gudaulin

Metropia is an ambitious film that wanted to use experimental techniques and original visuals to create a feature-length animated film. Both of these aspects are fulfilled and together they create a world of an unpleasant dystopia, reminiscent of the famous science fiction novel "The Space Merchants" by Frederick Pohl, which depicts a world controlled by ruthless giant corporations, manipulative techniques, and ubiquitous advertising. However, the problem lies in the fact that it seriously lags behind in what makes an animated film what it is, namely the animation itself. Audiences have become accustomed to a truly dynamic development of animation techniques in the last 15 years, thanks to family animated films and phenomena like The Simpsons, considering animation simply as a matter of course. Perhaps this was the intention, but in that case, it is completely wrong and rather reflects a lack of skill. The film is slow, with an underdeveloped world and characters. I ultimately give it three stars for its certain exclusivity and originality because this production did not have significant competition in the past, nor does it have it today. Overall impression: 50%.

Many people are giving this 5 stars, but fortunately, I am down-to-earth enough to resist this attack on the vanity of the art viewer. The Aerial is a peculiar film that works with the motif of an authoritarian and manipulated society, built on the monopoly of information controlled by Mr. "Television," a magnate who controls the monopolistic television company. It is a vision of a totalitarian state like that of the 20s or 30s, fulfilling the dream of state propaganda that has a monopoly on the truth. Moreover, in one scene, a Nazi swastika clearly appears. Many other elements, such as uniforms or generally military elements, correspond to the reality of dictatorships in Argentina or Brazil during Hitler's era, where local leaders imitated their totalitarian European model. This is, of course, an interesting topic, but the director also wanted to play with high art and processed The Aerial as a silent expressionist film in the style of Metropolis. Whether it is the costumes, scenery, or camera work, it has a distinct stylization in which the theme and story get lost. Of course, anyone who agrees to this game and considers it captivating in and of itself can be very satisfied, but I only see it as a self-serving matter. Cinema has come a long way since the 1920s, and when I want a silent film with naive scenery, I reach for the proven classics. My two stars are for the atmosphere of long-lost silent film glory, but otherwise, the film didn't do anything for me emotionally. Overall impression: 40%.

Even though I like French conversational comedies, this film lacks truly funny dialogues, and even the situational humor was quite empty. In fact, the whole thing was like the approach of retired actors, who are slowly becoming fading stars like Clavier, Villeret, or Lhermitte. It's like they had several theater performances in a row and then went to shoot a movie. Seriously, I would only give this film stars for its merits. Overall impression: 45%.

I really like certain comedies from the 80s, even though they don't have ambitions bigger than simply entertaining, for example, both Ghostbusters films, but this pseudo-comedy has one problem, one that is crucial for me: Its attempt at humor doesn't work at all, and it's shallow and terribly forgettable. If I had to give it any stars, then it would be only for the charms of Kim Basinger and the likable performance of Dan Aykroyd. Overall, that seems insufficient to me. Overall impression: 25%.

The third part in the series about the uncompromising policeman Callahan may not differ in quality from the first two parts in a significant way, but it still deserves only one star "as a reward" because even a relatively mild decline in the quality of the screenplay clearly exposes the problematic construction of the whole series. Besides being a gritty detective story, it also attempts to criticize the softened liberal administration, bureaucracy, and rampant protection of human rights, which later evolved into so-called political correctness. There is a rational foundation for such opinions, even if they don't resonate with me, but it's all presented so blatantly, half-heartedly, and naively that it's almost unpalatable. The screenplay contains a number of logical gaps and deficiencies, such as the old man in uniform by himself guarding a warehouse full of dangerous weapons, whose existence in the middle of the city doesn't make any sense, and logic is also lacking in the behavior of the criminals or the police officers who behave like a bunch of idiots, and only because both sides do so, the plot somewhat functions. And precisely because most of the characters behave like fools, they also lack the necessary charisma, so the film relies solely on traditionally macho Eastwood. However, he doesn't have as many memorable lines here that are the spice of the series, and his performance is rather routine. Overall impression: 25%.

