gudaulin

I am going to be much soberer and in opposition to film fans on FilmBooster, who ranked Seven in the top ten, I have to say that in my opinion, the film has only one, but very significant plus in the form of David Fincher's atmospheric direction. Just like elsewhere in his work, he works magic with the camera, carefully creates scenes, plays with sound and imagery, and everything is subordinated to maximum effect and audience experience. Unfortunately, at the expense of logic, it is simply straightforward. Instead of being a crime thriller, it leans more toward the horror genre, specifically foreshadowing the later successful horror series Saw. The screenplay is overly complicated, just like in similarly tuned films with a brilliant manipulator, such as Primal Fear, and this simply would not work in reality. It is interesting to observe several film details where Fincher subordinates everything to the atmosphere. For example, wherever the characters enter, it must be dimmed and for God's sake, no one should press the light switch. They use flashlights or the room is sparsely illuminated by red flashes, to emphasize the gloominess of the environment and its mystery. The director chooses the most repulsive environments, neglected and dirty alleys on the outskirts, and old buildings with peeling facades, and plays even more with the interiors. These are usually much more dirty and devastated than would be possible in reality. The camera revels in decay and mold, which would have already alerted the surrounding tenants to some irregularities. The police officers enter an apartment with their guns raised and proceed to the last room, where they only then lift the cover off the victim, suddenly clutching their noses. Again, Fincher subordinates everything to the element of surprise. It is good to compare the dynamically shot chase scene in an apartment building with the chase scene on the roofs and in the apartments of an Arab quarter in The Bourne Supremacy. While the latter fits organically into the story, here the culprit should be able to run down the stairs and disappear through the main exit, but that would, of course, be artistically unattractive, so Fincher lets his villain and the pursuer run through parts of the house that probably no one has yet built and will never build because it would be an unapprovable architectural masterpiece. There are many similar absurdities, but the power of Fincher's unmistakable directorial style is so pronounced that it reliably conceals them in the eyes of the majority of viewers. Even I have to appreciate the atmospheric nature of the scene where Brad Pitt has a gun to his head and expects a shot. The brutality of the individual crimes naturally also captures the audience's interest, but my impression is lowered by the philosophical framework of the drama, with which I do not identify in the least. While another Fincher film, Fight Club, seemed like a great portrayal of the phenomenon of rebellion, anarchy, and consumerism in a modern metropolis, here the nihilism and depression seem inappropriate to me. Overall impression: 60%.

Mike Hodges' film is interesting. An atypically shot and realistic gangster film, with the support of the star Michael Caine, should have the potential to become a cult film, thanks to its bloody revenge story. However, it is emotionally cold and distant in its execution, reminiscent of Michael Haneke's later work, and that may be why some people use the term "boring" in their reviews. At the same time, I am somewhat bothered by unfinished or improbable details, such as the gun our anti-hero takes to the busy city to carry out his revenge. Parading around with it in broad daylight on busy streets is not exactly logical, although you could say it's effective. An American remake was made based on the motifs of this classic British film, with Sylvester Stallone in the lead role, but it didn't come close to the qualities of its original for understandable reasons. Today's fans of popcorn movies may be put off by the somewhat unusual editing and longer scenes, but for me, it gains in attractiveness as a film that stands out from the crowd. Overall impression: 65%.

This film is somewhat superficial, with cheap effects, and the selection of information and processing is tendentious. It may be sufficient for an average viewer, but it definitely won't enrich history enthusiasts. Overall impression: 50%.

Sam Raimi has made a decent series of films, some of which benefit from the nostalgia of movie fans (The Evil Dead), some from his reputation as a commercially successful creator (Spiderman), but if I had to label a film that he truly succeeded at and is the pinnacle of his directorial efforts so far, then I would without hesitation point to A Simple Plan. Some compare it to Fargo, whereas I would rather use the analogy to Sidney Lumet's film Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but in any case, it belongs to the same dark crime genre that transitions into top-notch psychological drama with well-developed characters and polished emotional scenes. The scenes in the sheriff's office, where the protagonist hunts down individual bullets, and later in the crashed airplane, where he tries to load them, are among those that I will hold in my memory of my best movie experiences, and the scene of the final execution reminded me of a similar tragic scene from Of Mice and Men. So what is the message of the film? When you find a bag full of money, try to be single if possible, or quickly hand over the money to the appropriate authorities. Otherwise, things will quickly start to go wrong and you won't want to see those consequences. Compared to Fargo, this film is somewhat less flashy, so don't look for any bodies in a woodchipper, but the ending is more acrid. The sad protagonist finds himself in a situation where he doesn't experience a terrible ending, but rather endless horror. Overall impression: 90%.

