gudaulin

The Distinguished Citizen is a valuable, albeit somewhat cynical and malicious contribution to the discussion on the role of intellectuals in today's society. I cannot recommend it to casual viewers. It will likely be appreciated by those who have already experienced some things in life and are not trapped in their social bubbles. It is not an impressive and showy film, but it is cleverly constructed and reliably takes you where it wants you to go. It never bores, and it occasionally stings or slaps you cruelly, and constantly gives you a conspiratorial wink, asking if you understand how life works. The direction is not dazzling, as the strength of the film does not lie therein, but the script did enchant me, as did the characters and the questions the film raises. For Oscar Martinez's focused performance and especially for the opening speech, through which his protagonist shocked the social elite while accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature, I am giving it five stars. Even Ricky Gervais doesn't have the balls for such a knockout, and God knows what I would give to see the shocked faces of establishment figures in a live broadcast. Overall impression: 90%.

Reviewing Phoenix is a really tricky issue. Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever labeling Phoenix as a truly bad film. A fundamentally bad film, to be exact. On the other hand, Phoenix is bad in such a charmingly twisted way and its craftsmanship undeniably has many strengths. It's a film that literally screams falsehood. It is untrustworthy in its portrayal of human emotions, thought processes, and the actions of its characters. By attempting to be earnestly serious, it teeters on the edge of absurdity, and by desperately striving for catharsis, it goes beyond that threshold. I actually felt sorry for Nina Hoss for what the director put her through. It's not important that Phoenix is a construct. There are plenty of films like that and yet they manage to be fully functional. One such example is Hitchcock's Vertigo, which many people refer to. The problem is that it is a naive and awkward construct. I liked the cinematography, Ronald Zehrfeld portrayed Johny very nicely, and I also liked the atmosphere. However, my overall impression is still only 40%, and Petzold should be glad for even this modest number, considering how he handled a serious topic.

Brit Marling is truly a charismatic and attractive actress equipped with a decent dose of talent, and she perfectly fits into her role as the cult leader. The director is not a novice and knows what he wants to achieve. The problem is that I am not the right type of viewer for his artistic intent. I have a clearly defined opinion on the functioning of religious cults, where there is no place for games, where the boundary between reality and the world of occult forces and mysteries begins. For me, Maggie is a manipulator, not a mystery or a myth. Overall impression: 60%.

Taika Waititi is a filmmaker worth keeping an eye on - assuming you appreciate his somewhat disrespectful humor based on ironic exaggeration and unique type of poetry. His talent and limitations are clearly evident in Jojo Rabbit. The director chooses actors excellently and is able to bring out the maximum from them, especially the child actors, including Roman Griffin Davis. He has a developed sense of exaggeration, absurdity, and situational comedy. The humorous part of the film works much better than the part that aims to move and elicit catharsis. Kachyňa was able to sell tragedy and laughter within one style, while Waititi's transitions between frivolity and seriousness in storytelling seem rushed and sometimes even disruptive. The director is not afraid to use anachronistic musical motifs, allowing you to watch his characters in the midst of World War II accompanied by The Beatles or Bowie. Sam Rockwell is one of the most likable characters who has ever worn a Wehrmacht uniform, and you will likely love his casual captain who traded the front line for a gang of children in Hitler Youth uniforms. The success of Jojo Rabbit lies in its entertainment value, pace, and humor. Nevertheless, international audiences will especially appreciate its ability to deliver clearly articulated moral messages in a pleasant manner. It is typical Hollywood fare, and much tamer and less controversial than Taika Waititi would like. You have probably seen a similar story in slightly different packaging before. Personally, Waititi's portrayal of Hitler did not resonate with me. In my opinion, it was too childish and harmless. However, despite my aforementioned remark, it does not affect my overall impression of 75%. It is a crowd-pleasing film that also appeals to family audiences. It does not require deep historical knowledge from you, and honestly, it is better not to scrutinize Waititi's storytelling style too much, as you may find flaws within it.

This is one of the cases where I'm not actually going to give it a rating because I actually didn't have the strength to sit through a single episode. However, there were six attempts where I tried to violate myself and my tastes so that I could give you my impression with a comment. I have never been able to watch any episode for longer than 10 minutes, because I gained an unwavering feeling that I was watching some sophisticated parody of American family values, while at the same time realizing that the creators meant it deadly serious. This is emotionally so overdone and pathetic - it's as if you've fallen into a cotton candy drum or found yourself in the world of Barbies and Kens through some sort of magic. It doesn't work on me at all, I'm simply a down-to-earth skeptical man. This Is Us is as American a family series as it can be... After a few weeks away from it, I now dare to add two stars because I couldn't resist the temptation and watched three episodes of the latest season to confirm all my negative estimates. Pathos and emotions on steroids are not for me. This Is Us takes very seriously that which Frears' hero mocks against his will.

