gudaulin

You don't need to search for anything sophisticated behind the low rating given to Miranda. It is true that the sitcom humor this time felt somewhat forced and sweaty, but what matters is the impression that Miranda made on me. I could only bear to watch one episode, and since then, whenever I catch a glimpse of Miranda's physical shell and hear her unmistakable voice, a shiver runs down my spine and I switch to something else... Overall impression: 25%.

This film may have a surrealistic style, but the question is whether it possesses a surrealistic spirit. It's not that the story is incomprehensible; in my opinion, it's too comprehensible for a similar type of film. Its plot is simplistic, delivered in a somewhat clumsy and simultaneously sentimental manner. If Neil Gaiman truly contributed to the screenplay, then this is his weakest piece of work. One wouldn't recognize it as the creation of someone responsible for dozens of fantastic works that captivate readers worldwide. Worst of all, MirrorMask didn't evoke any interest in me regarding the fate of the main protagonist or the other supporting characters, and her struggle for identity and her mother's fate left me completely indifferent. I acknowledge that visually, the film is intriguing, but I'd rather visit a gallery than waste time in front of a television screen. Overall impression: 40%.

Misfits is often compared to Heroes, although at least according to the first series, the series tried to be the exact opposite of what the creators of Heroes aimed for. This means questioning the status of comic book heroes and the black-and-white perspective of dividing into good guys and villains. In the comic book world, of course, there have already been cases where superpowers were given to completely ordinary, useless guys, and even cases where traditional values were turned upside down and the hero was a real scoundrel. However, these were quite straightforward parodies, whereas Misfits is more complex, much more original, and provocative, and will probably confuse the average consumer of typical superhero comics. The major advantage of the series is its interesting characters and the ability to constantly surprise and break established patterns. Unlike Heroes, however, the series lacks a strong story and the ability to build a functional alternative world. I am actually concerned that Misfits may degenerate after several seasons when I think of the helplessness that initially accompanied the promising series Dollhouse. After watching a few episodes, however, I am definitely satisfied. Overall impression: 90%.

I kind of expected the result, though I secretly hoped for a surprise. I understand that it is difficult to offer a film that satisfies everyone, so it is quite logical that I will try watching, for a change, a film that satisfies almost no one, especially when it is probably almost free. Missile to the Moon can satisfy only those who have a long-term idea of sci-fi as a mediocre genre for the demented and need to make sure that they were not mistaken. Overall impression: 0%.

I had a little problem reviewing Ghost Protocol. The fact is that I didn't enjoy the film at all from the beginning and it was clearly heading toward parts of the film world that mean nothing to me. On the other hand, if I were to be objective, the film was better than some of the previous installments in the series, so I should go back to the older ones and reassess them. As others have said, it's a parade of beautiful people (women, men), and beautiful things (high-tech toys, perfectly fitting suits from expensive fashion houses). It could be meant as a compliment, but I don't feel that way about it. I would also add that it has very unobtrusive but effective product placement. What is visually attractive about Ghost Protocol, meaning the set design, effects, and non-stop action, doesn't impress me. The high-tech gadgets rather annoy me and overall, I would describe the direction the series took as a worse aspect of Bond's legacy. At least Bond has style and in the newest films, they even try to add some psychological depth and character development, whereas here the characters are as flat as a sheet of paper. What fails the most in my eyes (and it's paradoxical) is the humor, because, unlike the previous installments, the film doesn't take itself seriously and becomes an action comedy. However, the comedic aspect doesn't paradoxically affect me, I simply can't laugh at the exaggeration. Maybe it's because the action, story, and characters are taken to such absurdity that even parody has nowhere to go. Perhaps this is the first film where Simon Pegg, no matter how hard he tries, simply doesn't entertain me at all. Overall impression: 25%.

Openly speaking, I have a real problem with this film... Francois Truffaut is my favorite director and his direction is not a disappointment in this case either. The cast is luxurious, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve are first-rate stars and their mere presence on the screen is beneficial. Moreover, they don't even act badly. What bothers me, however, is the script, or rather the basic premise. This melodrama with a crime plot has a significantly unreliable outline, and it is fabricated to the point of misery. The film is clearly set in the time of its production, the late 60s, when the sexual revolution was at its peak, technology rapidly shortened distances and connected people from the other side of the planet, consumer society was booming, and at the same time, a successful businessman exchanges several letters with a completely unknown woman and arranges marriage with her without ever meeting her before. They don't even call each other to hear how their voices sound? If the story took place in the year 1900, I wouldn't have a problem with it, maybe in the 30s, but this? After the man learns that he has been robbed of all his savings and his fiancee murdered, by an incredible stroke of luck, he meets that fraudster, and then a short conversation culminating in the sentence: "I still love you," is enough for him to forgive that woman and plan a life together despite her criminal past, and what's more, he is willing to murder for her and lose all his standing. It just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a second. Three weak stars for the direction and performances. Overall impression: 50%.

