gudaulin

The subject is promising, but the execution sadly lags behind. It is a naive sci-fi with sets and characters that seem to have escaped from 1950s movies. This film has simply become outdated, whereas during the same time period, action movies were being made that can still be watched with a clear conscience today. I have a feeling that, in terms of the current reviews on FilmBooster, this film is highly overrated. Overall impression: 40%.

A poetic short animated film about a veterinarian whose work somewhat overwhelms him and affects his health. At the moment he is acutely threatened by a heart attack, his animal patients come to his aid. The film is characterized by a unique kind of humor, and among other things, the director doesn't hesitate to depict in detail all human and animal bodily fluids and excrements. A minimalist yet powerful film, representing the current level of Nordic animated filmmaking. Overall impression: 65%.

A feature film by Spanish director Pedro Rivero. In a way, it is an animated punk, the drawing is deliberately rough, and unattractive, and it is, in a sense, the opposite of Disney. The animals' speeches are peppered with vulgar expressions, and the actions of the characters are characterized by great cynicism and cunning. It is a parody of the current political scene in democratic countries, full of corruption, mutual betrayals, and pointless quarrels. The plot is based on a peculiar vegetarian pact that forbids animals from devouring each other. However, carnivores do not count on observing it from the very beginning, as they abuse their power and terrorize herbivores. They try to rebel, but they are divided, and many among them prioritize their interests over the interests of the whole. Unfortunately, my overall impression was spoiled by poor translation. This kind of animated film is largely based on sharp dialogue and stylized slang... Overall impression: 35%.

The Notorious Bettie Page is a television film that cannot impress with grandiose sets or a star-studded cast, but that is by no means its biggest problem. Bettie Page can be compared in her own way to today's queen of fetishists and representative of perfect decadent beauties in erotic photographs, Dita Von Teese. Moreover, in the early 50s, she was a pioneer in this industry and became an admired celebrity. Thematically, it is amazing material and I can imagine that an excellent comedy could be made about this subject, about how a naive country girl discovers the emerging world of the erotic business, how nervous customers from better circles secretly shop for erotic material, and how the hypocrisy of prudish America looked. Based on this theme, an outstanding drama and an outstanding erotic film could be created. The problem is that the creators did not intend anything like that, and right from the beginning, they only wanted to make a television biographical film about a contemporary celebrity and that is also reflected in the essentially quite flat script, which, for example, tediously focuses on the main character's acting attempts. However, this approach runs up against the fact that Bettie Page was not a personality, but just a hanger for clothes, simply a contemporary model who happened to start working in erotic material. She is not interesting as a character - the interesting thing is the environment around her. The film does not make use of the potential of many supporting characters, especially the couple of entrepreneurs producing erotic material. Thus, it only resulted in an average television film that does not even remotely reach the quality and attractiveness of another television film about a famous model - Gia. Overall impression: 50%.

I wouldn't go to see the classical adaptation of Shakespeare's drama "Romeo and Juliet" in the movie theater and I wouldn't waste my time watching it on television either, that's for sure. It's too well-known and I would feel like the proud princess after watching the same movie for the twelfth time. These dramas call for a modern approach and alternative perspectives. I had the opportunity to see Romeo and Juliet on stage as a comedy, where, among other things, marijuana was smoked and I had a great time. The problem is that Luhrmann made his Romeo and Juliet a popcorn story for teenagers, namely American teenagers raised on Xena or Buffy. I won't moralize or get upset about it, I'm just saying that this way of adapting a classic seems unfortunate to me and it completely misses the mark. If the director wanted to make something like this, he should have at least given up on the classical verse and made a modern film with everything that entails. The second star is solely for DiCaprio and Danes in the lead roles, but even so, it's only an overall impression of 35%.