Twin Peaks was, at one point, something of a revelation for me in the field of TV series, completely turning my view of TV production upside down and introducing me to David Lynch as a top-notch master of the mystery genre. Even though more than 20 years have passed since then, I think this series has not been surpassed, despite the fact that TV production in the United States is currently experiencing a huge boom and the mystery genre is very popular. The most fascinating thing is to watch the transformation of the individual characters and, thanks to the professionalism of the entire team, be carried away by the atmosphere of mystery and anticipated threats. In the second half of the series, especially toward the end, it heads towards distinctly hallucinogenic territory, which Lynch perfected in his mishmash Inland Empire, and so I'm one of those who appreciate the more sober first half. I must also emphasize the atmospheric music, which perfectly evoked the dreamy mysterious atmosphere of the town. Overall impression: 95%.

Please do not confuse this version of The Professionals with the famous British action series. This is a classic western, set on the Mexican border during the end of the Mexican Revolution, where a wealthy financier sends a group of four adventurers to rescue his wife from the clutches of kidnappers. The fact that something is different is already signaled by the information about the film's content, so I wasn't surprised by the "big" surprise and I have a fairly indifferent relationship with the western genre; I tolerate its clichés much worse than, for example, gangster films or other lighter genres. This film really does have all of the genre shortcomings, which fans of westerns will appreciate, but I just shrug my shoulders at them. And so the four gunmen fearlessly eliminate dozens of their enemies and practically massacre the entire rebel unit to save the Mexican federal army some work. The actors, who exude authority and charisma, just barely earn this film three stars. They were simply Actors with a capital A, not bodybuilders, boxers, or wrestlers, who would go on to dominate the action genre twenty years later. The film is also harmed by the screenplay that culminates in a finale that is expected, but truly idiotic in the context of the previous massacres, making the previous human casualties completely unnecessary. Overall impression: 50%.

From the perspective of form, it's not particularly groundbreaking, but it is strong in its content, concise, and without any apparent errors. An overview of crime in the Czech Republic, its various sectors, and the problems of police forces in adapting to new conditions. There is a lot of information in a reasonably large space without the exhibitionism of film creators or those interviewed. The film features the faces of real criminals and journalists specialized in investigative journalism. Overall impression: 90%.

I do not share the general enthusiasm for this feature film, even though it is undoubtedly original, but it is also a film that would stand out much more as a series of short films. Such a series apparently exists and I gladly give it my attention once I get a chance to see it. A Town Called Panic is built on the sheer craziness of its characters and plot, where one wonders what the screenwriter and artists were thinking before creating something like this. But as I mentioned before, a feature film needs something more than just disrespect for established rules and great imagination. Overall impression: 55%.

If a film can do without words and convey its thoughts and emotions through images, it is always a plus and a sign of creative invention and good craftsmanship. But in the case of Trnka, it is more than that, and it is not enough to say that he was able to rely on a well-known and strong literary source. Trnka processed the Decameron-like story to his own image, creating an original and distinct satirical work on the false morality of that time, hypocrisy, and the church's monopoly on education. Trnka does criticize the church strongly, but it has nothing to do with the then-official communist doctrine. His film is artistically embellished and truly represents the peak of his work in its own way. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that it is a film that requires focused attention and is at times abstract in its visual communication. It is appreciated by a minority of connoisseurs rather than the general audience. I most appreciate the sarcasm and attention to detail, where a single shot is enough to characterize a character and cleverly suggest what was happening behind the scenes. Overall impression: 95%.

The Candidate is a kind of gentle satire on the confrontation of ideological idealism and down-to-earth political reality, where political engagement usually means an endless amount of compromises on the way to obtaining a position from which you can make decisions about public affairs. At the end of this path, only pitiful remnants of the original ideals remain. I would appreciate it if the film, rather than being a socio-critical drama, were a sarcastic comedy on the given theme because the subject prompts it directly. Robert Redford fits perfectly into the role of a likable guy who impresses voters with his youth, energy, and charisma, and the film effectively shows the technology of influencing public opinion through professional image-makers and media advisors, who pull the strings and let themselves be hired by anyone who pays them, regardless of their own political beliefs (if they have any at all). The film is attractive primarily to those who are more interested in politics. Those who are indifferent to it will probably not appreciate the look into the political backstage, and the screenplay is not among those that can appeal to the widest masses of viewers. Overall impression: 70%.