Mississippi Burning is not only a high-quality crime drama, but also a political film with a clearly defined opinion, and ultimately, an artistic portrayal of a real case that stirred public opinion in the United States when three activists against racial segregation were murdered. The film is one of Hollywood's most significant contributions to the pressing issue of racism. There are plenty of crime stories, but films with uncompromising political stances are far less common. It is not a typical genre film, but rather an appeal against the influence of the Ku Klux Klan and a critique of social conservatism and Southern values. The film clearly aimed to bring back and reignite strong themes that resonated in American society in the 1960s. From the performances of the involved major actors, I get the impression that Hackman, Dafoe, and McDormand didn't approach their roles as just a regular business transaction, but that they also injected their own convictions into their performances. Overall impression: 95%.

This is what a professional and attractive documentary should be. One should use essentially tabloid motifs to attract attention, but process them in a way that they serve only as a starting point for mapping the life of the Chinese community in Italy, their successes, integration problems, and their way of life thousands of kilometers away from their homeland. The documentary does not only describe, but also analyzes, and in doing so, conveys a lot through images, with the testimonies of individual Chinese people complementing the visuals. The rise of the Chinese community can be compared to the Vietnamese community in other parts of Europe and the reasons are similar: hard work and community cohesion. Europeans have long lost their drive and focus on maintaining the status quo. Overall impression: 90%.

"Elizabeth Sloane? She's a woman who pees standing up, and I don't even do that," says a colleague about his boss with respect. Don't be fooled by the seemingly fragile appearance of a slender beauty. Elizabeth is definitely not a typical member of a lobbying company or a gray office mouse. She belongs to the best in her industry, has a reputation as a tenacious terminator who manipulates the public, politicians, and her opponents with the cunning of a fox and surgical precision, and sooner or later pushes the legal norm into a form that suits her client. Remarkable is primarily her ability to skillfully balance on the edge of the law and exploit every loophole in her favor. Elizabeth Sloane is a workaholic who has turned her profession into a passion and sacrificed her family and emotional life for it. Mrs. Sloane certainly likes money, but as the saying goes, it is definitely not everything. Properties, valuable gems, and valuable papers are also important. However, for Elizabeth, another valuable commodity is not diamonds, but the satisfaction of her ego. When she receives an offer from a nonprofit organization to push for gun control against the will of powerful arms corporations, she turns against her former employer and decides to fight the battle for change on the side of good. However, she uses the same style and means as before. Angelic goals and hellish tools clash a bit, not to mention that the new opponents have already figured Sloane out like yesterday's news. How will this turn out? The truth is that Miss Sloane is not a typical popcorn movie, but a cleverly constructed drama based on dialogues and psychological confrontations - therefore requiring some concentration. The world of lobbying is not as popularly mapped as courtroom dramas, making it more difficult to navigate its environment. A script this good is rare (even the apparent shortcomings gradually turn in its favor) and more than compensates for all the obstacles. It's Hollywood material, but damn good quality. Jessica Chastain certainly can't complain about the roles she gets, but the cunning Sloane, tough as granite, is her most rewarding part so far. Everything that was missing from the ambitious and anticipated Molly's Game is present in abundance here. My thumb is unreservedly pointing upwards. Overall impression: 90%.

I am trying to imagine how the story of a group of soldiers, surrounded somewhere on the Eastern front, would unfold. It would probably be full of pathos, heroism, gunfire, and the groans of slain enemies. Irony and parodic elements do not fit well into a world soaked in ideology and shocking violence. But things are different in France. The trio of soldiers, who only narrowly escaped captivity, at times appear as if they were on vacation instead of in a war. They even find time for a nice swim. If they are trying to reunite with their army, do not look for their desire to continue the war until their bodies are torn apart, but rather for pragmatic calculation and an effort to avoid a prisoner camp in a foreign country. The first part of the story of the Seventh Platoon does not present a crazy comedy with a flood of gags, but rather a lightly amusing narration in a relaxed spirit supported by the presence of likable actors. Time did take its toll, amounting to one star less, but I have no problem giving the film the other three. Overall impression: 65%.