gudaulin

This is not the Dale Cooper that I knew. It's not due to the ravages of time or by how he changed or how he looks. It's something that is definitely not there anymore," says Diana to her former superior, alias director David Lynch, perfectly capturing the problem that many viewers will have with the third season of the famous series. When David tweeted, "Your favorite gum is going to be back in style," he foolishly made a mistake. Not only because he no longer has a monopoly on gum but also because others have taken over the taste of his product and added additional ingredients. The first season perfectly fulfilled the expectations of a more educated younger audience who were no longer interested in old, outdated formats aimed at mass appeal. As a result, the studios could come up with something bolder. Lynch caused a revolution by saying, "Forget the main plot, instead, let's play with the characters and subplots, focus on entertaining games and details." It worked. Twenty years later, new technologies and new distribution methods came along, and so Lynch thought it was time for a new revolution. If I were sarcastic, I would say that he directed the third season of Twin Peaks to infuriate and depress TV viewers, as well as to test the loyalty of his fan club and the strength of the Twin Peaks brand. The latter passed with flying colors, and it was interesting to see how, after the first episode, when it was still unclear what the project would turn into, five-star ratings quickly accumulated. I see the peak of Lynch's work in three titles: the first season of Twin Peaks, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive. Of course, they were different, but they had one thing in common: No matter how they worked with mystery, no matter how much they resisted a clear interpretation of their world, the director always counted on the viewer. In the case of Inland Empire, I felt for the first time that Lynch's style and self-centeredness suppressed everything else, and Return seems like a continuation of this trend. In Twin Peaks: The Return, Lynch appears as an experimenter who tests the very boundaries of TV creations. He even gave up on the characters. They appear and disappear for long periods, and the creators don't allow us to develop a relationship with them. Imagine a regular series as a soccer field where characters/players meet and clash. Simply put, they play. Twin Peaks: The Return, Lynch expanded that field to the size of a provincial town. Characters rarely meet in it; they mostly just wander the landscape, and the viewer wanders as well, wondering what the creator is trying to achieve. Unlike the first two seasons, the plot does not focus on exploring the environment of a small town but rather jumps chaotically from the center of New York to Montana, from there to South Dakota, and then to the spaces of another dimension for a change, for dozens of minutes. Time also jumps, and everything takes forever. The largest space is given to a childlike figure without its own will, against which even Mr. Tau is an example of a Hamlet-like complicated character. I have heard it proclaimed that testing seemingly blind paths also has meaning, but I'm not sure if any statistically significant group of viewers will want to undergo this research along with Lynch. The magic of the original Twin Peaks lies in its originality and entertainment value. Return is only original. Certainly, you will find many atmospheric scenes in there that resemble Lynch's famous times. But these are solitaires that stick out in space without any connection. On the other hand, it is certainly not a bad thing that this series was created. It is such an oddity that it will find its audience. After all, the feeling that you can appreciate something that is inaccessible to the masses of primitive consumers is certainly delightful. I would recommend Return to true surrealists and seasoned viewers of alternative media. The average viewer will most likely avoid it. Overall impression: 40%.

Get ready for a rollicking farce, where the focus is not on character acting, but rather on clowning around, deliberately exaggerating and mocking to the point of chaos. Don't expect an intellectual experience, but rather an undemanding (not dumb) comedy with a strong cast - and you most likely won't be disappointed. I haven't seen a recording from the early 90s, so I have nothing to compare it to. I don't regret the time spent in the presence of Mr. Burke, his eccentric housewife, and her somewhat unattractive daughter, and I'm not ashamed of my laughter. Overall impression: 75%.

