gudaulin

I have already watched the American remake, and in comparison to it, the Italian drama holds up better. I have raised my rating from the original four stars to five. This is what an honest film looks like. Dino Risi knows how to work with human emotions very well and handles the screenplay in a way that does not slide into cheap sentimentality, even though the story of a disabled officer who has lost his sight directly invites it. First and foremost, it is a drama about love, but also about coming to terms with one's disability. The musical component is very good, and the main melody resonated with me for a long time. Vittorio Gassman did a great job in his difficult role; his cynical and bitter officer Fausto is brilliantly played, and the actor rightfully received a whole series of festival awards for it. What I appreciate about the film is its realistically conceived environment and the fact that the director was not afraid to incorporate many dark elements into his film. Overall impression: 90%.

City of Women is exactly the kind of movie that cannot be reviewed in one sentence, and it is possible to accept any rating according to the viewer's nature and current mood. A grotesque whim about the flirtation of an aging seducer with an unknown woman from a train turns into a typically Felliniesque journey of the main character confronted with self-confident men contemptuous of women. This colorful spectacle that contains several decadent elements and extravagant scenes, where the viewer does not know until the very end where reality ends and hallucination or dream begins, is the director's sarcastic account of the modern feminist movement. For myself, I can say that, for example, I was very entertained by the manneristic Satyricon, and I consider this one of Fellini's best films, although in the second half, the film unnecessarily drags on and some images are burdened by the author's self-centeredness. Overall impression: 85%. Even though some viewers may criticize the film for its lack of plot and excessive abstraction or exaggeration, it is in any case a great piece of filmmaking that has influenced modern cinema.

Another American remake of a quality Italian classic, just like Welcome to Collinwood, that has a decent cast, but unlike its younger sibling, it has a better-written script and more developed characters. However, compared to the Italian film, it lacks a certain socially critical dimension. Crackers is simply a film that aims to entertain and does not want to send any message about the story of a group of slackers and petty criminals. The script contains several humorous remarks and is written in a biting ironic tone that undermines traditional values glorified in American movies, namely family and friendship. Sean Penn is excellent both in terms of his appearance and acting skills, Donald Sutherland as the gang leader plays his part with detachment, and Wallace Shawn as the Turtle reliably brings a smile to the audience's faces whenever his character appears on screen. Overall impression: 75%.

I would give this animated film 4 stars, but as a documentary, it is a bit too lyrical, drawn out, and lacking in information, although fans of animated creations may still find it charming. Overall impression: 45%.

Director Mira Nair draws on her ability to stand somewhere between Indian culture represented by Bollywood and traditional filmmaking represented by Hollywood in her work. She is able to effectively combine both styles and sell exoticism cultivated by Western moderation and reality. I know her film Monsoon Wedding, which I liked a little more precisely because of its exotic frame of a traditional Indian wedding, but The Namesake is also a solid film that somewhat suffers from the effort to map the lives of two generations. Two hours is a little too short for that, so the film sometimes feels rushed and the characters a bit like figurines. In addition, it lacks a stronger plot line, and the psychological conflicts are diluted over time and by the director's reluctance to engage in a greater emotional clash. Overall impression: 60%.

A lovely miniature, the essence of what I adore about Anton Chekhov, i.e., irony sometimes turning into sarcasm, a sense for detail, capturing the essence of the problem, and wonderful characters. A glimpse into the Russian "better" society of the 19th century at your fingertips. Pivec and Chramostová are magnificent, and Pešek is well-cast and does what he can. Overall impression: 90%.

I can, of course, understand Chuan Lu's film being criticized for various things, especially the typical East Asian preference for pathos and melodrama, as there are indeed scenes that suffer from these flaws. I could also criticize the unwillingness to edit where a few scenes deserve it, but overall, it is one of the most impressive Asian war films of all time and a damn well-made piece of work that corresponds to what really happened in China at the end of the 1930s. It features excellently executed crowd scenes, and excellently shot images of violence, despair, and fear. The fact that the screenwriter and director in one does not burden himself with explaining and depicting the context of the events described is not a mistake of the creator, because he primarily made it for the domestic audience and anyone who wants can find everything necessary about the massacres in Nanking. For me, it deserves 5 stars and a thumbs up. Moreover, I couldn't possibly give less to a film that has such a great form and yet a lower rating than a stupid Hong Kong action B-movie like Hard Boiled. Of course, there is always the question of the propagandistic use of similar works in playing on the Chinese nationalist sentiment, but this film is certainly not superficial. After all, one of the sad heroes is a Japanese soldier who watches in horror how far war rage can actually go... Overall impression: 95%.

