gudaulin

The great star of world cinema, Audrey Hepburn, was always greatly helped in her career by her fragile appearance, delicate face, and amazing eyes, which she skillfully used to hide the fact that she wasn't such a great actress. Besides the aforementioned advantages, her success also relied on the fact that she was able to choose roles wisely so as not to overexert herself. However, in her filmography, there are much more demanding films than Breakfast at Tiffany's, such as My Fair Lady, or films where she had to demonstrate much more acting talent, such as Wait Until Dark. In the case of her probably most famous film, Breakfast at Tiffany's, I always felt that the film served the viewer not so much with a story, but with Audrey and her charms. It's simply a one-girl show; otherwise, Breakfast at Tiffany's can be considered a mostly average romantic conversation film, which didn't make me laugh once and only slightly touched me in two or three places with its sentimentality. I wanted to give it three stars, but when I revisited the film for the third time, I fell asleep during it, and that shouldn't happen with a three-star film. Overall impression: 45%.

Pirates of the Caribbean unexpectedly became the most successful pirate film in the last 25 years, after the genre was perfectly discredited by romantic B-movie crap by second-rate directors. Pirates of the Caribbean was filmed with ease, humor, and originality, without much interference from the producers, so the crew had freedom, and, for example, Johnny Depp could afford to have his peculiar acting, portraying the pirate captain as a hippie who just smoked a joint. However, in the sequels, it is visible how much the studio had expected from the film, and this desire to fulfill obligations had an unfavorable impact on this film. Despite the high budget, the same cast, and ubiquitous effort, it is more cumbersome and over-embellished, and in the end, it doesn't hold together. Especially when, unlike its predecessor, it doesn't have a story with a point and not only leaves room for further sequels but rather feels like an episode from a series that ends with an invitation for the next installment through a cut in a suspenseful scene. Some scenes, such as the duel in the ruins of an old mill and the subsequent swordfight between the blades of a broken mill wheel, however, are highlights that adorn any top-notch blockbuster. Overall impression: 60%.

Annaud can present tension and a reasonable dose of war adventure to the viewer, but I do not get the impression of authenticity from his war epic despite the obvious effort and the decent budget. It is a somewhat naive film made about a foreign country and historical events, which the film crew looks at from a great distance and without the ability or willingness to truly understand them. Jude Law, with all due respect, does not come across as a Slavic boy from Siberia, and the "Russian" characters somehow feel alien. Enemy at the Gates had greater potential, but it is still a decent war spectacle with plenty of star actors on the screen. Overall impression: 75%.

Centurion is definitely not a realistic historical drama from the ancient history of building the Roman Empire, but a historicizing fantasy, which takes from real history only what it deems suitable as a starting point for an adventure story. The whole film stays afloat with raw action, albeit being sometimes straightforward and cheaply bloody. There are definitely more blood spatters than would be possible in reality, and the director utilizes contemporary digital technology, so severed limbs fly in all directions and the viewer can also enjoy disgustingly bloody details. The story itself is not complicated, but in terms of action films, the cast is highly above standard, because everyone involved can act and, speaking about the male part of the ensemble, they also have charisma. The female participation in the war campaign somewhat resembles a caricatured Xena, because a barbarian warrior with half a kilogram of makeup, whose eyes drown under such a dose of eyeshadow that even Queen Cleopatra would surely envy her, does not exactly inspire trust in historical fantasy. Not to mention the fact that the participating girls, despite their diligent battle cries and fierce grimaces, come across more like they just stepped out of a fashion show. Overall impression: 55%.

I can't get rid of the impression that the film, in which the radical leftist and uncompromising troublemaker Sean Penn appears in the lead role according to American standards, was supposed to be primarily one of the reactions to September 11 and deal with the roots of terrorism, but above all, it was supposed to be a drama about the end of the American dream and criticism of the system. However, this clearly does not succeed because the main protagonist is as likable as diarrhea and the lion's share of his actions is driven by his self-centeredness, hastiness, and inability to empathize. It is not a story of individual rebellion against unjust conditions, but a story of fatal personal failure. This was supposed to be a tragicomedy about a non-conformist individual in a too-conformist environment, and the film does work in the first half where it directly touches on this aspect, as evidenced by the humiliating behavior of the arrogant boss or the desperate attempts of the protagonist to adapt to company rules. However, the story soon deviates and gets messy. Sean Penn delivers his standard performance, which means in his case a remarkable study of an individual on the edge. Overall impression: 65%.