Each of the previously aired seasons of Fargo is different and unique. But they are all interesting and above all incredibly entertaining. With all due respect to the Coen brothers, whose work served as a springboard, the value of any of the seasons is higher than that of the original film. It is much more difficult to maintain the quality of the script and story, the level of dialogue, and the chemistry between characters in ten episodes lasting almost an hour each than in one feature film. They are simply back. Predators and their victims, hired killers, mercenaries, fraudsters, big players and their pawns, ambitious desperados, and unassuming figures capable of surprising. The third season of Fargo didn't succeed in surpassing the excellent second season, but it is right behind it by a small margin and clearly surpasses the first season. The first season had only two prominent figures, while the third season has seven of them. As always, Fargo relies on well-written negative characters, whereas the positive characters play the role of static observers and commentators of events. All of the Fargo seasons share a similar type of story, but the way the characters are handled is different from the second season, where mistakes and misunderstandings move the plot, with key catalysts being villains on all sides. Here, the character types partially follow the first season with one significant difference. Malvo was a ghostly cool killer as if out of a comic book, while Mr. V. M. Varga is a monster that came from the real world. Malvo belongs to the realm of myths, Varga is corrupt, leaving behind tunneled funds, failing banks, and billions of losses, or even dead white horses. He is a major scammer, manipulator, and a person who doesn't dirty his hands with blood. He kills with a look or a slight gesture. He has a different arsenal of weapons, and the dirtiest work is done by others. By the way, I thought that Billy Bob Thornton's performance couldn't be surpassed, but David Thewlis, in my opinion, outdid him. No, he's not an attractive character, but in a way, he is fascinating. Thewlis understood the potential in that monster and played with his character, knowing that an actor encounters something so fulfilling only a few times in their life. The character played by M. E. Winstead may have had significantly more self-confidence than the timid insurance salesman from the first season, but she learns just as quickly and soon becomes a dangerous opponent. Ewan McGregor created a demanding dual role of brothers divided by a sense of injustice and envy. Both of them are physically and temperamentally different but equally entertaining and tragic in their inability to anticipate where things are heading and to step aside in time. In today's television pop culture, Fargo represents undeniable quality, and I hope this wasn't the last encounter with the anti-heroes of the American underworld in the darkly grotesque world of Fargo. Overall impression: 90%.

I understand that the present favors impressive filmmaking and today's generation is accustomed to a completely different pace. This film may bring a contemporary teenager to the brink of madness with its melancholy and slow rhythm of the desert landscape. But for me, it was an experience to see heartfelt filmmaking full of emotions without trying to cheaply impress. In the film, it has only been a few years since the bloody events of World War II ended in Europe. The coast of North Africa is still littered with mines and war veterans have not yet forgotten their traumas, and then things start to simmer in the cities and countryside of colonial Algeria. The Arab majority is raising its head and demanding self-determination, while the rule of the natives is unacceptable to the French settlers. The first protests and sabotage evolve into raids and assassinations, which turn into a real war. In a remote sparsely populated mountain pass is a school where students from a wide area gather, and their teacher tries to find a new meaning in life in their education and forget the unpleasant experiences of war. Although a foreigner by origin, he understands the essence of the conflict, understands the mechanism of civil war, and knows that it will be difficult to remain neutral in it. He knows the bitter ends of military campaigns and the price paid not only by the defeated but also by the victors. At a time when others find understanding through weapons, he will try to save one foreign life destined for death. Rather than a war film or an adventure story, it is a psychological drama of a person who goes against the current. For me, this film is an extraordinary experience. I applaud Viggo Mortensen, for whom it was to a considerable extent a personal project that allowed him to break away from the stereotype of characters like the gangster dad from A History of Violence. Overall impression: 90%.

Of the four planned stops in Havana, I only ended up doing the first one. It wasn't a disaster, but there are many movies and series and little time, so I tend to look for things that exceed the average in quality, while the stops in Havana get lost in the grayness of the average. The actors are not charismatic (although Juana Acosta is at least pleasant to look at), there is a lack of chemistry between the characters, the plot doesn't deviate from the usual offering of crime motives, and the direction doesn't seem like something that would want to make you focus on Viscarret's future work. If the alternative is visiting an unpopular mother-in-law, then give The Stops in Havana a chance, but you definitely don't have to postpone a date because of them. Actually, the only thing that is truly interesting about the stops in Havana is the shots of deteriorating neighborhoods in old Havana taken from various angles, sometimes even impressively shot from above. Overall impression: 45%.

Well, this time the censors and overseers of the dear leader of North Korea did not please him at all. It is evident that some of the shots and intertitles were added later, but it is still a disgraceful failure, and I would not be surprised if it had a very unfavorable outcome for some Korean officials. It was supposed to be another propaganda triumph of the regime, but Vitalij Manskyj conceived the film as an indictment of dictatorship, which is a bizarre combination of oriental despotism and 20th-century leftist totalitarianism. You don't have to be able to read between the lines and decipher the cryptic messages to feel very uncomfortable and calculate for yourself what life in North Korea is actually like from what you see. Manskij places the shots in such a way as to constantly create a sarcastic impression, remove the pompous facade, and reveal the repulsive essence of the system. You can laugh at what he shows you, but for the most part, it will probably make you sad. Alongside great scenes, such as a subway ride or a showcase of arranged "workplaces" of both parents, the film features a number of places that drag on uncomfortably or repeat motifs that have already been used. Therefore, in the end, I lean toward a mere 3 stars and an overall impression of 65%.

