gudaulin

Gattaca is literally an embodiment of the genre essence of sci-fi and in every aspect it is a highly above-standard movie, where all the ingredients that make up a good artistic work are excellently harmonized and balanced. An imaginative screenplay utilizing the latest scientific discoveries and speculating where these findings and new technologies can lead society. Sensitive, highly professional direction that can evoke strong emotions without cheap effects, cast which has no visible weaknesses and brings a lot of great performances. Gattaca is actually already here, we just haven't fully realized it yet, but in about twenty years we will be fully facing what is depicted in Gattaca. Overall impression: 100%. It is astonishing how such an exceptional film could be created with such a small budget.

For a country that was the aggressor in the war and, nota bene, also lost the war, it is more sensitive for them to deal with this sort of topic, especially when faced with accusations of genocide and a decent amount of war crimes. German television attempted to confront skeletons in the closet with an ambitious miniseries. The best and essentially the only sensible way to deal with a painful past is to present the victory of the Allies not as a defeat of Germany, but as a defeat of fascism and the liberation of the country from Nazi dictatorship. I have seen enough German films that were just swarming with anti-fascists, who had nothing else to do but to save Jews from transports and help resistance fighters, where one could only wonder where that regime came from and how it could function when it clearly had no followers. However, I don't think that's the case here. I can point out a number of minor flaws in this film, but when I weigh all the pros and cons, in my opinion, it is the best German work on this topic so far, at least in a series for a broad audience. Of course, indoctrination with Nazism was greater due to the long-term influence of the Hitler Youth on young soldiers than the series anticipates, but it conveys the essential message convincingly. If every nation dealt with the demons of the past at least this way, we could breathe a sigh of relief in many respects. The stories of the five friends from the series helped those in Germany who did not personally experience World War II - and the overwhelming majority of them do not - to form an opinion on the darkest period of their modern history and to make characters like those from the series a model and part of their post-war democratic and anti-Nazi identity. I don't see it as a solid 5 stars, for example, because the German acting elite is missing (although I'm certainly not saying that the performances were bad) or because the screenwriter, as is often the case with such extensive works, sometimes gets carried away. For example, the way the screenwriter dealt with Friedhelm's war database ending certainly looks terribly beautiful and pathetic in the script, but in practice, it contradicts the character's spirit and the reality of the final days of the Reich. A bullet in the back would have been far more practical and probable when attempting to surrender. On the other hand, I find this imperfect series so charming that I will probably overlook that. In any case, in my opinion, its qualities significantly surpass the popular German film Stalingrad. Overall impression: 85%.

For a serious history enthusiast familiar with the era and seeking a deep dive into the subject, watching Genghis Khan would be a disappointment and a waste of time. However, for someone looking for a basic understanding of the era and the founder of the Mongol Empire, this dramatized documentary is a good choice. While the appeal of the presentation compromises historical accuracy to some extent, it is not in a significant way. Overall impression: 55%.

There are movies that we remember from childhood as amazing experiences, and when we return to them after years, we bitterly realize that they have aged and above all, they simply don't work in adulthood. The Goonies belong to those rare exceptions when the film experience repeats every time I watch it again. I become a kid again, embarking on adventurous expeditions, having plenty of free time, and enjoying it despite occasional adult hardships. Whenever I hear the familiar film melody and the voice prompts me, "Don't just stand there, come on," I go and immerse myself once again in the world of my childhood memories. Overall impression: 90%.

