gudaulin

I can't deny Villeneuve's amazing ability to create captivating images and materialize fantastic book worlds, but Herbert's "Dune" with giant worms and a strange combination of spaceships and medieval society equipped with cutting weapons always seemed dysfunctional to me. I just can't immerse myself in that world, I can't enjoy it, and I'm not able to appreciate it. Unfortunately, Denis Villeneuve did not use his talent for dozens of other titles of science fiction literature, on which the genre is built. Something like "Roadside Picnic" in Villeneuve's rendition would be an irresistible treat. Overall impression: 60%.

These are times when predictability prevailed in both domestic and world politics, and politicians could be put in drawers with their respective labels. The phenomenon of populism and "illiberal" democracy with strong authoritarian features directly calls for artistic mapping, but after the first attempt, I feel like it will miss its goals and the audience. The series aims to be satirical but lacks moderation and refinement. It is often superficially silly and over-stylized, a test that few creators can withstand; perhaps Wes Anderson or Terry Gilliam in top form could handle this. In the first episode, I see clear limits, and Stephen Frears is long past his prime. If there is a reason to pay attention to Victory Day, it is Kate Winslet in the lead role. I believe in her psychologically unstable dominatrix character, as she enjoys playing the chancellor and lets her acting type shine. Just because of her, I'll give one more episode a chance and we'll see...

My commentary should start with something positive. I've been thinking for a long time about what I could say that would please Issa López, that I could give the show a thumbs up, but I couldn't do it. Yet I figured it out. The length. The modest six episodes saved the audience from more nonsensical screenwriting lapses, prevented us from spending more time with poorly written, untrustworthy characters, and prevented us from marveling at logical acrobatics in the plot. With a standard eight-episode length, I might have gone for just one star. If True Detective was exceptional in something, it was Nic Pizzolatto's screenwriting art, which was behind the previous seasons. The difference is overwhelming. The third season was marked by average direction, but Pizzolatto's influence saved the series from disaster. Issa López is a below-average screenwriter, but as a director, she knows what to serve to the audience so they don't feel bored, so she uses what she has seen elsewhere and is convinced it works. As viewers, you could play a game that she gathered inspiration from everywhere. For a moment, you feel like you are at Carpenter's scientific base from The Thing, for a while you face Nordic demons from The Terror series, and I could go on. Pizzolatto played with the audience, but it was a sophisticated game, while Issa López slides into cheap tricks to keep the audience's attention. The acting is average, as Jodie Foster struggles with her character, going directly against her acting type. I would consider the final resolution more of a disrespectful joke at the audience's expense. If you don't think too much about the plot, then the series deserves two stars. Overall impression: 40%.

This is perhaps the first thing from the Dejvice Theater that I really did not understand. What was supposed to be funny became awkward with its loudness, overacting, and stylization. I understood every third word and the affectation of the actors made me feel unwell. This was a mistake for me. Honestly, I am quite surprised by the positive reviews. Neither the playwright nor the direction stood out. Overall impression: 25% for the Dejvice ensemble.

If I apply the perspective of an ordinary consumer viewer unburdened by knowledge of history, who came to the movie theater to see a grand blockbuster with a world-famous star in the lead role, where it's all about a fateful love and spiced up with shots from several magnificent battles, then I can be reasonably satisfied. Masses of extras, costume scenes, a few exciting war scenes, and a plot that makes some kind of sense. If I apply the perspective of a film fan and also a history enthusiast, then I would have to be significantly, and I emphasize significantly, more critical. Ridley, as expected, fails in the very intention to capture the entire active life of Napoleon. You simply cannot fit such a complex personality and time into one feature film in such a vast time span, no matter how hard you try. The film looks incredibly fragmented, completely skipping crucial sections of Napoleon's life and cramming others into a single scene. The crucial Italian campaign, which brought Napoleon fame and enabled his dizzying political career, is dismissed by the film with a single brief sentence. There is no time at all to develop any of the characters or significant military figures, and French and European politicians remain mere pawns. Ridley plays with historical facts very carelessly in the name of his artistic vision, and the more you know about the life of Napoleon and Josephine, the more you will suffer. However, the most fundamental thing, in my opinion, is the lack of Napoleon himself. Joaquin Phoenix is indeed a great actor, but he has been miscast in several significant films in his career, and unfortunately, Scott's film is one of them. A man on the verge of his fifties acts throughout the film with the same appearance without any aging, which seems inappropriate for a young artillery officer. The same mistake is repeated in Joker - Phoenix plays his character as a pushover. Although ambition shines through Napoleon, what is missing is his incredible vitality, charisma, and rebelliousness. You somehow don't understand how this self-centered, gloomy loner could rally his army and win over crowds to his side. History portrays Napoleon and, ultimately, his relationship with women completely differently than Ridley presents it to us. I don't regret seeing the film on the big screen, but you, Ridley, unfortunately, won't get an overall impression of more than 55% from me. You have significantly worse films in your career, but Napoleon looks up to your top-notch films from a great distance. Your debut The Duellists, paradoxically also set in the environment of the Napoleonic Wars, filmed with a fraction of the budget, still evokes much greater respect and interest in me to this day. What disappointed me, especially, is the choreography of the Battle of Waterloo. There are plenty of war films about the Napoleon era that are better and more inventive for war history fans.

The content is shocking and provocative, but the strength of the film lies in its theme and content. I haven't watched Hanna Polak's films enough to make categorical judgments about her, but it seems to me that the editing could have been better, and the film could have been shortened by fifteen minutes, as the director sometimes lingers on unnecessary images. Overall impression: 85%.