The film is a dignified adaptation of Remarque's famous novel and at the same time one of the artistic peaks of American interwar film production. Of course, if you look for mistakes in it, you will find them. The technical quality corresponds to the time of its creation, which means that in some places it is necessary to turn a blind eye. The film, understandably, strongly resonates with the widespread pacifism after the First World War. Remarque's novel reads like an indictment of war, militarism, and authoritarianism, but in my opinion, it is not pacifist. In the film, pacifism has a declarative nature that blatantly stands out in some moments. The acting is still slightly burdened by the era of silent film, which had after all ended not long before the film was released. However, compared to other productions of that era, these minor shortcomings become insignificant. All Quiet on the Western Front towers in the same way as the Eiffel Tower towers over the Paris cityscape. Considering when it was made, I won't be nitpicky and I'll give it the maximum number of stars. This film deserves it. Overall impression: 90%.

Seven Samurai is considered one of the cornerstones of the action and adventure genre. It is a film that is usually discussed in superlatives and is exceptionally highly rated by film fans. So please explain to me why I felt as if I had worked a full day in a quarry after watching it, even though I watched it with a break and only saw the edited 160-minute version. The original has an additional runtime of 43 minutes. Film critics generally consider Kurosawa's peak creative period to be in the 1950s, but I, on the other hand, believe that while Kurosawa's work in the 1950s was daring, ambitious, and clearly superior in quality to the gray Japanese contemporary production, he was still striving for directorial mastery. His samurai excursions into ancient history suffer from a theatrical acting style that often crosses over into unpleasant affectation. In this regard, Toshiro Mifune's portrayal of Kikuchiyo is sometimes unbearable. It is strange that this characteristic of Kurosawa's historical films is almost unnoticed by others. In comparison to the more famous American remake The Magnificent Seven, Akira ultimately achieved a draw in my eyes, even though both films have their strengths and weaknesses in different areas. The original film has a realistic tone, with the mercenaries not triumphing over a nearly sixfold numerical advantage due to exceptional fighting skills, but rather by joining forces with the village residents, training them in defense of their homes, and teaching them tactics and weapon control. In contrast, the American version is faster-paced and more entertaining, with a reasonable runtime and better-developed characters, but it is steeped in genre clichés and is a typical western fairy tale about invincible gunmen defeating villains. Overall impression: 60%.

The second season of Twin Peaks actually started as good as the first, but the 4 stars I'm giving it are actually a compromise. i.e., the result of a process in which I slowly but surely distanced myself from the series in its second half, starting from my initial enthusiasm. Lynch couldn't keep his eccentricity and love for the fantastic in check. Step by step, the surreal elements and trips to another dimension were multiplied. The delicate balance that held the world of Twin Peaks together was disrupted. It was absurd and unsettling from the very beginning - after all, that was the reason why I loved the series. But too much of a good thing is too much, and the last and quite insane episode brought the realization that I as a viewer, and Lynch as the creator, were heading in different directions. Overall impression: 75%.

From 2008 to 2009, a racist group undertook a series of brutal attacks against local Roma people in Hungary. They used Molotov cocktails to set fire to houses on the outskirts of settlements and shot at those fleeing with shotguns. Their rampage left several injured and six dead, including a four-year-old boy. The event was shocking even in the context of Central Europe, which is saturated with racism and other prejudices. A film based on this event could have had immense potential and could have awakened the public from lethargy. However, Benedek Fliegauf approached this bitter social issue in his own way and slowly directed a quasi-documentary about one day in the lives of a Romani family. He filmed it in a manner that art festival enthusiasts may appreciate, but that will reliably deter regular viewers with its form. They will feel like they are watching a hastily made film with poor camera work and lighting, filmed in an uninvolved manner and without a prominent protagonist. In short, a documentary that bores and elicits emotions only rarely. I dare say that there are only two scenes in the entire film that have the potential to appeal to a broader audience. Besides the final massacre, the scene is the cynical dialogue between two police officers at the crime scene, where the director illustrates the attitude of the security forces towards the "Gypsy question." This is not the most fundamental film about racism ever made, as some people say. This only speaks to the self-centeredness of the intellectual environment of the closed club viewer immersed in their cultural bubble. What matters is a film that sparks public debate, affects a significant part of society, and affects public opinion. This film is one of those for viewers who are already aware and which tries to convince those who do not need convincing. It fits precisely into the type of works that are screened around midnight on the Art channel. For myself, I say that this is my first and also the last film by Fliegauf. Clearly, we do not and will not understand each other. Overall impression: 25%.