You have definitely experienced it before. A concept that cannot disappoint, and in the first few minutes you feel a perfect harmony, but as time goes by, reality sets in and you wonder where the mistake happened. Advertising, that scented corpse of capitalism, is an incredibly grateful target for satire, and when you have a good scriptwriter who knows how to play with advertising slogans and turn the manipulative techniques of advertising agencies upside down, you can't disappoint the audience. However, the script took the wrong direction; in my opinion, it's a typical search for blind alleys. What was supposed to be explosively funny is sterile or even slightly slips into awkwardness. However, Richard E. Grant is a good choice for portraying the advertising wizard, and his performances, when he feels like he's at the bottom, work. It's a pity for the wasted potential, and in the end, I lean towards giving it two stronger stars for its toothless ending. Simply don't bother with it... Overall impression: 45%.

And people say that it makes no sense to search for the worst movie... It has become such a ritual for me that at irregular intervals when insomnia battles exhaustion, I watch a film suitable as filler for late-night television broadcasting. I understand why a low-budget film has special effects like those of Day of Reckoning, why it has the locations it has, and why it uses the services of such actors. But why does the script make no sense, why do the characters behave like lunatics, and why is everything absurd? This can realistically only be reviewed as Boo! or five stars. I'm staying grounded so as not to mislead anyone. Overall impression: 5% for the unintended humor.

Umberto Eco was part of the generation of European intellectuals who were shaped by their resistance to television as a medium, which they saw as the foundation for the cheap entertainment of the widest masses of consumers. Based on principle, they were convinced that any work had to be chewed up and spat out in order to satisfy a large enough target group. Therefore, Umberto would not be surprised or disappointed by the result of the work of the TV team that embarked on the adaptation of his cult novel. He probably would have enjoyed it instead and claimed that this was exactly what he expected. Personally, influenced by the novel, I once had a hard time fully accepting the film version because it seemed stripped of its philosophical and spiritual dimension. Meanwhile, Annaud's film stands out alongside this series as an excellent atmospheric affair with great casting. John Turturro ranks fourth on my list of favorite actors, and that says it all. However, I will forever remember him as the lawyer from The Night Of, not as the Franciscan from The Name of the Rose. He lacks the charisma under the veil of his beard, which radiates from Sean Connery's masculine character. The same is true for Christian Slater and Damian Hardung comparison. Annaud also discovered a distinctive face for cinema in Ron Perlman, and so on. His film was filled with atmosphere, which cannot be said at all about the series. It has nice set pieces, but they lack any real life. It is evident that the creators aimed to shift the plot toward an adventurous and romantic genre, which is the last thing Eco strived for. This is not about developing certain motifs, but about violating the literary source. I won't rate it with stars because I stopped watching after two episodes. But I'm sure that with each passing episode, I would suffer more and more.

A television story, in which everyone loves something. An older man his independence, a model the older man, and a fashion photographer the model. No one has exactly what they desire, but the status quo holds its value and the courage for great gestures is lacking. The short drama captures the style of the 60s well. Looking at the acting trio, one cannot help but imagine how big cinema relying on a strong industry would handle similar acting types. In France, Jana Brejchová would be a female superstar, Miroslav Macháček could easily be imagined as Michel Piccoli, and Jan Tříska could be calmly compared to Belmondo. Overall impression: 65%.

I appreciate Saša Uhlová's project, and therefore I am even more disappointed that I have to express my disappointment with how the documentary turned out. I considered the idea of a series of investigative visits to companies relying on low-skilled workers to be necessary and impactful. I read the original texts with enthusiasm, and the reactions to them allow for a better definition of the dividing line of political opinions across society than anything else. Unfortunately, Apolena Rychlíková's film adds practically nothing to them - on the contrary, it dilutes them. The technical quality of the hidden camera footage is desperate, and the content of the documentary is ambivalent. Instead of analyzing her own feelings, Saša should have focused on the stories of those for whom the environment that traumatized Saša is a long-term fate, not a short excursion. Overall impression: 50% out of respect for Saša.