gudaulin

I experienced the premiere of this film as a boy and I perceived it completely differently than I do today. Just like many other phenomena, I have to reassess this film series because although it once entertained me, the humor has aged, some of the gags and situations now feel awkward, and even though there are some functional jokes, they are in the minority. Sellers indeed performs with his characteristic enthusiasm in this grotesque, but his humor is too childish and I don't care for it now, and the same applies to the overacting Herbert Lom. Overall impression: 45%.

The set design was great, and not even Hollywood would have to be ashamed of it, but if I appreciate the set design the most in a feature film, something is wrong. The film basically has a very reasonable runtime, but subjectively, it seemed to me about 20 minutes longer and for most of that time, I felt that something was amiss in the dramaturgy. The Russian realities are well portrayed, and no one needs to be ashamed of their acting, but as I said, I still felt the passage of time. In the end, this co-production falls into the broad group of films that don't offend, but also don't impress. Overall impression: 60%.

The value of this documentary lies in the attractive archival shots from the 1920s and 1930s, which are certainly not easily accessible. However, in terms of content, it only regurgitates long-known facts that are readily available, and due to the limited runtime, they are also greatly reduced. Overall impression: 65%.

If I were to add an adjective to JFK, it definitely wouldn't be the best Stone film. But it might deserve the adjective that it is the most personal film. Oliver Stone simply fulfilled his dream and made a film about a topic that interests him the most in modern American history. The film is made with obvious enthusiasm, passionately, and even obsessively. And I don't think it's a good thing. Stone lacks distance and falls into paranoid constructions. In the early 90s, I studied the assassination of Kennedy and read everything that was available in our country. It's like this - if you don't care about seriousness in America, you deal with conspiracy theories about Area 51 and ufology, from which Spielberg himself drew inspiration for his popular culture blockbusters, and if you want to appear serious, you deal with the Kennedy assassination and construct the craziest conspiracies. Oliver Stone understandably chose only the materials that support his theories from a vast amount of material. However, there are just as many clues that break down his idea. I dare not say that I know how everything happened, but in the end, the idea that Oswald acted alone seems more likely than any other version. If anything is really true, it is that the US government administration showed itself in a really bad light, whether it's the security measures before the assassination or the course of the investigation itself. But searching for a devilish conspiracy in all of this reeks of purposefulness. If any myth deserves to be ruthlessly shattered, it is primarily the idea of the "president of truth" that Stone works with. The popular sitcom Red Dwarf provocatively works with the idea in one of its episodes that the assassination will be thwarted and it leads to a disaster because Kennedy, weakened by constant social scandals from numerous love affairs and ties to the mafia, will not be able to steer America. Of course, it is a comedic exaggeration, but with a real basis. With the passage of time, it can be said that Kennedy was not different from his presidential colleagues and had more than enough scandals on his hands. For me, the film is unbearable in terms of length and especially its conspiratorial paranoid character. In JFK, I see the beginning of the pollution of the public space with the most stupid conspiracy theories imaginable. The mechanism that Stone used has only been recycled since then. Overall impression: 60%.

In the field of organized crime, there were many important players, but only one was the king. A man who declared war on his own country, but also the only private individual who ever challenged the United States of America to a duel. A man who, at the height of his fame, earned 5 billion dollars a year, and owned a private army including an air force and navy. A man who created a state within a state and paid a significant portion of state institutions. Pablo Escobar became a legend even during his lifetime. I remember that even behind the Iron Curtain in the 80s, fragmentary information about his exploits reached us. And although we lived with different problems on a different continent, Escobar was simply an unmistakable figure on a global scale. The most significant drug producer and dealer, a man who aspired to become the Colombian president, a megalomaniac, and a completely ruthless brutal murderer. Narcos is an exceptionally interesting work primarily because of the material it deals with. The life stories of Pablo Escobar and other members of the Medellín Cartel would be enough for several seasons of a TV series, and there would still be plenty to tell. This is actually the biggest problem with the series. It is too concise, and the majority of the characters remain at the level of figures. For me, the best series about organized crime remains Boardwalk Empire (although I haven't seen The Wire yet). Wagner Moura enjoys playing the role of Pablo Escobar, and José Padilha's direction is reliable and he feels right at home in the genre. The series has a significance for Latin America that we fully cannot realize in Europe. Pablo Escobar was loved and admired by the masses regardless of the number of dead bodies he left behind. He simply had the reputation of a man of the people and a bandit who distributed his wealth to the poor. The series ruthlessly breaks this perception and portrays Pablo Escobar as a destroyer of his country and society, which he systematically undermined with his activities. It is quite telling that his attacks, which targeted the general public, remained without a response, and the reaction of the political elite only came when he attacked high society. The poorer classes suffered the most from his terror. At the same time, the series also shows that Escobar was able to build his empire at a time when the United States was preoccupied with the Cold War. Once the rivalry with the Soviet Union ceased, the cartel began to decline rapidly, because the potential that was previously tied to the fight against communism could now be directed elsewhere. Overall impression: 90%.

