gudaulin

I have to admit that the atmosphere of the movie, as well as the solid cast and performances, impressed me. The visual aspects of the film, the dirt, uniformity, and archaic industrial technology of an era when totalitarian states experienced their golden years, earned the most points with me. However, I have to say that even the book, considered the best novel of the 20th century, did not make as much of an impression on me as I had expected, and the film adaptation did not even come close to the quality of the book. This is because Orwell wrote his seminal work at a time when a similar vision of the triumph of totalitarian regimes, which he knew from his own experience, was immediately looming, terrifying him, and considering it as a truly possible success. But I was born into a time when the era of industrial totalitarian regimes, based on a mass concept of society, was overcome, and those regimes either long since disappeared or represented a mockery of the ideas of their founders. The inhabitants had already emptied and adapted them to their own image long ago. Orwell described systems that function and to which their supporters and enemies believe. The image that I remember from the 80s represented a long-rotted system that had long since denied the ideas of those who had invented them. Of those old dystopias of a similar nature, the intimate novel "Kallocain" by the Swedish author Karin Boye made a much greater impression on me. Even greater depression was caused by other novels about the decay of society consumed by consumerism. Orwell fights with old demons, and in reality, the threat of totalitarianism comes from elsewhere today. Modern technology already allows for greater control over human psychology and behavior than Orwell could imagine, and sometime in the middle of the century, the possibility of control will be absolute. Ideology is not necessary when you have cutting-edge technology and media power. Overall impression: 60%.

Emmerich as a director cannot be surprised, because he is essentially monothematic. His strengths and weaknesses are intimately known to the audience, so even his latest film should be avoided by anyone expecting something more than bombastic effects and action. His conception of the end of the world can be immensely attacked and ridiculed from intellectual positions. As is traditional for him, he resigns on even the most basic logic in his storytelling, boldly using the most cliched genre schemes, unabashedly stuffing his film with all possible pop-cultural symbols from Princess Diana to Mona Lisa. The dialogues are stupid, and as is customary for him, it is heavily American patriotic, permeated with family values, the plot is predictable, and the characters are clearly readable. From the very beginning, experienced viewers can infer which characters will survive and which will be deservedly punished for their "sins." On the other hand, if one looks at his film with detachment, despite all its stupidity, it is entertaining, decently ticking along, and well cast both in terms of types and acting performances. It's definitely not a film I would have the slightest desire to revisit in the future, but as a popcorn treat, it is bearable in one viewing. Overall impression: 50%.

War blockbuster, which has a generous budget with nice exteriors, crowd scenes and additionally set in a filmically unexplored attractive environment of war conflict in the Far East. However, it suffers from a number of flaws, such as sentimentality, nationalism and insufficient detachment from the subject. The war, as portrayed by the director, is about heroism and dying in the traditional samurai style, less about brutality and the tragedies it inevitably brings. Overall impression: 50%.

I have long had a problem with East Asian cinema, and in the case of the film 2046, which was preceded by the reputation of a "megafilm" or at least a big festival film, it is no different. It must be said that the genre definition of sci-fi, or fantasy, is purely confusing in this case, although the opening titles create the impression of a futuristic blockbuster. However, this is not essential for my review. What is important is what the film is actually about. Love? Seriously? Visually, it is certainly an extremely impressive matter, but it is as far from Tarkovsky's spirit, or rather his depth of soul, as I am from being an astronaut. The film is dominated by beautiful women's faces dreamily gazing into the distance or uttering banalities. Beautifully dressed people, meticulous hairstyles, evening makeup, bright red nails, and beautiful piano tones accompanying it all. Slightly decadent characters, a somewhat dreamy atmosphere, and a mysteriously acting game with numbers. It left me with the impression of carefully created kitsch. It is not a cheap, loudly painted plaster gnome, but an ambitious attempt to reach the highest goals in the realm of kitsch. Unfortunately, it is a damn boring attempt... Overall impression: 10% for the female cast.

A straightforward action affair called 96 Hours, with a kitschy plot and screenplay, which, except for the protagonist, does not contain any characters and adores violence, celebrated an unprecedented commercial success and has become the most successful French film of the last decade. So it makes sense that we now have a whole series of imitators, i.e., films based on action coming from the American film school, a criminal environment, and an uncompromising battle with a pile of corpses on the way to the protagonist's revenge. This time the creators cast the legend of French action, Jean Reno, in the main role, but I feel that he is a bit old for this type of character and his performance feels like a template of dozens of previous similar roles. Additionally, the screenplay is quite hastily put together and the direction couldn't save it either. Richard Berry is a respected and popular actor in France, but this profession obviously suits him better than directing, which requires a lot more from a person. I also resent the familiar conflict between a good and bad gangster, which turns universally accepted ethical norms upside down. The good gangster only murders, steals, bribes, smuggles, and cheats, while the bad one wants to distribute drugs. Well, we certainly haven't seen that in a film yet - it's a brand-new idea! But then why do a couple dozen film titles, including The Godfather, come to mind? Overall impression: 40%.

