Bernal is sidelined here, and the film focuses on processes and events, not on the main character, who is rather a kind of guide and connector. It's a small but interesting film that will be remembered. Overall impression: 90%.

When I looked at the ratings and comments of my favorite users, they reminded me of the impressions of the attendees of the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who paid tribute to Stalin. United 93 has a reputation as an outstanding film, and I often come across comments where it is considered as a kind of benchmark against which the (im)perfection of other films is measured. At the very least, you can encounter the claim that it is the absolute peak of Greengrass's work so far, which other pieces from his workshop can only look at from a great distance. I'm afraid that historical events are receiving a five-star treatment here, not their artistic reflection. When footage of the burning Twin Towers appeared on television, it shocked the world and there was talk of the Third World War. The events completely deviated from the known world. The idea that someone would hijack a plane full of passengers and intentionally crash it into a skyscraper seemed insane to everyone. And the situation and feelings of the passengers of the last plane, who already knew their fate, were insane as well. Real life brought a more dramatic situation than the wildest action movie screenwriters could have come up with. Greengrass chose the method of documentary reconstruction, but the traditional characteristics of his work, especially the handheld camera and chaotic editing, reached their limits here. In crucial moments, it descends into a completely incomprehensible mix of bodies, jerky movements, and screams, you learn very little about the individual characters, and the film actually just rides the wave of the well-known events, without being able to properly utilize the immense dramatic potential that is readily available. The underrated Green Zone stands significantly higher in my eyes from a cinematic perspective. The shots from the navigation stations are justified, but not to the extent and with the content that Greengrass delivers to us. It's more like three and a half stars, and this time, contrary to my usual habits, I will lean toward a higher rating only out of reverence for the victims of the tragedy. Overall impression: 70%.

The events of the bloody military coup, which overthrew the government of President Allende in September 1973, were important milestones in the Cold War. In my generation, the coup was common knowledge, albeit distorted through the lens of the Iron Curtain and the bipolar world. I fear that the majority of today's viewers will not be able to orient themselves in the story, especially considering that director Pablo Larraín does not make it any easier for them. He does not explain, nor analyze; we simply experience the coup subjectively through the peculiar pathologist, who silently and with a stony look on his face, observes the mounting piles of corpses on the floor, the groaning of the wounded, and the rising fear in people's eyes. We witness the examination of President Allende's body and the first isolated acts of resistance against the terror. Great histories are written on the streets and stadiums, while here, we rather clean up what is left of the old, shattered world. Mário is a man without expression or emotions, except for his fondness for a local theater dancer. He has no family or friends, no past, and no meaningful future. He is merely an inconspicuous observer of events that have exceeded even the darkest scenarios and imaginations. Overall impression: 75%.

At first glance, The Crazies looks like one of many titles in the horror genre, riding the wave of interest in zombie themes. However, the plot and script deal with a completely real threat of weapons of mass destruction and a global pandemic with immeasurable consequences. A secret government plan for isolating and "cleaning up" the affected area regardless of human lives is introduced. A gripping race against time begins to escape the deadly trap. The Crazies could have become an above-average genre treat if it weren't for the director's feeling that mere paranoia and the risk of infection are not enough to fill movie theater coffers. They felt they had to earn their money with a proper dose of action and the most clichéd genre tropes. This "safe bet" ultimately cost the film two stars. Overall impression: 60%.

No one needed to explain to me before watching this film that it is necessary to protect a journalist's source, and thus I can fully focus on evaluating the rest. If I were to define the concept of film routine, I could successfully apply it to this drama. The routine screenplay and routine direction kill the potential of the subject matter, so only the famous names in the cast remain, but even here, nothing exceptional happens. The dialogue is weak, and there are too many big words, martyr faces, and transparent emotional manipulation of the viewer. This film is too instructive, and therefore ineffective in my eyes. I didn't guess the big reveal of the plot, which many commentators describe as powerful, shocking, etc., but I strongly suspected it after a quarter of the way through the film, i.e., the source was very probable given the initial situation. With the knowledge of the plot, however, the behavior of the main character ceases to be a sympathetic fight for the right cause and personal integrity but becomes dogmatic, which not only affects the main character but especially her surroundings. Overall impression: 45%.

One of the fundamental criticisms of film critics that the majority of viewers not only did not share but also did not understand, was directed against the separation of the film world from reality. Films should reflect the reality of everyday life and address real problems, rather than offering an escape into a world of illusions. On the other hand, viewers always respond that they are fed up with ordinary reality and come to the movie theater to dream and have fun. Woody made an entertaining plaything about the film industry as a traditional factory of dreams, where we go to hide from the misery of daily exhausting reality. One day, the film character rebels and decides to experience real emotions and real life, addressing the viewer in the movie theater. What follows is a romance like those in the most debased dime novels, spiced up by Allen's ironic insight, but it has a somewhat painful ending for fans of the dime store novel genre. The Purple Rose of Cairo is a comedy, but unlike Woody's early works, it is not based on one-liners and wacky gags. It has a charming cast, and Woody has already proven here that his strongest suit is working with actors and creating well-developed dialogue. Overall impression: 85%.

I had a little problem reviewing Ghost Protocol. The fact is that I didn't enjoy the film at all from the beginning and it was clearly heading toward parts of the film world that mean nothing to me. On the other hand, if I were to be objective, the film was better than some of the previous installments in the series, so I should go back to the older ones and reassess them. As others have said, it's a parade of beautiful people (women, men), and beautiful things (high-tech toys, perfectly fitting suits from expensive fashion houses). It could be meant as a compliment, but I don't feel that way about it. I would also add that it has very unobtrusive but effective product placement. What is visually attractive about Ghost Protocol, meaning the set design, effects, and non-stop action, doesn't impress me. The high-tech gadgets rather annoy me and overall, I would describe the direction the series took as a worse aspect of Bond's legacy. At least Bond has style and in the newest films, they even try to add some psychological depth and character development, whereas here the characters are as flat as a sheet of paper. What fails the most in my eyes (and it's paradoxical) is the humor, because, unlike the previous installments, the film doesn't take itself seriously and becomes an action comedy. However, the comedic aspect doesn't paradoxically affect me, I simply can't laugh at the exaggeration. Maybe it's because the action, story, and characters are taken to such absurdity that even parody has nowhere to go. Perhaps this is the first film where Simon Pegg, no matter how hard he tries, simply doesn't entertain me at all. Overall impression: 25%.