gudaulin

The antihero is an exemplary virtuous husband, a partner so non-conflicting, reliable, and loyal that his wife has the impression that he has something in common with the number one on a ten euro banknote... which also carries a zero throughout its life. The feeling of boredom of a secure bourgeois lady tempts her to spice up her life with a love affair. However, the feeling of humiliation from the revealed infidelity also means the limit at which the dark corners of the partner's mind are exposed, and the racially serious husband transforms into a cold-blooded avenger on the hunt. The film doesn't belong so much to the crime genre, as it has too simple a plot line and plays its cards too openly from the beginning. Instead, it is much more a psychological drama, a cool and distant study of a man who took a shortcut and bet everything on one card. Chabrol, besides his traditionally refined sense of detail, is also helped by the casting. Stéphane Audran is perfectly cast and for the role of a closed emotionally starved man, the director could not have chosen anyone better than Michel Bouquet. Overall impression: 80%.

This is what decent commerce looked like in the 60s. It was definitely not top-quality, but rather a pleasant above-average leisure film. Today, That Man from Rio is hopelessly exhausted. If you compare it to The Man from Acapulco, which still has something to say and is worth seeing, you will notice a significant qualitative difference. What remains functional to this day is Jean-Paul Belmondo's performance, who practically stole the film for himself, and from his energetic escapades, you will understand what his charm consisted of and why he became one of the most significant French film stars of the 20th century. It is also worth mentioning the presence of the tragically deceased nurse Catherine Deneuve. Although the script does not prescribe anything for Françoise Dorléac other than being a playful devil by the side of the main protagonist, you can still tell that she had talent and could have proven a lot in cinema. The script is nonsense, and you can see logical gaps wherever you look, but that was not what this spectacle was about. As a comedy, That Man from Rio doesn't work well for me because the humor is not very clever, and so only the cast really engraves itself into one's memory. Overall impression: 40%.

Only a few films manage to become a battlefield in the fiercely fought cultural wars of the present. Not only that - they even become milestones that go against prevailing trends. Until the late 80s, censorship was promoted under the flag of religion and right-wing moralism - just ask members of the Monty Python group during the filming of Life of Brian. Then, under the guise of fighting sexism, racism, and xenophobia, the cultural left took over and it was clear that they were genuinely enjoying this campaign for shaping a new morality, and that they could restrict creative freedom just like the church once did. Cuties brought back the overshadowed conservatives, who flared up in indignation over the alleged pedophilic nature of the work and tried to achieve a ban on screening by pointing to the sexualization of innocent children's souls. Considering the amount of passion the film has aroused, it is surprisingly innocent and delicate, and its creation was evidently motivated in the opposite way - an attempt to warn against the sexualization of children. By the way, in this interpretation, that concern actually seems exaggerated to me. The advertising industry, pop music, or modeling represent a real threat and such beauty pageants for children are an exceptionally repulsive form of child exploitation, which should be uncovered and condemned by cinema. Mimicking provocative dance creations of pop dancers by a group of girls at the beginning of puberty seems more like a subject for a comedy rather than a critical drama to me. Nonetheless, the film does not deal with manipulation or sexual violence, and for me personally, its background was more interesting, depicting the life of an immigrant community and incidentally recording the gradual decay of French society, once united by nationalism and republican secularism. If I evaluate it purely for the cinematic aspect, considering it's a debut, it is a thoughtful, cleverly constructed, and skillfully crafted piece of work to which I give 4 stars. Overall impression: 85%.

There is one positive thing I have to admit about this film. Out of the three sequels about the indestructible agent, it is the best one, but I have a problem with the whole series, just as I have a problem with the majority of action movies. It is simply an unrealistic fairy tale, where you need to turn off your brain and not think about the numerous holes in the logic. Unlike the series of James Bond films, it lacks style and humorous exaggeration. The third part is the most mature in terms of filmmaking, but paradoxically it lacks a truly worthy opponent compared to the previous two films. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a great actor, but he doesn't get enough space and the script doesn't demonize him enough, and if it weren't for the betrayal, he would play a rather embarrassing role as a quickly defeated opponent. If someone is to stand up to such a brilliant invincible agent like Ethan Hunt and the American Secret Service equipped with hi-tech technology, it must be truly a devil in human form, who aims at least, but I emphasize at least, to take over the world... Overall impression: 45%.

I very rarely understand the humor of American mainstream comedies. The rating of 76% on FilmBooster was tempting to me, as well as the relatively positive comments. The first minutes of the film were indeed filled with several decent jokes, and the idea of ​​creating a typical American family was crazy but interesting, and the presence of Jennifer Aniston undoubtedly helped the film. The forty-four-year-old actress looked noticeably younger and she has a figure that many teenagers would envy. Although she doesn't showcase exceptional acting skills, she undeniably possesses a certain charm. One quickly understands why she has managed to create a large fan club. However, it soon becomes apparent that the humor is rather clumsy and increasingly cheap. Yet, for a while, it manages to stay within the boundaries that avoid crossing the line of awkwardness. But that changes in the second half, and moreover, the chemistry between the family members is terrible. The screenwriter lacked the courage to utilize what was directly available - to parody and turn upside down the American middle-class family values ​​and the sweet sentiment of family films. All the potential gradually goes to waste, and in the end, it becomes an easily forgettable mess that relies on silly sexual innuendos and swollen testicles. It's a shame because this film could have been better. Overall impression: 40%.

Mindhunter provided me with my strongest TV experience of 2017. If there is anything that could harm it in the eyes of viewers, it is somewhat paradoxically its connection with David Fincher, from whom, as the author of the legendary film Seven, you expect a bit of thrilling excitement and corresponding genre elements. Gunfights, chases, and fights are something you would search for in vain in Mindhunter. The categorization of a thriller seems somewhat confusing to me because it is much more of a psychological drama, which reminds me a bit of the HBO series In Treatment. Nevertheless, such precisely modeled, convincing, and charismatic characters are practically non-existent elsewhere in other series to this extent. Every detail fits perfectly, which can play and often does play its role in the story's structure. If you don't mind that the series is mainly driven by dialogues, give it a chance and watch two intellectuals in the ranks of the FBI who, along with their colleague from the civilian sector, try to lay the foundations of behavioral science, use it in practice, and repeatedly come into contact with multiple murderers and psychopaths, which of course has an impact on their own psyche. For me, this is the highest level of sophistication that I probably won't get to indulge in again soon as a fan of various series. Overall impression: 95%.

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%.

One of the highlights of the collaboration of the well-known trio of Miloš Macourek, Jaroslav Doubrava, and Adolf Born. It is a successful comedy about how an intelligent dog outgrows its domineering master and sends him to court. It is funny, well-drawn, and has style. Overall impression: 85%.

I have seen only four episodes, so I am definitely not an expert on it, but from what I had the opportunity to watch, it is a decent British sitcom based on situational and verbal comedy. The humor is generally accessible, and though it is not an intellectual matter, those who liked the show Step by Step at the time will definitely appreciate My Family. It is a more refined sitcom than the well-known American cult series Married with Children. It is well-cast and well-acted. Overall impression: 70%.

The first half an hour looks very promising and will probably intrigue you in anticipation of a dark conspiracy thriller. However, as the minutes go by and Edward Dmytryk reveals more than necessary, and especially when it takes a naive direction, you realize that you will only give it stars for the presence of the legendary Gregory Peck and out of politeness. Although the film was made in the mid-60s, it feels like it's at least 15 years older. The ponderousness and naivety of the villains are sometimes even amusing. There is no reason to waste time with Mirage today and pay too much attention to it. Overall impression: 45%.