gudaulin

One of the many Nordic titles influenced by Trier's Dogma 95. A real environment, a handheld camera, and a believable and, in its own way, banal story devoid of any decorative and manipulative elements typical for entertaining film fiction. The film suggests the feeling of a documentary. Denis may command respect with his giant muscular physique, but he struggles in his romantic relationships and is under the influence of his dominant and manipulative mother. The years pass relentlessly, and Denis decides to escape from the seemingly comfortable environment of the "mom hotel" at all costs. He travels all the way to Thailand to find love and a new home. An encounter with his mother becomes inevitable. Teddy Bear is actually quite an ordinary film in terms of content, and I'm not sure if it would work as successfully if it didn't feature the striking presence of Kim Kold in the role of the gentle giant with a good heart, who moves us with his clumsiness. Overall impression: 60%.

This is a film that cannot deny that it was shot by a documentary filmmaker. It features the use of non-actors, authenticity of the environment, and realism of experienced situations. This film clearly does not aim to entertain, nor does it want to move you in a cheap way, shock, or demonize you. The director simply tries to send a message about what the migration flow from Africa is like and what motivates it. The dialogues may sound bookish and educational here and there, and the slow pace and documentary style will not appeal to everyone, but personally, I lean towards a small fourth star. Overall impression: 70%. It is a film that was ahead of its time and if it had received more attention from viewers, perhaps they would not have been so surprised because the flow of immigrants had already been attacking southern Europe for quite a few years, it just didn't seem to concern us back then.

Films that try to capture human life often fail to grasp and convey that which is essential, record life milestones, and capture the fateful decisions, successes, and failures of their protagonist. I think Barney's Version succeeded wonderfully thanks to the quality screenplay and above all Paul Giamatti, who managed to embody conviction and humanity in Barney. He evokes understanding where others would provoke outrage, he can move you without cheap sentiment and can make you laugh, and you tend to believe in his passion, naivety, pain, and uncertainty. It is my repeated encounter with Giamatti's character acting when I approvingly give a thumbs up. The film follows the romantic struggles of a man who has had three marriages, and two divorces, and briefly tried out the role of a widower. Amidst all the tumultuous events in his life, he is accompanied by a desire for a fateful great love and finding the ideal partner for a lifetime. The viewer meets Barney during his bohemian period and follows him to a bitter end filled with illness and loneliness. Nevertheless, it is ultimately a positive, optimistic work, which I give an overall impression of 85%.

As in the past many times, I will be a rebel in this case as well and I will give End of Watch an unflattering report card. The fashion of films shot with a shaky handheld camera in a pseudo-documentary style has never appealed to me and in many cases, it just feels plain wrong. I could count on the fingers of one hand when a similar style used in a film had a legitimate reason. While the camera on a policeman could still be clumsily justified, on the criminal's side it looks like a failed joke and it's simply absurd. The macho behavior of the policemen is not sympathetic to me, the glorification of their work is obvious, and the pathos is at times unbearable. Although the film mentions that many policemen never fire a shot outside of training, both protagonists are busier than a frontline soldier during an offensive. The result is remarkably reminiscent of a failed reality show on an American commercial station. Overall impression: 25%.

To the question of whether Dog Day is an excellent thriller, I answer no. To the question of whether it is fun, I answer yes - it definitely is for me. It is quite characteristic that in the variety of genres that appear in the header of titles on FilmBooster, the comedy or parody genre is often missing, even though the results tend to be closest to it. What Yves Boisset did is exceptionally successful for notorious B-movie makers when they are lucky and have their big day. This film is an incredible piece of pulp in terms of where the entertainment comes from, and it is worth asking whether it was the result of unwanted magic when it all got out of hand for the creators, or if it was a creative intention wherein the crew wanted to do something very crazy and it worked out. Even the opening robbery scene is messed up, both in terms of the criminals and the police force, who act like the famous Keystone Cops. The film alternates between serious moments and downright crazy scenes, and that happens at completely unexpected moments. It is a mixture of naivety, absurdity, violence, fear, and psychologically unbelievable moments. The film is cast with excellent popular actors of the period, and its advantage is that it is absolutely unpredictable. You shouldn't take it seriously and should take it as nonsense that you either like or don't like. I dare say that if such a script, with slight adjustments, were made into a serious film by the Coen brothers in the style of Fargo or No Country for Old Men, it would be fantastic. At times, I had so much fun that I seriously considered giving it five stars, but then I would feel like someone who pees on statues in the park for fun or exposes themselves. This film is simply a typical guilty pleasure for me. Overall impression: 75%.