I feel that this project was a waste. In this mishmash, it's not so much the actors who play a role, but rather the director and screenwriter who are trying to create a new Magnolia, but because they lack sufficient experience and probably abilities as well, they remain at the level of posing and intellectual kitsch. The film only plays at being a deep social commentary and where it tries to escalate situations and human emotions, it becomes extremely untrustworthy, sentimental, or even pathetic. What works is the cast. I don't know how Jieho Lee did it without connections and experience, but he managed to gather a group of either quality (Garcia, Whitaker) or at least popular (Gellar) actors who try and are able to create the impression that there really is something going on. Otherwise, Lee didn't direct anything worth mentioning before The Air I Breathe, and even though four years have passed since then, he still has not directed anything, which seems characteristic to me. Overall impression: 35%.

Some Czechs consider this film as a national duty, a national treasure, and a matter of national pride, but I don't have a love for duties and I'm only lukewarm about being a patriot, so now I notice again what I've already described in Trnka's film The Czech Year. It is solid work deserving recognition, but times have moved on and animation is different now. I really get the feeling that this is a classic that has become a term on its own, and giving it five stars is a social duty, rather than the stars being given for being enchanted while watching the film. Overall impression: 65%.

The Czech Year was a modern project and an extraordinary artistic creation in its time, but after many decades, I have to say that I look at it with respect but without any emotional impact. I simply recognize it as a great classic, but at the same time, I feel that today's younger generation will not find it appealing. The Czech Year has simply become outdated in terms of its pace and visual concept. The current generation lives differently, and this world of folklore is as distant to them as a museum exhibition of old folk customs from the 19th century. I'm giving it 3 stars for the puppets and the knowledge that this film belongs to the golden treasury of Czech cinema, despite my distance from it. Otherwise, the Prague Philharmonic Children's Choir, Václav Trojan's music, and the somewhat outdated animation give me a dusty impression, which only contributes to an overall impression of 55%.

The film is based on real events when connections between organized crime and the traditional Italian mafia with union leaders were exposed. By the way, this cooperation between unions and the mafia dates back to the early 20th century and has strong roots in immigration and community life, where the interests of both groups and the upbringing of gang and union members in the same poor neighborhoods overlapped and it took several decades to break these ties. At the same time, the film shows a traditional motif of American cinema, i.e., the rise of a strong individual from the periphery to the limelight and his subsequent downfall. Danny Green fulfilled the American dream and became an important player in the union organization, which has social influence and money. However, what one deals with, one also loses, and while the conflict with the state power only costs him influence and property, the conflict with organized crime, or the gang war it initiates, ultimately costs him incomparably more. Russia's Tsar Alexander II survived so many assassination attempts that rumors spread throughout Europe that he was immortal. A terrorist organization proved that even an immortal potentate can die, and Danny Green, who began to think after eight failed assassination attempts that only God could decide his fate, possessed a similar self-confidence as Alexander II. It's a solid film, whose strongest aspect is the real basis of its story, but the direction and cast represent only a better average. If I had to choose between it and, for example, Hoffa, which has essentially the same subject, the latter of the two films would prevail, both in terms of the cast and the script. Overall impression: 70%.

A predictable and artificial affair from a director who is indeed a pro, but as such, plays it safe and I definitely never expect any original, provocative, or experimental films from him. As a comedy, it doesn't work for me; rather, it feels like an attempt to capture the dramatic atmosphere of a typical workday in the office of a New York newspaper. Unfortunately, both the screenwriter and director idealize this world in line with the typically American theses about journalism being the strongest pillar of democracy. The seemingly emotionless dialogues and actions feel like paper shuffling to me, and I don't believe in them whatsoever. Of course, truth and justice will prevail, but it's typical American sentimentality, filmed pleasantly, does not force you to think, and is far removed from reality. American journalism is quite servile compared to, for example, British journalism, and generally more tame because it's dependent on influential advertisers and political elites. And that is only worsening with the pressure of the internet and the shift of potential readers toward bloggers and online news. One of the key scenes, Michael Keaton's fight on the side of good against Glenn Close's side of evil, didn't come across as funny, but rather forced. Not even the presence of one of my favorite actresses Marisa Tomei saved it for me. Overall impression: 45%.