Julio Medem has incredible luck. Usually, his films catch me in an exceptionally positive mood, which makes me give them a greater number of stars than they deserve. Chaotic Ana, according to the standards I commonly apply to cinema, deserves to be discarded, and I, an embarrassing softie, gave it one star, probably out of inappropriate conformism. Lovers of the Arctic Circle is much better off, and I really like Medem's film language and choice of actors, but the way he handles his characters, and all those unbelievable coincidences, missed encounters, all those constructs that accumulated in the screenplay, sometimes slip into self-parody. This film was not supposed to be a comedy and yet titles like The Poacher's Foster Daughter or Noble Millionaire or Lemonade Joe often come to mind when watching it. It simply cannot be taken seriously and my three stars are rather for what the film could be if Medem wasn't so self-centered. Overall impression: 50%.

If I apply the perspective of an ordinary consumer viewer unburdened by knowledge of history, who came to the movie theater to see a grand blockbuster with a world-famous star in the lead role, where it's all about a fateful love and spiced up with shots from several magnificent battles, then I can be reasonably satisfied. Masses of extras, costume scenes, a few exciting war scenes, and a plot that makes some kind of sense. If I apply the perspective of a film fan and also a history enthusiast, then I would have to be significantly, and I emphasize significantly, more critical. Ridley, as expected, fails in the very intention to capture the entire active life of Napoleon. You simply cannot fit such a complex personality and time into one feature film in such a vast time span, no matter how hard you try. The film looks incredibly fragmented, completely skipping crucial sections of Napoleon's life and cramming others into a single scene. The crucial Italian campaign, which brought Napoleon fame and enabled his dizzying political career, is dismissed by the film with a single brief sentence. There is no time at all to develop any of the characters or significant military figures, and French and European politicians remain mere pawns. Ridley plays with historical facts very carelessly in the name of his artistic vision, and the more you know about the life of Napoleon and Josephine, the more you will suffer. However, the most fundamental thing, in my opinion, is the lack of Napoleon himself. Joaquin Phoenix is indeed a great actor, but he has been miscast in several significant films in his career, and unfortunately, Scott's film is one of them. A man on the verge of his fifties acts throughout the film with the same appearance without any aging, which seems inappropriate for a young artillery officer. The same mistake is repeated in Joker - Phoenix plays his character as a pushover. Although ambition shines through Napoleon, what is missing is his incredible vitality, charisma, and rebelliousness. You somehow don't understand how this self-centered, gloomy loner could rally his army and win over crowds to his side. History portrays Napoleon and, ultimately, his relationship with women completely differently than Ridley presents it to us. I don't regret seeing the film on the big screen, but you, Ridley, unfortunately, won't get an overall impression of more than 55% from me. You have significantly worse films in your career, but Napoleon looks up to your top-notch films from a great distance. Your debut The Duellists, paradoxically also set in the environment of the Napoleonic Wars, filmed with a fraction of the budget, still evokes much greater respect and interest in me to this day. What disappointed me, especially, is the choreography of the Battle of Waterloo. There are plenty of war films about the Napoleon era that are better and more inventive for war history fans.

Jiří Barta has in the past dealt almost exclusively with works for adults and in the case of his latest project, he turned to the genre of fairy tale out of necessity, as it is not possible to obtain finances for purely artistic animated creations for adult audiences. Nevertheless, he incorporated his original ideas about animated film into his work, resulting in something that closely resembles Švankmajer's film Alice. It is a poetic spectacle that is far from the ordinary family films currently churned out by global companies like Pixar or Walt Disney. The plot is not essential and can be summarized in a few lines. The important thing is the atmosphere of the film and especially its visual design. The space is filled with a vast amount of objects that can be found in long-abandoned attics, and thanks to the director and animators, these objects come to life and create a bizarre world that is ultimately more appealing to adult viewers than to young children. Labeling the film as a fairy tale is misleading. In the movie theater, I noticed that parents were truly savoring the film, rather than their children, even though the main protagonist is a child's doll. During the first viewing, I couldn't even fully appreciate all the visual details and filmmaking ideas. It is the type of film that is most enjoyed by connoisseurs of animated art, a film that belongs at the forefront of contemporary creation and has the chance to make a mark at a festival. It's just a shame that enough funding couldn't be found to complete the remaining 20 minutes of the film according to Barta's original plan. Additionally, Barta incorporated a storyline of political satire into his film, with his ruler of the Evil Empire being a forgotten bust of a totalitarian statesman who uses practices typical of authoritarian states to control his subjects. The ruler's radio speeches and the vocabulary he uses are delightful. Overall impression: 95%.