gudaulin

The film's biggest advantage is the presence of two great actors of its era, namely Mastroianni and Rochefort, who act with a sense of humor and enjoy their roles as not very successful members of their own profession. The acting legends actually play their considerably less successful colleagues, who struggle from one gig to another and count every penny. However, I can't shake the feeling that the potential of the film was greater. Yves Robert seems to be unsure about what he actually wants to film and pay attention to. He devotes an excessive amount of energy to the romantic and parental problems of his protagonist, who struggles to balance between two women. But in the role of a ladies' man and an aging nut, Mastroianni is hopelessly overplayed and therefore uninteresting. Focusing the energy on two aging tired men, who professionally don't know which way to go and are increasingly accepting humiliating positions, would have been much wiser and more entertaining, as it would have offered countless opportunities for tragicomic situations. This way, the film only works in part and the casting has to save it. Overall impression: 65%.

The role of Italy in World War II was very diffident, the regime was unpopular, the army ineffective, and the overall situation on the home front was gloomy. Italian war films therefore usually do not focus on military alliances and epic battles, but rather on the fate of civilians in the background, and Two Women does not deviate from this tradition. The story of a woman from Rome who, out of fear of bombings, sets off with her daughter to the countryside to stay with relatives follows the tradition of neorealist films of the 1950s and presents a great opportunity for Sophia Loren to showcase her acting skills. Paradoxically, it is she herself who prevents me from giving the film the highest rating. I do not underestimate her acting talent at all, but I just couldn't connect with her as an actress. The same applies, by the way, to other famous names of world cinema of that era, starting with Brigitte Bardot. Overall impression: 85%.

A man who obstructed so much even when he was alive is so malicious that he continues to obstruct even after death. The stubborn widow's decision to bury her husband as a victim of collectivization in their native village is a test for the regime, to see if it has learned to treat its presumed and actual opponents more humanely since the times of harsh Stalinism, to see if it has understood that it is better to persuade and set an example rather than to command and punish. It is a bitter and unpleasant intimate story, yet also a film that I consider to be one of the most significant artistic testimonies about the 1950s in Czechoslovakia. It is one of the gems of Czech cinema of the late 1960s and at the same time a film that was one of the first to be placed in the vault. Overall impression: 95%.

There is a bit of a problem with the reflection of the communist regimes in Central Europe. From the side of journalists and artists, there is a clear effort to take uncompromising condemnations and moralistic positions. From the side of viewers - those who remember the old order - there is a sense of nostalgia, not only for their own youth, but also for a world that was simple and, with a certain dose of conformity and frugality, actually comfortable and safe. The German production managed to balance both positions very well. The story of the last night of East German customs officers and border guards before the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequently the entire regime is full of absurdity, black humor, and well-pointed situations. The injustice and dysfunction of the system are evident, not minimized or excused. On the other hand, filmmakers look at their protagonists from a human perspective, understanding their complicated situation. From the different experiences of East German and West German citizens, they try to create a unifying view of recent German history that does not violate history and yet allows those who were involved in it in one way or another to maintain their dignity. A likable cast and a quality screenplay - what more could you ask for? Overall impression: 90%.

R.I.F. could possibly function as a closed episode of an extensive crime cycle, but even that would not entice anyone. The film is undermined by an unimaginative script and average television production values with unremarkable actors. Overall impression: 45%.

The dollar may have had significantly more power in the mid-70s than it does today, but the fact remains that the movie only cost a mere 1.9 million, which is unbelievable. Nevertheless, money for the project was hard to come by, and it took a long 3 years for Scorsese and De Niro to make it happen. The screenwriter used a real-life successful assassination attempt on presidential candidate George Wallace in 1972. However, the film is not a crime story in the ordinary sense; rather, it is a psychological drama about a Vietnam War veteran who cannot readjust to society upon his return home. Gradually, he becomes the opposite of Jack, the founder of the Fight Club in Fincher's famous film. Jack embodied the dissatisfaction of the radical urban intellectual left and the idea of an anarchist rebellion against the system. On the other hand, Travis is closer to the positions of the radical right; he watches with concern and increasing contempt as life unfolds in a decadent metropolis full of loose sexual morality, crime, and existential insecurity. Both anti-heroes share not only chronic insomnia but also a protest against the world they want to rid of falsehoods. If Travis had carried out his plan to the end, he would have been seen as the archetype villain by the public. However, Scorsese allows his character to live on and even makes him famous in the eyes of the public. Ironically, he thus caricatures the double morality of bourgeois society. Travis' multiple murder of members of the urban gallery turns him not into a terrorist but into a courageous fighter against the underworld. Even members of the liberal urban elite are not spared. The activist Betsy represents the epitome of a snob, and presidential candidate Palantine is a typical example of a professional chatterbox who speaks in vague phrases. Scorsese benefited greatly from not taking a clear activist stance. During its creation, Taxi Driver sparked numerous controversies and passions. In a few years, it became a cult film, and rightly so, unlike many other works. It has definitely not aged; the character of Travis Bickle still unsettles viewers to this day. From my perspective, it is Robert De Niro's most significant role. A bonus for today's viewers is the fact that the supporting actors grew into first-class stars over the following decades. Overall impression: 95%.