Some choices look like sure bets. Both the author of the literary original and the director represent attractive artists in their field who can write and direct differently from the mainstream and create amazing alternative worlds. I was perhaps too excited because what I got was an animated film that wasn't as mature and provocative as I had imagined. Additionally, I had a problem of an ethical nature, so to speak. I was cheering for those who were portrayed as villains in the movie, even though they were actually just protecting their property. On the other hand, the charming Mr. Fox is nothing more than a thief who justifies his thievery by saying that he simply enjoys it. It is simply a morally depraved film. In the end, I was most pleased with the visual aspects, which are truly unique even in today's flood of films on the market. Overall impression: 65%.

It's not that there aren't titles in the romantic comedy genre that deviate from the norm and try to break the established production formula, but I dare say that it will be difficult to find a genre that has such a preserved basic scheme, in which only the names, faces, and settings alternate. Marc Lawrence is certainly not one of those who would attempt a revolution within the genre, and he relies on the tried and tested. However, I think it is a watchable film for more than just the genre fans. It's not clever, but not outright stupid either, and it has a powerful weapon in the form of Hugh Grant, for whom similar roles are a sure bet. These types of guys know how to act and do it with great charm. And Drew Barrymore is also well cast. Hugh Grant has appeared in many better films, and for Drew, this one is probably one of the most successful in her not-so-spectacular career. Pop music is naturally an easy target for irony and all kinds of jokes, but the parody of a cheesy pop romance for teenage fans in the form of a music video for the song "Pop! Goes My Heart" is flawless. For me, it gets 3 stars and a 55% overall impression.

The Nuremberg Campaign is halfway between Vávra's trilogy about the Hussite period and the peak films of František Vláčil. Its central idea is disillusionment and the vanity nurtured by years of revenge. The German knight does not achieve glory in the crusade against the Czech rebels, the Czech nobleman does not marry his beloved bride, and he is not even granted the satisfaction of revenge on the usurper. Yet the dead people around are all too real. It is evident from the set design that the Barrandov Studios truly represented a significant film center at that time, able to afford expensive productions. Overall impression: 75%.

The first part of the trilogy, set in Berlin divided by the Iron Curtain, sets the bar quite high. I had the feeling that it was a miniseries with a clever story, excellent cast, thrilling action scenes, and a big budget, which therefore has all the prerequisites for a high rating. However, the second episode sobered me up, and watching the third left me with a lot of doubts because according to the resolution, the creators have some strange ideas about the world of espionage. History knows only two cases of penetration of a Soviet mole into the CIA. The screenwriter plays with the idea of ​​the third most cunning and sophisticated infiltration, a certain American Kim Philby (who also has his role in the story). Of course, we only know stories of exposed spies and it cannot be ruled out that there were those who escaped attention and lived on peacefully, but the outcome of the plot that the creators present is rather amusing. The miniseries does not represent an opposing pole to masterpieces like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (that opposing pole consists more of popcorn movies like Bond or Mission Impossible), but it does provide proof that a promising development is not enough and that it is also necessary to master the ending. I would note for myself that one of the biggest CIA debacles - the failed Bay of Pigs invasion - was certainly not caused by a leak of information, but by a completely wrong estimate of the mood of the Cuban population and a failure in analyzing the conditions and capabilities of the Cuban regime. Overall impression: 60%.

The 1990s of wild post-communism in Central European countries naturally represents an attractive substance that filmmakers want to adapt into film. This film is accompanied by the overused and exploited sentence "Based on true events." I believe that most of what is depicted somehow took place, but not forcibly squeezed into one place and all at the same time. Poverty, prostitution, penetration of organized crime from the post-Soviet space, debauchery, and corruption are dosed in such quantities that it is obvious how the creators gradually lost their sense of balance and credibility. At first, I considered giving it 4 stars, but as time went by, my dissatisfaction grew, and the last fifteen minutes clearly sank the film for me. It's a shame because otherwise, it was a charming and promising work. Overall impression: 40%.