I remember the comic by Riad Sattouf "One day you will be an Arab", where he processes his childhood experiences in the Syrian countryside. He describes the murder of a girl by her closest relatives as a punishment for an unacceptable love affair. The murderers became the most respected individuals in the local community and were presented as a moral example of society. Ali Abbasi didn't intend to make a regular thriller about a mentally disturbed sociopath. He was intrigued by the religious motive of purifying society from sin, which the perpetrator defended during his rampage in court, as well as the support of a significant part of the Iranian public that he enjoyed. Through his protagonist, the journalist Rahim, whom he confronts with the incompetence and prejudices of the local authorities, the director presents a bitter testimony of how the Iranian religious regime appears and operates. Abbasi, as an immigrant from the country where he spent his adolescence, understands and thanks to him, the Iranian realities look authentic, even though it was naturally filmed elsewhere. Audiences should not be surprised that it reveals more than usual in terms of both intimacy and violence, in order to create a compelling effect. The thriller element works smoothly thanks to the appropriate use of music and editing. The acting is flawless. Overall impression: 90%.

I never really got into Nineties. If I used to look forward to new episodes of Major Case Squad, when it comes to the prequel, I couldn't help but be disappointed - especially in light of the enthusiasm that swept over viewers and the way Nineties dominated the media and social space. The curse of the Czech basin has been, is, and will be provincialism, which has a negative influence on Nineties in every aspect. This is not how the peak of television creation should look, but rather a run-of-the-mill average. Problematic editing, (below) average camera work, the inability to create and maintain atmosphere and suspense, and excessive dialogue. Nineties is not just retro in terms of theme and time frame, but the series looks like it was filmed in the mid-90s. The modern narrative methods and techniques that have influenced the development of global television in the last three decades have not yet been captured here. Would Danish, Swedish, or British television stations include Nineties in their broadcasts? Would they even air the series in prime time? I'm afraid that apart from Slovakia, no one in the world would bat an eye at Nineties. Just a brief note on Mareš's script: he failed to create a concentrated grand story from an otherwise explosive and attractive material, and an episodic style of work suits him better. Overall impression: 55%.

It has been a decent number of years since Hollywood realized that current commercial trends, which brought with them a wave of comic book adaptations and fantasy blockbusters, practically pushed aside the stream of cinema intended for the adult generation. The idea arose to give pop-cultural phenomena an artistic touch by approaching them "seriously," attempting to add some "depth" to them, and everyone can then find their own thing. The result is films that only play at being adult. When it comes to the moment of truth, the naivety and ridiculousness of old comic book characters and stories are revealed in full nudity. The adventures of a man in a rubber suit with a lovely little bat cap, in front of whom everyone around fervently pretends not to recognize the character of an important member of the local elite society by voice or by the exposed part of the face, simply must be processed with a great deal of irony, but Matt Reeves, similarly to Nolan in his trilogy, is not capable of that. Reeves' Batman proudly showcases the game of fate, beats with a two-foot dick, and does not spare any pathos. The connection of completely contradictory genres - noir and superhero epic - also feels out of place, as they require a different approach to the characters. Catwoman cannot be a mysterious femme fatale, and her relationship with Batman lacks the proper erotic dimension. When we overlook the shallow motifs and banal dialogues, the traditionally strong weapons of major studios remain in play, namely production design and cast (I didn't even recognize Colin Farrell as Penguin), but that is not enough for me. I give two stars for the world of Gotham, as well as with other films that play poorly at being adult. Overall impression: 45%.

A worn-out joke that answers the question of who will be the next James Bond with a lesbian black woman, is coming true in the adaptation of Neil Gaiman's masterpiece – the comic book series about the ruler of the realm of dreams. The creative team has eagerly embraced all the fashionable ideological trends that excite American urban liberal elites. In one scene, a character tells his agent that he will sell the film rights to his novel on the condition that the producer guarantees equal representation of all races and genders. It sounds like an ironic shot at oneself. Unfortunately, the filming of the series followed this logic, so we encounter arbitrary changes in the gender of Gaiman's characters. In one episode, the medieval and early modern London is teeming with black characters and, above all, homosexual characters, and visually, half of the characters are same-sex couples. The LGBT phenomenon is presented schematically and clumsily, artificially grafted onto stories that resist it, and in a concentration that is at least disturbing. If Netflix wanted to cater to the needs of the LGBT community, it could have adapted better source material. This is just a mutilation of a comic book classic. The above-mentioned is, indeed, the most visible deformation of the series at first glance, but I have a much bigger problem with its literalness. Gaiman's comics are meant for adult readers, working with suggestions, and their greatest strength lies in the stirring of imagination. The Sandman series chews over, trivializes, and strips away its internal tension. It dilutes the philosophical overlay of the work into a consumable form for American teenagers. At times (like in the case of the cute dragon serving to restore Sandman's power), the series is disgustingly sentimental. On the other hand, in potentially strong scenes, it relies on actors who cannot transfer the charisma of comic book characters into the film world (Gwendoline Christie as Lucifer as Sandman's most dangerous opponent simply doesn't work). To be fair, Tom Sturridge in the lead role is spot-on and the final standalone episode works well. As for the rest – am I really supposed to be outraged that the writers (unlike in the Lucifer series, where the creators completely destroyed the comic book source material) more or less stick to the main storyline defined by Gaiman? I cannot find the quality of the screenwriting work, only remnants of myths and reflections of Morpheus' world. Overall impression: 45%.