gudaulin

The Exorcist was obviously directed by someone who understood the film industry, the audience, and the market. At the time of filming, there was a peak of interest in the trendy satanic theme, and the audience was already accustomed to many things. One of the few remaining taboos was the connection of satanism with a child as a symbol of innocence. Within a short period, three genre films were created that successfully attempted this and gained cult film status. Alongside The Omen and Rosemary's Baby was The Exorcist. Shocked viewers held their breath as they watched the fragile girl transform into a vulgar monster full of anger. Unfortunately, for me, The Exorcist has always been a film where the prologue and the final scene work. What comes in between, which logically makes up the majority, goes over my head due to its excessive literalness. The prologue, which is unrelated to the rest of the story, is filled with sinister anticipation, tension, and a menacing premonition. Something is not right, but you still don't know where the blow will come from. In the final scene of the film, the camera focuses on the stairs in front of the house where someone had died shortly before. Through that shot, you feel an unspoken question - will the horror continue? The rest of the film plays with such open cards and is so descriptive that it simply becomes uninteresting to me. The director wants to emotionally manipulate me, but it doesn't work anymore because we don't live in the early 70s. For me, it still holds true that fear and tension are best evoked by what you cannot see and do not know. A film is the most powerful when it leaves you to wander in uncertainty. A film like The Exorcism of Emily Rose is much more attractive and impactful to me. Overall impression: 40%.

The life of a hired killer is undoubtedly demanding in many respects, especially if you belong to the top and they exploit you accordingly. Constant stress takes a heavy toll and sooner or later exhaustion and crisis set in. It could be a good premise for a comedy, but the result does not meet expectations. The fault is not so much with Brosnan, as he handles the comedic part and the whole assignment well, even though this type of role does not suit his nervous character. This could be the domain for an actor like Pierre Richard. The main problem, however, lies in the script and dialogue. The Matador is far from being as funny and good as it could be. It has a lot of weak points and is only running at one-third capacity. Overall impression: 40%.

It's strange, but it's similar in type to the crazy Czech comedy You Are a Widow, Sir which was made in the same year. At that time, I gave it 4 stars and even though the rating may have been influenced by nostalgia, satisfaction prevailed. However, Podskalský's film most resembles constipation. The experienced Jaroslav Dietl is pushing and pushing, but he can't push out a functional plot and humor. Devilish Honeymoon is a movie that works in its details, such as Libíček's lines and proverbs or the charms of Jana Brejchová, but unfortunately, as a whole, it is desperately unfunny and awkward. I would give it a more accurate rating of 2 stars just for the multitude of well-known and beloved actors, but the series of performances, such as Brodský stumbling through the forest with antlers on his head, or Růžičková writhing at the disco, bring the film down to a level where Troška confidently is today. Overall impression: 30%.

When you immerse yourself in the comic series about Sandman, created by Neil Gaiman, you gradually discover a fascinating world of artificially created myths. These myths often draw on familiar legends, folklore, and religious concepts, but together they form a unique, original, and intellectually profound alternative world that tempts you to explore further. In contrast, Vampire Hunter represents several stereotypical motifs used in the fantasy genres, woven into an effective but shallow mixture. The traditional artistic approach typical of manga and anime never appealed to me personally, but at least it had style. Here, the style was replaced by the search for inspiration in foreign models, as if Kawajiri already anticipated creating a "universal" film product similar to a hamburger. Judging by the reactions on FilmBooster, he succeeded in doing so. However, I was not drawn to this strange mishmash of genres with an unoriginal plot set in a dysfunctional world. Overall impression: 20% for the artwork. In some places - yes, I am referring primarily to the scene of the spaceship taking off - the film no longer flirts with kitsch, but rather represents its embodiment.