I am not the target audience and I was more interested in how deep Czech television can sink in its attempt to imitate commercial TV. This is a format that is fundamentally unsuitable for public television, and I don't believe for a second that reality shows reflect real life. The primary and secondary intention here is to entertain the audience and create the most controversial situations with the most controversial participants. Stereotypes are strongly used here and it's not at all smart. Overall impression: 5%.

Bridge of Spies, or Spielberg's successful attempt to sell the Cold War to mainstream audiences. Spielberg can without exaggeration be called the uncrowned king of midcult, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. He simply has the ability to direct a film in a highly professional manner and to process any subject matter in a way that makes it accessible to the average viewer, not just the elite festival crowd. However, this comes with a certain pleasing quality, a smoothing of edges, and the ability to squeeze out emotions and move the audience, and not always at the right moment. The touching music in Bridge of Spies really got on my nerves at times. Spielberg's characters are in the right moment at the right place and express the right words and thoughts. He presents history and events in a somewhat more noble way than how they appeared in reality. In some aspects, Bridge of Spies is similar to Schindler's List, although it does not remotely reach the manipulative distortion typical of that film. I am more drawn to the approach that Polanski chose in The Pianist. If I want to see a film without softening filters, I have to look elsewhere than in Spielberg's workshop. What can be fully appreciated is the high level of professionalism, the ability to create beautiful and impressive images (the 1950s are more vivid there than in reality), and Spielberg's mentioned ability to time scenes appropriately and work with human emotions. Spielberg is simply a storyteller who sometimes tweaks stories for the sake of effect and educational messages. From an acting perspective, I have no objections, and Tom Hanks is a representative of Hollywood's elite who is more than suited for this type of role. For informed viewers, Bridge of Spies has one more negative dimension, which is typical of similar artistic reconstructions of real events. You simply know how it turned out with Colonel Abel and Powers in reality, and the tension just doesn't happen, despite the efforts of the screenwriters. Overall impression: 80%.

The most interesting acting performance in Icy Breasts is undoubtedly that of Claude Brasseur, who handles character acting better than Alain Delon. Mireille Darc as the mysterious woman delivers her standard and actually doesn't have to try too hard. Her appearance speaks for itself. The film is at its strongest when it still hasn't revealed where it's heading, while the screenwriting game didn't turn out as well as it could have. However, attentive viewers will soon gather enough clues about what is happening. Not to mention that Lautner's direction is not particularly impressive. Overall impression: 60%. I would say it's standard French genre filmmaking from the 70s.

My first two encounters with Claire Denis's work ended in disaster and I swore that I wouldn't be burned for the third time. But sometimes you are wrong and reality changes. This film attracted me because of the setting and the subject matter, and I must say that although I feel like I don't have to change my opinion about this arthouse director's work, this time we got along quite well. I still feel certain mannerisms in her work, such as mixing shots in a style where you have to search for things, and what is the end and what is the beginning, which are typical elements of her work. Yet with this film, she held back quite a bit, and it's clear that she knows a lot about Africa and this theme is personal to her. I had a lot of mixed feelings about her previous two works, but I didn't get lost in the story with this one. Overall impression: 75%.

One star is for Naďa Konvalinková and one for Jan Zadražil. The play is performed with enthusiasm and brilliantly, but in terms of content, it's just flashy nonsense. Yet in the first few minutes, I felt that I was in for an amazing entertaining ride, but little did I know that the story of the clash between a dominant mother and an immature son would soon turn into utter absurdity. Some light exaggeration is fine, but here it escalated into absolute nonsense. Overall impression: 40%. Sometimes boundless enchantment is close to unpleasant disillusion.