This is a film where you can see the high budget in every shot, with a polished visual, and lots of digital effects, so it's nice to watch as things explode, fly around, and shocking technological inventions and cute robots appear. Many stars parade on the screen, mostly unused and only used as decorations, and when they do appear, they don't have much to do because the story itself is a broken mess. It's the type of film for the whole family, which my 8-year-old son could consume without any problems because the world and events it shows are either directly childish or desperately immature. When you want to cater to the market to maximize profits and attract as many viewers as possible, you inevitably have to lower the content demands. Because I've been eight years old a few times already, I lost interest in the plot quickly, and the fate of the heroes was as meaningless to me as a grain of sand in the Sahara. Overall impression: 40%.

This is an interesting example of a classic horror film from a time when filmmaking couldn't rely on technical inventions and digital effects, so it had to rely on the atmosphere created by the script, play of shadows, sounds, and acting expressions. Surprisingly, it works very well, making this original rendition a worthy competition to the later remake. The tension gradually builds up, and it is incredible how little is needed to create it. The horror theme is closely related to a sexual topic, similar to the vampire horror films of that time. The competition between two women over one man can lead (one of them has claws and a nature to go all out) to a truly terrifying drama. Overall impression: 65%.

I like movies that engage the audience, and Whiteout certainly does just that. This happens in the prologue alone, where the pilot gets up from the controls and goes to his passengers intending to take over the cargo they are carrying. A screenwriter who doesn't think about the audience would let those passengers be put to sleep, poisoned, suffocated, or whatever else, and that would be boring because then the story could successfully end within a few minutes. However, a pilot who pulls out a gun and starts a furious bloody shootout, even though he knows the plane will crash to the ground...now that's different. Tension can be felt in every second. The crew exchanges gunfire with submachine guns, and the plane helplessly crashes to the ground, so that the plot can continue in an equally entertaining, but unfortunately contrived and silly way. You see, on the other hand, I like clever movies, and Whiteout certainly isn't one of those. The mistake probably comes from the comic book source material, but the direction contributes just as much. The film is enjoyable when it has action scenes, such as fighting and wielding an ice axe in a snowstorm with minimal visibility and a temperature of around 50 degrees below zero. But the logic falls apart and the ending is also lacking because the action finale comes too early and the big surprise isn't actually that surprising. Setting the story in Antarctica is original on one hand, but on the other, it brings with it numerous genre limitations, because searching for a perpetrator in such a small community wouldn't be such a big challenge if the screenwriter adhered to the aforementioned storytelling logic. Overall impression: 40%.

It is 1931 and the economic crisis is reaching its peak. Everyone is trying to grab a piece of bread in this uncertain time and move up into the spotlight or forget about the difficulties of the era through some type of show. One option for escape is a dance marathon, which, however, has nothing to do with dance as a physical activity for relaxation and entertainment. It is an exhausting struggle to see which couple can keep moving in the arena for as long as possible. The prospect of profit leads the contestants to utter exhaustion, and the manipulative host only encourages their self-destruction. A famous director is said to be in attendance, claiming to be looking for new stars for his film. Then he offers a staged marriage to the performers to increase the viewership of his declining spectacle. At regular intervals, the "dance creations" are interrupted by a race between the couples, and these shots of exhausted unhappiness are among the strongest moments of the film. The last three couples are being eliminated, so everyone tries to push themselves to the limit. The film is actually a metaphor for the ruthless competition in American show business and society as a whole. An incredibly depressing affair and one of the most hopeless films I have had the opportunity to see. Overall impression: 95%.

Jeunet is one of my longtime favorite directors, as his directing style based on playfulness and visuality suits me, and I generously disregard the unfinished storytelling. However, A Very Long Engagement does not require such generosity. Besides Amelie, this is his most audience-friendly film. Even here, Jeunet's fans can expect the usual colorful filters, playful scenes, detours, and quirks. However, they are subordinate to their purpose, namely to highlight the anti-war focus of the film about the search for a groom lost in the whirlwind of trench warfare. It is evident that the film was made by an acclaimed director who no longer has to laboriously gather resources for the realization of his ideas or convince stars to participate in his project. Jeunet's faithful collaborators appear again, such as the indispensable Pinon or Rufus, but also international star Jodie Foster, and they all act flawlessly. Audrey Tautou, whom Jeunet tested out in Amelie, delivers the second most remarkable performance of her career as a girl searching for her loved one. Jeunet knows how to shoot action scenes his way, so they differ from other filmmakers who shoot war films. I have to give the film the highest rating, especially for the field hospital destruction scene, when Jeunet manages to gradually increase tension second by second as the airstrike bomb slowly penetrates the roof. Overall impression: 90%.