The work of German director Rainer Werner Fassbinder can be somewhat compared to the works of contemporary American enfant terrible of cinema, Michael Moore. Both are activist and provocative, biased in many ways, but certainly interesting and stimulating. However, there are significant differences in their approach. Whereas Moore is ironic and deliberately uses cutting exaggeration, Fassbinder is deadly serious and combative. This is perhaps why I forgive Moore more, whereas Fassbinder really annoys me in certain moments. Germany in Autumn is a quasi-documentary film where the director confronts the phenomenon of RAF terrorism. For the viewer to understand and even enjoy the film, it is essential to know the history of the RAF, the political climate of Germany in the 1970s, and indeed the whole of modern German history. Last but not least, knowledge of Fassbinder's political views, which of course significantly influenced the final form of the film, is important as well. Ideologically, Fassbinder belonged to the radical critics of the existing German establishment, distrusted the state structures and his characters never shied away from using the term fascism when evaluating contemporary German society and its bourgeois values. Although Fassbinder does not openly support the terrorists, for him they are just another victim of the bourgeois society that pushed them to rebellion. The director criticizes the "police state" much more, considers the action of the German commando that liberated hostages at an African airport to be outrageous, and sees the whole topic as a starting point for further critical attacks against the current German politicians and state institutions. He is also crudely demagogic in some respects, as can be seen, for example, in his comparison between the case of Field Marshal Rommel, whom the Nazis forced to commit suicide in the autumn of 1944 and then held a grand state funeral for, and the case of kidnapped businessman Schleyer, whom the terrorists executed after the German government refused to release the convicted leaders of the RAF and then also held a state funeral for the executed Schleyer. Overall impression: 50%.

Mike Hodges' film is interesting. An atypically shot and realistic gangster film, with the support of the star Michael Caine, should have the potential to become a cult film, thanks to its bloody revenge story. However, it is emotionally cold and distant in its execution, reminiscent of Michael Haneke's later work, and that may be why some people use the term "boring" in their reviews. At the same time, I am somewhat bothered by unfinished or improbable details, such as the gun our anti-hero takes to the busy city to carry out his revenge. Parading around with it in broad daylight on busy streets is not exactly logical, although you could say it's effective. An American remake was made based on the motifs of this classic British film, with Sylvester Stallone in the lead role, but it didn't come close to the qualities of its original for understandable reasons. Today's fans of popcorn movies may be put off by the somewhat unusual editing and longer scenes, but for me, it gains in attractiveness as a film that stands out from the crowd. Overall impression: 65%.

When in the mid-90s Hollywood reached for a successful literary source and made a film version of the transformation of an underworld member into a film producer, it looked like a big hit, especially with the then stars Travolta and Hackman in the lead roles. However, the result was hesitant due to the script, and the film marched off into well-deserved obscurity. However, the potential was undeniable, so filmmakers naturally returned to the material through a series that utilizes the plot's possibilities much better. The 90s film wanted to be more of a comedy than a crime film, but it is the opposite in the case of the series. It's not that there is a shortage of harsh irony and black humor, but do not expect stylized silliness, but rather rough criminals who have no reservations about torturing and killing. The gang's boss is a psychopathic lady who leaves a bloody trail wherever she goes. The main protagonist has a desire to step out of the carousel of violence, but it's like with a long-time smoker - there is always a weak moment or an inevitable situation when old instincts or the need to solve the crisis in the usual way reappear. In the case of Miles and his friend Louise, the studio uses the usual, albeit somewhat twisted combination of a follower of family and religious values ​​that surprisingly does not prevent the killers from eliminating the encountered living obstacles with a cool style, when violence is seen as fine entertainment. The series works smoothly in terms of the acting, the pace is appropriate, and the twists within the story are believable and functional. Overall impression: 80%.

Crime comedies that try to score points with lots of cool characters, a likable protagonist, and a plot with a surprising climax at the end, are produced by studios every year, and given that fact, this Australian film doesn't stand out much. It is certainly not so bad as to give cause for any fundamental criticism, but perhaps the only character with charisma is the likable fraudster played by Timothy Spall, known from the Harry Potter series. Many other actors or their characters are far from perfect, and the film also struggles to balance between crime and comedy. Compared to legends in the respective genre, such as The Sting, this film only looks on from a great distance. Overall impression: 55%.

This is one of those movies that deliberately tries to play with the viewer's emotions. The squeezing of emotions was already unpleasant to me when it was made, and it was intensified by the fact that I don't really like the central acting trio... Overall impression: 50%.

One of the great commercial hits of the 80s that could rely on the comedic abilities of Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd. The famous Sigourney Weaver contributed with her feminine charm, and Ivan Reitman supervised it all with skillful direction. The catchy film song and script containing a number of gags, along with the fact that the film was made as a typical mainstream family spectacle, contributed to the fact that Ghostbusters received direct global fame and can be perceived as a certain embodiment of commercially oriented production by American studios in the 80s. Overall impression 75%.