I have only seen the first two seasons, then I got a bit tired of this format. The series was preceded by a generous advertising campaign that set the bar of expectations very high. 24 hours is a regular commercial product, its advantage being dynamic editing and a screenplay that revels in dramatic twists, as well as the cast led by Kiefer Sutherland. On the other hand, the series is accompanied by a number of scripting flaws, such as the nonsensical and overcomplicated motif of a destroyed airplane in the first season. There are also plenty of genre clichés from action movies and the indestructibility of the main hero. If they have Jack Bauer, then I don't understand why Americans have difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The second season clearly shows the superfluity of the plotline with Bauer's daughter, and more similar criticisms could be found upon closer examination. Nevertheless, the dynamic plot and the twists and turns of the script place the series slightly above average. Overall impression: 60%.

Monty Brogan had his whole life ahead of him, offering him plenty of tempting opportunities. Unfortunately, he chose the fastest shortcut to making money and transitioned from a promising student to a school marijuana dealer. The profession remained, only he smoothly transitioned from light drugs to the hard ones. But as they say, what goes around comes around, and one day, the police are invited into his apartment. Explaining a kilo of heroin and a generous amount of cash was quite difficult. So difficult, in fact, that you leave the court with the perspective of 7 years behind bars in an environment far from the standards you were accustomed to. Spike Lee decided to film the farewell of his hero to freedom, and it must have truly pained him because he did his utmost to humanize him and gain the sympathy of the audience. The film contains a lot, to the point of the ruined existences of Brogan's customers, their broken families, undermined health, suicides, overdoses, AIDS, and much more associated with drug users. Many people in the world have come to their misfortune blindly, but that can't be said about Monty. Where Lee expects sympathy from me, I shrug my shoulders and say: Your Monty only reaped what he sowed. Moreover, Spike Lee looks like someone who has been silent for too long and suddenly desires to get a lot of things out of himself, things that would be cool, but in a different genre, a different film, and with different main characters. The film simply slips through his fingers. Spike does have a way with the camera, relying on top-notch actors, and some scenes have an atmospheric look, but considering the above, I can't give it more than 3 stars - and he should be glad I'm not dissecting the final cheesy sentimental outpouring of the main character's father, which would not fare well on the chart of film embarrassments. Overall impression: 55%.

Danny Boyle has gained a following with his Shallow Grave and confirmed his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Therefore, something grand was expected of him and unfortunately, it's not as amazing as one would hope, although from my perspective, it's still enough for a 4-star rating. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is uncertain, sometimes talkative, and above all, it has an awkwardly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but I simply expected more from the director of Trainspotting. Overall impression: 70%.

The film has a nice visual aspect, but the rest is sterile or conceptually problematic. I once invested an incredible 50 bucks in Miller's comic book, influenced by the claim that it is one of the most significant works of comic creation. There is no doubt that it was the worst investment I have ever made in the world of books. Ideologically, it felt like a guide for a young fascist through the world of life values, not to mention the lack of historical credibility, only the visual concept stood out... Overall impression: 40%.

I would like to borrow my opening words from elsewhere: "Overwrought and poorly told phantasmagoria"... because they succinctly and accurately characterize what you can expect from the series. According to Alex de la Iglesia, he worked on the series for 6 years, reserved only a maximum of one week for the screenplay based on the result, and it took him the longest time to convince the producers to invest finances and studio support in such garbage. Honestly, I am amazed that the series was created under the patronage of HBO, which usually sets the bar for quality high. I like storytelling and enjoy it, but Alex is a terrible storyteller. It cannot be claimed that the problem lies in the subject itself, it is rather about its execution, about Alex's superficial approach to the material. He wastefully indulges in ideas only to thwart their potential. The mystery genre relies on emotions much more than on rationality, but that does not mean that no laws should apply to it, and that the behavior of the characters will not be guided by any logic. I am surprised by the decent rating on FilmBooster because Alex's lack of restraint and inconsistency moves the genre from horror or fantasy to grotesque in many places... but to each their own. I will not in the least accommodate the carelessly shot mishmash with poor effects and a stupid screenplay, there are others for that. Overall impression: 10%.