After The Icicle Thief, I think this is Nichetti's second-best film. It doesn't have as top-notch a script as The Icicle Thief, but it's still an interesting concept, and, above all, this film placed the highest demands on Nichetti as an actor. He appears in several completely different roles as an alternative development of his character, and among other things, he presents himself as a professional member of the underworld, which I think is the only negative role I've had the opportunity to see him in so far. This is a comedy that, as is usual for Nichetti, goes beyond the mainstream and is a pleasant addition to Italian cinema. Overall impression: 75%.

In this film, Nichetti was still searching for how to direct and write, and it is a sort of tribute to the film style and works of Jacques Tati. The dialogue-free film is shot as a poetic slapstick, and the opening scene of the interview stuck in my memory the most. In the scene, a group of applicants is tasked with drawing a tree. Then, a series of ugly stumps without leaves appear, and only the main character played by Nichetti draws a beautiful, lush tree and is the only one who doesn't succeed in the interview. After all, the multinational company doesn't need ecological activists... Overall impression: 60%.

Maurizio Nichetti is an eccentric maverick who repeatedly comes up with unique projects that, while they may be quite outlandish from the mainstream perspective, are nonetheless original. The great thing is that they are usually comedies. This film is one of his more average works. It's not a film that changes the view of film history or that could end up in the top rankings, but it contains several funny scenes that stick in the memory more than the film as a whole. The screenplay is weaker than the direction itself. Nevertheless, the idea of placing one unlucky man in a village inhabited only by women is interesting, and I think many male viewers genuinely envy Nichetti for it. The smaller role of Jean Rochefort as a sexually overwhelmed resident of the settlement is a delight. Overall impression: 60%.

I really like animated films and I appreciate their well-crafted visual side, and for this reason alone, One Night in a City receives a 55% overall impression from me, because someone who is not a fan of animation can safely deduct 20-30%. It's neither fresh nor original at all, the dramaturgy failed and it's visible that there was probably no screenplay. The film simply falls apart, and I agree with most reviews that only the story about Ploutviček and Větvička is functional, while the rest consists of visually impressive images with well-made puppets, but they lack a meaningful point and atmosphere. The animation is on the level of a Czech bedtime story Doings of the Hippopotamus Family by the same director. That means it's adequate but not captivating. I simply didn't have the feeling that I should revisit this film in the future...

I finally watched the horror movie Rec, which is praised by horror fans, and I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed with the result given the high ratings and the enthusiastic reviews. Partially, it may be due to my exaggerated expectations because it is certainly not a bad movie. I just expected that a movie with an 80% rating would have an original theme, story, or truly quality execution. I was disappointed by the subject because the mystery turned out to be yet another version of a zombie horror, and I have mentioned in my reviews before that zombies simply do not scare me, or rather I am not interested in them as a horror theme. I was also disappointed by the execution because Rec does not significantly innovate the theme, it only slightly modifies it with a pseudo-documentary style, which already appeared some time ago in The Blair Witch Project. Although Rec surpasses that movie by several orders of magnitude in terms of professionalism, it is evident that the crew shot it with enthusiasm, there is a lot of energy in it, and considering what it offers to the viewers, there are no dull moments. However, that is not enough for the fourth star. There are simply too many clichés in it. Because I have seen something similar already, I essentially know exactly when someone will jump at someone else and which one of the characters will scream next. I would have liked it if the creators had taken a different path because to incite fear, isolation in an surrounded house is more than enough - fear of unknown danger, uncertainty, claustrophobia, and rapidly spreading paranoia. As it is well known, people are most afraid of what they do not see. The most atmospheric shots for me were from the attic laboratory, and I got startled once when the bulkhead doors fell... Rec has a likable cast - not that obvious acting talents appear in it, as this type of movie does not allow for that, but it is pleasant to see unknown faces instead of constantly looking at the same faces of several acting stars. I was specifically annoyed by the handheld camera, which, of course, played a crucial role in the story, but most of the footage was unnecessarily shaky and ruined my impression. The cameraman was supposed to be a professional, and if he showed me in real life something similar in the style of a seizure combined with the withdrawal of an advanced addict, I wouldn't fire him, because I would just kill him right away... Overall impression: 55%.