gudaulin

The relationship between an aging man and a young girl is a highly common theme in world cinema. From the many films of its kind, A Housekeeper doesn't particularly stand out. It's a film more suited for the television screen than the big screen. The story is presented in a modest manner, and its resolution is not surprising. However, the faces of the actors are somewhat fresh, and Jean-Pierre Bacri, in particular, delivers a decent amount of character acting and experience, making his character believable. Furthermore, the screenplay avoids any illogical Hollywood-esque twists. So, overall, it deserves a 50%.

The film is quite a pleasant deviation from the current mainstream and is certainly a successful debut by director Artem Antonov. However, the film shows creative inexperience, and if I compare it to a film in a similar vein, such as The Cuckoo, the latter clearly wins in terms of execution. The screenplay is somewhat unfinished, resulting in flat characters that the viewer learns very little about. On the other hand, the cinematography is excellent. The film features several great scenes, such as the fall into the frozen river or the carnival. Nevertheless, I can't shake the feeling that more could have been extracted from the given material. My overall impression ranges between three and four stars, ultimately leaning towards 70%.

Undoubtedly the weakest of John Carpenter's films that I've had the chance to see. Frankly, I don't understand how the director of The Thing or In the Mouth of Madness could have been involved in this creation at all... That one star is basically for his previous merits. The acting performances are, to put it diplomatically, uneven, the direction uninspired, but the crown jewel of it all is the screenplay, for which the author should probably roast in hell. Similar botched films are occasionally saved by grand production design, but that's not the case here either. So, all in all: a complete waste of time. Overall impression: 20%.

From a genre perspective, the film hardly functions as a horror at all. It might be somewhat acceptable as a weaker thriller with fairly earnest acting performances. However, it's dragged down to the depths by an appallingly amateurish screenplay and impotent direction. If the studio was banking on Kim Basinger, which was a mistake because - judging solely from this film - she peaked earlier in her career. Since effort alone isn't sufficient, my overall rating is a mere 25%.

To give this film a Boo! rating is actually quite unfair - not only does it degrade other films falling into this category, but at times, the film provides such unintentional charm. Creating something so systematically bad is actually quite remarkable because if anyone were to attempt the same deliberately, they'd probably fail. Absurd editing, choreography, casting, and dialogues. My overall impression of 10% is truly for the unintended humor. Who on earth put this bunch together...

An average American comedy with no significant strengths, but also no outright blunders, relying on the star-studded female half of the cast. It's probably not surprising that Jennifer Aniston and Amanda Peet effortlessly outshine Cameron Diaz, who scores with her charm. The film offers several witty dialogues, but also a few dull moments. Going to the movie theater for such a film might not be a very wise investment, but watching it on TV is an acceptable option. Overall impression: 50%.

A typical modern Bond film packed with technology, digital effects, and dynamic action. I find it challenging to review similar productions because I'm not a fan of the genre. On one hand, it's a high-budget film with plenty of visually appealing scenes, and both the direction and acting are decently executed. There are charming moments in the film, such as the verbal showdown between Pierce Brosnan and John Cleese. On the other hand, the same criticism applies to this film as to most Bond films. In terms of the screenplay, it's utter nonsense, although thankfully it doesn't take itself too seriously. I can't give it four stars, but it certainly deserves no less than three. By the way, they're a decent three stars. Overall impression: 65%.

A run-of-the-mill film about a passionate blind love, where the main character forgets everything else. It's unoriginal, and moreover, Luke Perry didn't seem very convincing to me. Overall impression: 45%.

I have absolutely no intention of claiming that this is an exceptional film, as I don't think it is. However, in its genre (and considering that it is a TV film), it is nonetheless above average, and compared to the flood of family melodramas and sappy romantic films of American and German productions, it is a masterpiece. The story of random infidelity, the breakdown of a family, and the subsequent search for a new relationship are believable (who among us hasn't seen something similar?), and even though the director works with sentimentality, they never slide into kitsch.  Ioan Gruffudd and Elizabeth Mitchell are perfectly cast and likable. Considering that only a small sample of productions can match films like As Good as It Gets, Man and Boy deserves its 65% overall impression.

It is not explicitly a bad film. Strictly objectively speaking, it is a slightly above-average genre affair that in a different case would deserve a weaker four stars and relatively friendly reviews. The problem with the film is that it was based on a very high-quality science fiction novel, and back when it was made it was a film with great ambitions, budget, and a star cast. However, the result simply does not correspond to all of that. The screenplay does not match the quality of the source material, but the main problem is the unremarkable direction, which at times makes the high-budget film feel almost like a television film. The actors themselves cannot save it. Dustin Hoffman and Samuel L. Jackson act quite decently, but they are hardly half as good compared to other films they are in. Unfortunately, the plot is mostly predictable, as well as who will survive. This novel deserved a more dignified film adaptation. Overall impression: 55%.