I consider myself a rational person who also dislikes rushing, so I let myself be controlled by emotions only exceptionally - usually when something heavy or sharp falls on my foot. I reject love at first sight, yet after just a few minutes of the first episode, I felt a strong connection between me and the series forming - it simply perfectly hit my mood and my taste. Satire is counted among comedic genres, usually associated with exaggeration and absurdity, with grotesque and black humor. We expect bursts of laughter from it. At one point in the past, I was surprised that the morbid novel "The Child Buyer," which evoked completely different emotions in me, is also referred to as satire by reviewers. Under the label of political satire, we probably imagine series like Yes, Minister, or the more outspoken The Thick of It. House of Cards appears more serious at first glance, focusing on credibility and not attempting to evoke bursts of laughter. It initially follows the formula of social dramas. An ambitious man who has tied his future to a presidential candidate expects a substantial reward after winning the elections. However, the feast for the privileged is forbidden to him, with the condition that he must have supervision over the cafeteria, which undeniably has quality and no one is hungry there. However, the cafeteria food cannot satisfy Francis's appetite for power, so as an experienced chef, he begins to mix ingredients in a way that would upset the head chef and cause a stir in the kitchen. Francis is a perfect power technologist, a manipulator, and a skillful negotiator, who is knowledgeable about human psychology and the functioning of state institutions. Francis's detachment, ironic glosses, and comments that he directs at the viewer reveal that we are truly in the realm of satire, despite the objectivity and the effort to have an analytical view. House of Cards paints an unflattering picture of American high politics manipulated by lobbyists, disintegrated by personal ambitions and intrigues. Noble ideals here too often succumb to cynical pragmatism and manipulation. The charm of the series lies in the virtuosity with which Francis goes through the story and directs the course of events. Even the best ancient orators would have to pay tribute for his performance in the church, where he masterfully managed to break the spikes of hatred and gain the sympathy of those present. ------ Whether I like it or not, I have to return to my review after some time. Making mistakes is human, and I repentantly confess to my mistake. Some series quickly lose steam, the screenwriter runs out of ideas, or the story falls flat. Here, I get the feeling that the screenwriter and I completely diverged at some point. I wanted to see something in House of Cards that it is objectively not and does not want to be. The sexual affair between Frank and the ambitious young journalist should have warned me because honestly, it did not fit his character and ambitions at all. Frank would not just throw himself at someone who can offer him so little. However, the real blow came with the first murder. Innocents, of course, do not move in high politics, but for several centuries, it has been customary that the dirty work is entrusted to someone who can be removed or thrown overboard if necessary. Ideally, someone whom it is difficult to connect to the client. Here, Frank comes across more as an unpredictable psychopath than a big player. After the second murder, I definitively gave up on the series. The cast is great, but what the screenwriter is doing kills the promising potential. Overall impression: from the originally lofty heights, I have fallen very deeply in the second season, so my overall impression of 60% is a compromise in its own way - also with the knowledge that I would go down by a few percentage points with each subsequent episode.

This documentary appears to have been funded by the Moroccan Ministry of Development and Tourism. It is too official. That doesn't change the fact that the camera provides many attractive shots of Moroccan landmarks and nature. Overall impression: 60%.

This was a pleasant surprise at the 2015 French Film Festival. In full glory, a genre returns to the scene that French cinema was once proud of - the old-fashioned crime film, this time shot in the style of Fincher's Zodiac. Not as a conflict between the police and the criminal underworld, but as a difficult and lengthy process of collecting clues, putting together small pieces that someone might later be able to assemble to make sense. A maze of clues, dead ends, and mistakes that cost the lives of more victims. Serial Killer 1 describes the case of a serial killer who terrified the inhabitants of Paris for years and kept the police apparatus busy. It shows how easy it is to stray from the right track, and how tricky it is to apply rational thinking where the opponent lacks it. The viewer follows the intricate investigation and at the same time, the court trial with the suspect, where the filmmakers leave him in uncertainty and tension, whether that antisocial oddball spreading negative energy around him from the position of the accused is the actual perpetrator. Overall impression: 95%.

The viewer realizes that what comes around goes around when watching how the flawless machinery of the organization of contract killers begins to creak, mistakes and inexplicable failures start piling up, and the gang boss starts to feel like he's in hot water. For many years, he sent others to eternity, now he is succumbing to paranoia, thinking that someone is trying his own tricks on him. The movie is a carefully crafted work in every aspect, and it is a joy to watch especially thanks to the amazing camera work. I won't give it five stars due to the overly constructed script - the assassinations may be perfectly combined games, but in real life, they would likely fail. Otherwise, I have no objections. The hesitant reviews of many are rather related to the fact that they expected a somewhat different genre and a different kind of spectacle. It is not an action film in the least, and certainly not in the spirit of the famous Hong Kong action movies. It is also more suited for a festival audience than for regular pop culture fans. Overall impression: 80%.