gudaulin

The theatrical segment is unnecessary and in this form, it distracts and delays. The film should have had a shorter runtime and stuck to statements from collaborators, historians, and family friends, confronting them with facts. The documentary provides a lot of information, but its quality fluctuates. Overall impression: 55%.

An interesting perspective on the lives and works of famous Hollywood stars, conceived as a competition between iconic figures of the film world that the media or life pitted against each other. For those interested not only in movies but also in what lies behind them, it is an extremely attractive behind-the-scenes view that has plenty of entertaining elements. Overall impression: 80%.

I can only review the series, but I didn't last longer than eight episodes with it. Undoubtedly, in the history of film and television, there are much weaker works in the fantasy genre. However, compared to Sapkowski's excellent literary source, the result is quite awkward. The weaker screenplay, which also differs from the books in many ways, the uneven acting performances, and a noticeably lower budget couldn't be saved by Michal Zebrowski, who was a good casting choice for the role (and possesses a very decent acting range), or by the several Polish acting aces who appeared in minor roles. From such strong source material, a much better spectacle could have emerged and a much greater mystique could have emanated from it. Overall impression: 35%.

This is a film thematically similar to Kubrick's The Shining, which focuses on mapping the dark places of the human psyche and the disintegration of one unfortunate person in a remote location within a small community. There are moments of decent atmosphere and overall acceptable performances, and especially in the first half, the director succeeds in creating shots with camera and music that evoke an atmosphere of alienation, confinement, and coldness. In the second half, where he also uses montage-like editing, it's not that great, the screenplay could have been a bit more sophisticated, and it is not even close to The Shining. However, it does deserve three stars. Overall impression: 55%.

This is certainly no miracle. Desperation suffers from the usual faults of TV adaptations, namely cheapness, absence of notable actors, clichés, and also the inability, due to the involvement of an average director, to convey the atmosphere that King is able to create in his novels, into reality. One great advantage is the casting of Ron Perlman, and in the first half, his presence manages to lift the film to a decent three stars. Then the film drops a grade lower. At times, the story and actions of the characters are a bit illogical, but it's hard to say whether it's due to the screenplay or the source material, because I haven't read the book. In any case, the usual ingredients and motifs of King's work appear in the story, including a religious fanatic, an alcoholic, and a liberal-minded Democrat - all of which are part of King's personality - he drank like a fish and sought solace in religious fervor, and in America, he belongs to left-leaning Democrats. Otherwise, I didn't notice King in this case - not even in a small role as a pizza delivery guy - maybe he got tired of it as he got older or he played one of the many corpses... Overall impression: 40%.

I am really at a loss as to how to review this. It's not a bad TV show at all, but it's like a crime series got mixed up with a completely different genre. There's a bit of The X-Files and a bit of a dark horror series in it. As a detective story, it's completely off the rails and highly unlikely. Writers and directors usually come up with these kinds of plots when a series is losing viewership and the original excitement of the cycle runs out. If Demons on Our Shoulders were part of a horror series, I wouldn't hesitate to give it two stars, but here the black magic and demon hunting very much got in the way for me. Overall impression: 45%.

Based on my previous experience with Ingmar Bergman, I can say that he is useful rather for those who want to commit suicide or for those who want to increase the profits of antidepressant manufacturers, rather than for viewers who want to genuinely laugh. I went into this movie with hidden concerns because Bergman's comedy All These Women, which I've seen in the past, is by far the worst film from him that I've watched. The truth is that I didn't laugh once, which, however, doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. In fact, Smiles of a Summer Night is a pleasant historical comedy that may not be hilarious, but it leaves a positive impression. The dialogue is nicely polished, with sparks flying between the characters, and the screenplay is quite interesting. Overall impression: 60%.

Greenaway's film is one of those rare cases when, despite my undeniable stinginess, I would be willing to leave the movie theater after half an hour and forget the money because I saved a bit of my increasingly scarce time. The question is: is it possible to make a film that is supposed to deal with the dark sides of the human soul, sexuality, and the lives of wealthy people unrestricted by social conventions in an unbelievably boring way? Yes. Greenaway proves that with a little effort, it can be done. If I were a producer, I would rather burn the money in the fireplace than invest it in a similar spectacle. It is an immensely self-centered and difficult-to-digest film, primarily intended for the festival circuit audience, for the small circle of true intellectuals, and a considerably larger circle of those who think they are intellectuals so that they can eagerly debate the hidden meanings of the film after seeing it. At the beginning, one character asks another: "Do you think leading directors make their films to satisfy their sexual fantasies?" - the other replies: "I think most of them do." If Greenaway made this film to satisfy his sexual fantasies, then he is a very boring and eccentric patron. This film is neither provocative nor spicy, and in no way is it true to life, because I have encountered a fair number of bizarre characters, sociopaths, and nutcases, but I have never come across anything remotely similar to these film characters. Overall impression: 5%.

Noticeably weaker than the first installment, with the humor occasionally slipping into awkwardness. However, it's still somewhat watchable within the genre of Italian screwball comedies. Overall impression: 40%.

Once, meaning in the late 80s, I really liked this crazy comedy, but I have to admit that it features humor of lower quality, somewhat childish. I think that older children and teenagers will enjoy it more. This is one of those cases where the percentage rating is influenced to a significant extent by nostalgia and the age of the reviewers. Some gags are still great today, but some make me cringe, as they are simply on the edge of awkwardness. Overall impression: 60%. However, the first part of the series still has some uncovered qualities, while the last two parts have fallen into the abyss of bad taste...