lamps

Mother! is a film that in a way made me think again about how I should actually approach the evaluation of works of cinema and how to approach this one in particular. I could be a principled objective reviewer who doesn't care who works on a film, what they've done before, or how their outlook on life and artistic sensibilities affect me, then I'd follow the plot without emotion, trying to uncover the general processes I've consciously or subconsciously automated while watching films, and Mother! would have struck me as a big-budget creation that, in pursuit of a thoughtful philosophical point, cheaply resorts to parroting various biblical themes on which it merely hangs its model story. But I can also be a highly subjective reviewer who has both a good understanding of general narrative practices and an opinion of the actors and the director, which, if negative, can affect the experience of the film to such an extent that it’s impossible to get past being pissed off at the artistic expression of the filmmaker and enjoy the film subjectively. Or I can be a subjective viewer who doesn’t give a crap about the artistic views of the creators, and even though the film just parrots big themes, its portrayal simply draws me in and, if nothing else, shows me once again how powerfully the medium of film can communicate and create at least the illusion of big authorial ideas. Mother! is a controversial and far from perfect movie that has understandably divided the audience and raises the question of how much one is able to empathise with the narrative and accept its expression. I respect all options (a hundred people are a tribute to a hundred audience tastes), I chose mine, and it is evident from this really difficult review. 85%

The pleasant whiff of neorealist traditions that Olmi provided with this and two other films at the turn of the fifties and sixties in Italy may be interesting for the Czech viewer also because it was here that the later great Miloš Forman was massively inspired in his beginnings. The Job follows neorealism mainly through the use of amateur actors, filming in real locations and a semi-documentary approach that creates an authentic image of the Italian working class of the time. It’s not a social critique, but merely a reflection on the new possibilities of a more evolved bureaucratic society, and in that respect I am a bit disappointed by the lack of a more substantial plot into which I could immerse myself and, together with the protagonist, experience the story in a participatory way. Formally, it’s a finely tuned piece of work, but unlike neorealist bastions like The Bicycle Thieves, it doesn't have much to offer today's audience. 75%

A maturely delivered spy story that doesn't bore thanks to the excellent rhythm of the narrative, yet it completely fails to emphasize and exploit the personal line and achieve a stronger emotional response in the finale as a result. The characters of the wife and Diane Kruger and their relationship with the protagonist are not fleshed out as the otherwise psychologically attuned script would require, and Furman thus delivers essentially just a very good and suspenseful conversational drama, spiced up with a few deaths and surprising moments (Cranston freaking out in a restaurant in front of his terrified wife is unforgettable). But it's good that these old-fashioned genre flicks are still being made, they're more believable and likeable than all the action attractions combined.

The episodic structure blends very nicely into a convincing-sounding account of two generations of a peculiar family, but I can't shake the feeling that this film is a somewhat defiant adversary that few viewers will be able to face in the ring. The characters are simply weird and deal with things that are hard to relate to and impossible (at least at first) to fully understand. Anyway, I applaud the amazing actors and the aforementioned tragicomic straddling that worked simply great. I will sure give it another chance. 70%

Very nice cinematography evoking Lubezki’s work with space and a nice pace, which, however, hand in hand with the dull character profiles and the bland appearance of the space creature, makes Life a hilarious piece of B-grade sci-fi fantasy. The tension is there, but compared to Scott's claustrophobic Alien, it's just a miniature concoction worthy of oblivion.

I really like Waititi a lot and I certainly can't say Boy disappointed me significantly. The opening sequence is a wonderful testament to Taika's ability to playfully transport the viewer into the heart of a child's imagination like few others, and the entire story is an important expression of the filmmaker's distinctive take on the environment he was forced to grow up in – away from Michael Jackson and the Hulk, only in the company of poverty, his own friends and his own enormous imagination. But as well as the script ticks off and develops all the major motifs, it fails to produce believable characters with whom one can identify, nor does it convincingly merge childlike naivety and humour with a bitter social statement. All in all, a very interesting and original movie that I will always look back on with respect, but again I prefer to reach for the more cheerful and balanced pieces of Waititi's work. 70%

A modern Scorsese who is as easy to look at as an overstuffed wallet, but at the same time embodies the fact that nobody can tell a story as coherently as the legendary Marty. Barry Seal wants to deliver a very complex and balanced story, but ends up offering terribly little room for the supporting characters and brings nothing new to the game apart from some flashy work with self-aware editing and music. I enjoyed Cruise, the pace and the positive feeling, even if it didn't always quite fit with the events described, but after a while what has stuck in my mind are hilarious bits, not a hilarious film. A respectable 70%, if only for Sarah Wright's undeniable potential for the less accessible roles whose ideas she cheekily encourages.

These days there are fewer decent prison dramas than pretty prostitutes, which makes me all the more pleasantly surprised that two have been made overseas this year. While Brawl in Cell Block 99 takes a more psychological approach portraying a monstrous path to moral vindication with minimalism, Shot Caller is a complex and expansive story with more clichés, but at the same time a backdrop of a properly thought-out narrative structure that makes the film build up excellently, leaving question marks until the intelligent final twist. The layered plot does not hinder the established pace, on the contrary, it dynamically develops the motivations of the lead character and creates a strong basis for the finale, where the narrative stabilizes on the main time plane. The portrayal of the prison hierarchy seems a bit absurd and the team of detectives doesn't get enough space to make the situation even more dramatic, but otherwise a very cool affair with a very cool Nikolai in the lead.

Probably the best film of its kind, whose perfectly constructed opening sequence in the Texas desert literally sends chills down the spine (the terrified mute girl is a masterpiece), and the rest of the footage constantly surprises with original techniques and changes of location. The only issue I see is that the scheme, which is varied twice in a row and culminates with scenes from the ants' lair, loses its original charge and energy for the second time. Anyway, if you want to see a typical representative of a complexly mastered monster movie that starts with an attack on a caravan and in the finale deals with a transnational crisis and context, Them! is the right choice for a nice cinephile evening by candlelight.

It gets off to a promising start, and the film's conversational first half sets up the expected destruction of New York City, but poor directorial invention and a build-up that is duller than a fight at a Kaufland checkout counter drag it into the mire of mediocrity during the monster's promenade through Times Square. But the execution of most of the scenes with the giant monster is certainly praiseworthy; they do not look ridiculous even today, and it’s all the more disappointing that they did not receive a more skilful director, as, for example, Jurassic Park would do forty years later.