gudaulin

For a large part of its runtime, Master and Commander maintains an excellent five-star level of unconventional drama, which does without typical genre clichés and is characterized by a decent atmosphere. The director is not as interested in the war action as in depicting the life of a sailboat crew at the beginning of the 19th century, and through minor incidents and dialogues, the viewer learns a lot not only about a sailor's life but also about the whole society of that time. Among other things, it is a film about friendship and responsibility and a hierarchy of values. The final third of the film, which portrays the clash of two warships, is predictable, clichéd, and above all poorly shot, as well as fragmented, chaotic, and poorly edited. Peter Weir simply doesn't know how to do this, it's not his area of expertise. The culmination of the film for me was not the battle frenzy, but several dialogues between the captain and his ship's doctor. Overall impression: 80%. The film has an excellent cast, with Russell Crowe excelling in his role. In addition to the cast, the film's strengths include the authenticity of the setting and the cinematography, which utilizes all the possibilities that the ocean environment provides.

In this late Delon film, the screenplay is the main failure, relying solely on Delon's presence as the main draw and banking on having enough action. The level of dialogue and the thoughtfulness of the crime background are severely lacking. The result is a run-of-the-mill crime drama that certainly won't stick in one's memory. Overall impression: 45%.

For me, this is probably the strongest film of Italian neorealism and Vittorio De Sica. Its attractiveness and power lie in the naturalness that comes from the use of non-actors, knowledge of the filmed environment, and the difficult social reality of post-war Italy, which is struggling with a severe crisis, mass unemployment, and poverty. It is a film that is not burdened by artificial layers of commercial cinema, wherein emotions are conveyed alongside film images only through film music. It is a powerful film that is also emphasized by the black-and-white material. It is incredible how many unforgettable shots fit into just 90 minutes of footage. How many events can be fit into a single day of an ordinary municipal officer who is existentially dependent on his bicycle? The most interesting passages depict the existence of a large Roman lumpenproletariat. Overall impression: 95%. A classic film that is part of basic film education.

I didn't expect anything from this film, and I didn't get anything from it either. Perhaps the only thing that surprised me, although I expected something like this, is how much the film is banal, small, and amateurish compared to the enthusiastic reviews. The satisfaction with Once is largely related to the ability to appreciate and accept the musical component on which the film is based. The screenplay is minimalist, the dialogues are trivial, and the acting performances are wooden in many cases. It's not the fact that the film uses non-actors; it's that these non-actors have minimal prerequisites for acting - and this applies, among other things, to Markéta Irglová in the main role. By coincidence, I had just seen Bicycle Thieves before Once, where the majority of roles were played by non-actors, including the protagonist, but the difference in quality was vast. The music in the film bypasses me with a wide arc, so only the film aspects remain, which is difficult for me to digest. The love story is clichéd, and simple, and even in its simplicity, it plays with kitsch. Just as it is possible to build a film's reputation on great cinematography and top-notch special effects, it is also possible to build it on independence, ordinariness, and "purity." Once is a film where it is essentially possible to use any evaluation based on the approach to the music used and the theme. My 25% overall impression is understandably one extreme and the opposite of enthusiastic uncritical comments and five-star accolades. The objective truth is usually somewhere in between; however, I cannot shake off the impression that Once is significantly overrated.

Writing about how Pixar is at the forefront of technological development in contemporary animation and that films from its workshop are an experience from this perspective would be like carrying firewood into the forest. From Pixar, a spectacle is simply expected, and in this regard, its latest film did not disappoint. While Ratatouille had a few scenes that approached live-action films, there were significantly more here, and Pixar shows how an animated film can replace a live-action film in every way. The scenes of the dead planet were both captivating and chilling. As for the story, the film can essentially be divided into two parts. The part set on Earth is much more accommodating to adult viewers and plays out a story that seems to have emerged from Philip K. Dick's unsettling visions. It is a post-apocalyptic vision of a devastated planet full of ruins, dusty storms, and remnants of a once-functional world. Little robot WALL-E represents a small island of cybernetic life, and even though in this part of the film, he has no opponent other than nature, the viewer is never bored, and the necessary dose of sentiment is bearable. The film's creators likely wanted to try something new, and an atmosphere like the one they were able to create in the first half of the film had not yet been seen in a mainstream family film. It's not that the creative team ran out of steam afterward, but rather the safety brake was applied, with the knowledge of how Jan Pinkava's innovative approach with Ratatouille turned out, in the second half of the film, they diligently catered to the ideas of the Disney studio on how a classic children's spectacle should look. To be frank, there is something to it because I saw WALL-E in the movie theater with my six-year-old son, who was somewhat restless in the first half but smiled happily and enjoyed the film in the second half. The rest of the film set in the distant universe is a bet on traditional certainties of a feature-length family spectacle focused on young viewers. The story is not bad and is entirely engaging, but it is done in an exceedingly banal manner. Compared to Ratatouille, it is a step back in terms of the content of the film. Disney Studios certainly did not invest sinful amounts of money in the acquisition of Pixar to increase prestige by making top-notch films that experiment with form and content, but rather to fill their coffers. Throughout Walt Disney Studios' existence, its owners have a perfectly ingrained idea of what a children's animated film should be, and it is naive to think that Pixar would rebel against this model. Overall impression: 80%. It is still a very decent spectacle that will please children and not offend adults. I just humbly believe that if the creators had the courage to fully develop the darker elements of the story, it would have been a disproportionately better film...

This television play is an adaptation of Karel Poláček's literary work, based on the idea of role reversal between father and son, where the son emerges as significantly more mature and responsible, while the father goes through a period of arrested development. Personally, I prefer this story as performed by the Ypsilon Theatre, where Jiří Schmitzer played the role of the father. He managed to give his character greater depth compared to Josef Somr, although Somr's portrayal is also commendable. Overall impression: 60%.

A series that rises and falls with the main character, a cynical and highly idiosyncratic doctor who, while making accurate diagnoses and achieving undeniable success in treating patients, tramples on those around him with numerous quips and rough behavior. Upon longer viewing, the problem arises that the blueprint on which each episode is based is actually always the same... Overall impression: 80%.

Just an average film, but nonetheless a showcase of colorful characters portrayed by a whole array of well-known and talented actors. The three detective stories about small Czech crimes are otherwise easily forgettable. Fortunately, the film is helped by a slightly ironic detachment with which Jiří Vala, as the husband, comments on the events and characters around him ("we don't have heroin here, so we'll at least take some alginate"). Overall impression: 50%.

I have had, have, and will have one fundamental problem with Mel Brooks, or rather with his films. Poor Mel had the misfortune of encountering clueless people, for whom hinting, directing, and pointing is not enough. Many of his jokes have decent potential, but he presents them so exaggeratedly that they lose all charm for me. He can't capture that delicate line between parody and awkwardness. But maybe the fault is in me, and I have set my boundary too high. In High Anxiety, where he takes aim at poor Hitchcock, he still holds back and thankfully doesn't push the envelope as much as he does in Dracula: Dead and Loving It, but even so, I can't give this film an overall impression of more than 40%.

The central theme is strong, but the screenplay and direction are unremarkable. What remains the highlight of an otherwise forgettable television play is Věra Galatíková's performance in the role of the overworked mother - she managed to portray this type of character very convincingly. Overall impression: 40%.