The same characters are played by the same actors as in the first film, but the screenwriter and director are different, and perhaps that partly influenced the result, which is clearly more hesitant than Oplev's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Even the book is rated more reservedly, but the director left his mark on the film in several other areas as well. Lisbeth's stepbrother looks and acts like a 1960s James Bond, and I don't mean that as a compliment. The action scenes (fortunately there are few) reveal that Alfredson is not familiar with this genre. The criminal raids of rickety old men teetering between dialysis and death do not appear as dangerous and suspenseful as the film crew would like. Finally, the entire conspiracy, the complex plot that forces participants to commit more crimes many years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, seems somewhat exaggerated compared to the fact that it was covering up an inconsequential agent. Non-readers of the book, myself included, may be at a disadvantage compared to those who are familiar with Lisbeth's fate. Overall, it is a slightly above-average detective story that benefits from the popularity of the book series. However, if the Millennium books are anything like this, it begs the question of where the fantastic global success of the trilogy came from. Overall impression: 60%.

This is a drama that is much stronger in its questioning when it provides no clues, let alone answers. When it stops asking, it quickly, very quickly, loses steam and the ending becomes painfully routine, riding on the most embarrassing clichés. The film starts at 4 stars, only to slip to one in the end. I'll give a final 2 stars for Jodie Foster's effort. Overall impression: 40%. That plane looked more like an ocean liner or a luxury hotel. Either way, its operator doesn't bear the burden of fuel payments. This is only possible in the aviation fleet of some oil-soaked Arab state...

The film works thanks to the character of the uncompromising patriarchal farmer, who seems to have come straight out of neorealist novels about the Italian South from the mid-19th century. The farmer's character stands and falls with the performance of the charismatic Jean Gabin, who doesn't even need to speak - his gaze says it all. Without his involvement, it would be just an average detective story with a slightly naive and unreliable script. By the way, a few years ago, a remake was made in France under the title Joseph with Pierre Mondy in the lead role. Although he is a quality actor who has been at the forefront of French acting for decades, he simply cannot compare to Jean Gabin in terms of type, and overall the remake can be considered only half as impressive. Everything else in the film is subordinate to the central character and is essentially not worth further analysis. Overall impression: 75%.

Assuming you haven't seen enough slasher subgenre films (because if you had, you would soon realize that Kevin Brodbin took inspiration wherever possible, and in better films than Mindhunters) and if you can turn off your brain (but beware, really turn it off, there's no room for half-measures here), you might enjoy the film because Renny Harlin is a decent craftsman and he manages to create atmosphere quite well. But what's the point, when the screenplay is truly not for intellectuals and it contains all sorts of obvious foolishness? When you add to that the fact that the more well-known actors are rather lackluster and the film belongs to the B league, it's more likely a recipe for disaster. I have never mastered the art of shutting down my gray matter, so for me, it gets an overall impression of 25%.

The last days of life of a star from a significant theater ensemble during World War II, when the stone theaters of London were at risk of bombing and the solution became the ensemble's relocation to the countryside, where they spent most of their time in provincial stations with a stubbornly posh and affected man as their caretaker. This man has been serving the master for 20 years and he feels that it is only thanks to his care that the master has come this far, and it is only thanks to the service he provides to his master that the theater still functions. When you consider it all, British theater survives mainly thanks to the work of the caretaker and his devotion. Given that the theater provides support to the spirit of the British people and their war effort, the fate of the entire monarchy actually depends on the caretaker. The film, which shows a study of a slightly pathological relationship dependency, could have easily shifted into the realm of a dark psycho-thriller, but in the end, it remains primarily a showcase of great classical acting in the style of Shakespeare. Overall impression: 80%.

I've seen this movie before, but I only remembered that it was ridiculously long. However, the series of comments that found hidden values beneath the facade of the dragged-out runtime made me reconsider the film and watch it again. Clint attempted to venture into unexplored genre territory, but the result is quite depressing in my opinion. Eastwood simply isn't crazy enough to build an attractive and functional mysterious atmosphere through filmmaking techniques and to use truly bizarre characters that could sustain a 155-minute duration. While with other films I sometimes say that 15-20 minutes could easily be cut, here it could easily be a whole hour. I couldn't watch it in one go, I had to dedicate two evenings to it, and even then I nodded off twice during the first half. In such a case, however, I cannot give it even the average three stars. Despite Clint having a few acting stars in his team who tried to earn their salary, and despite the potential offered by the source material, an unsuccessful movie was created, one of the most problematic in Eastwood's career. Overall impression: 40%.