gudaulin

When watching the movie with a friend, he looked somewhat hesitant and then said: "An unbelievable mess. I don't understand what it is supposed to be, maybe some kind of parody of Bond movies? Thanks to the critical reviews, I managed to avoid this film during the premiere, but as it usually goes, I couldn't escape it. Now I fully understand the fervor with which Ricky Gervais sarcastically mocked this film and its actors during the Golden Globe Awards and the hesitant smiles with which Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie responded. The multiple Golden Globe nominations, in contrast to the dismal outcome, belong to the biggest mysteries surrounding this film. I read in a review that Angelina has never acted this poorly before and although I haven't seen her entire filmography by any means, I can essentially confirm this. Basically, the same can be said about Johnny Depp. I can't recall any blockbuster where the chemistry between the main characters didn't work this blatantly. It's as if they were each filmed separately and later digitally inserted into the shared scenes, of which there are unfortunately many. Angelina also overacts and as a result, it's more like a parody of high society and social status of a lady rather than a fully developed character. This film is the most boring of all and it probably shouldn't even be classified in the genre it wants to be in, i.e., a spy thriller lightened with comedic exaggeration. If they (significantly) increased the speed when it comes to humor and irony, then it could be a parody of Bond movies and similarly themed films. I discovered director von Donnersmarck in his excellent psychological Oscar-winning thriller The Lives of Others, but this is a complete departure and overestimation of his own abilities in every aspect. If an unknown director with unknown actors had made it, I would give it 2 stars, but this is supposed to be a blockbuster and the self-confidence bordering on pomposity is far too obvious compared to its below-average impression. Overall impression: 25%.

In this case, I am not going to give it a star rating because I gave up on the film at a certain moment. I saw it on TV and approached it with high expectations. I simply wanted to see a new animal, but films of a similar category based on grand nature shots need to be seen on a big screen or at least on a television screen of the maximum size and image quality. This isn't that, and it significantly spoils the impression of the film. However, I also think that Animals in Love does not have the quality of famous films in its category, and the director could have squeezed more out of the subject. It needed more dynamism and bold editing. The way it is, the emotional impact is weakened.

One of the essential genre films in the western category, which led to the revival of this genre and marked the artistic peak for the acting star Kevin Costner, who also did well as the director. The film significantly differs from the western classics dealing with the lives of cowboys and selling the romance of tough guys and the uncompromising battle between good and evil. Costner focuses on the clash of two civilizations, where the weaker one must unwillingly give way to the white settlers, who have industry and modern science behind them. For decades, Native Americans have been portrayed in westerns as bloodthirsty bandits and primitives, Costner turns this view upside down and becomes the spokesperson for the more intellectually inclined part of today's America, which feels a sense of guilt for the disruption of the original indigenous culture. His perspective is, of course, idealized and essentially biased, as the Indian side also acted pragmatically and violated agreements of both a local character and those made with the American government whenever the opportunity arose. On both sides, people were striving for compromise and coexistence, and there were also opportunists. The progress of white civilization to the West and the emergence of today's USA had no historical alternative. Dances with Wolves is influenced by the then-popular ideology of multiculturalism, but despite all this, it is an extraordinary film that beautifully sells American nature, the romance of the wilderness, and life in harmony with it. It has excellent casting and corresponding acting performances, and it works with human emotions in a great way. It is simply impossible not to root for the character's transformation and his fight for personal happiness and the salvation of the tribe. Overall impression: 100%.

One has to admit that director Paul McGuigan is a master of his craft and has also gathered a decent amount of experience, so he currently belongs to the significantly better part of what British cinema has to offer. Paradoxically, I would have liked his film more as a classic straightforward gangster story about how things work and how new generations alternate within the gang, rather than as a psychological study of a deviant person, envy, and violence in general. The film portrays gangsters as people whose moral standards are shifted compared to the general population. However, McGuigan doesn't handle this psychological aspect very well, so the film sometimes teeters on the edge and the script, along with the motivations and actions of the individual characters, somewhat drags on. My weak three-star rating is ultimately saved by the cast, led by experienced actors Malcolm McDowell and Paul Bettany. Moreover, the depicted violence at times very much stands on the edge and can evoke disgust in many viewers. Overall impression: 50%.

Director Mira Nair draws on her ability to stand somewhere between Indian culture represented by Bollywood and traditional filmmaking represented by Hollywood in her work. She is able to effectively combine both styles and sell exoticism cultivated by Western moderation and reality. I know her film Monsoon Wedding, which I liked a little more precisely because of its exotic frame of a traditional Indian wedding, but The Namesake is also a solid film that somewhat suffers from the effort to map the lives of two generations. Two hours is a little too short for that, so the film sometimes feels rushed and the characters a bit like figurines. In addition, it lacks a stronger plot line, and the psychological conflicts are diluted over time and by the director's reluctance to engage in a greater emotional clash. Overall impression: 60%.

Jeremiah Johnson is not just a film about one of the American myths, it's a film about how modern myths and legends are created, that they usually have a real basis, which may be more interesting than what popular culture makes of it in the end. We follow the character of a lonely man who, without experience but with great determination, sets off in the mid-19th century to the still-wild American West and gradually becomes a tough and experienced woodsman, one of the pioneers of white civilization. At the same time, he becomes a hero and the main character of storytelling around campfires. Today, we can see in Johnson a prototype of a real man, and such men no longer exist today because there is not enough wilderness, solitude, and the determination to endure hunger, cold, and the absence of modern medicine. The film also interestingly describes the relationship between the white hunter and the original Native American inhabitants. For decades, American westerns portrayed the image of cruel savages who defended the progress of modern civilization and threatened Christian settlers in the most vile way. Since the 70s, this image has gradually been replaced by a sense of multicultural shame, which instead depicts Native Americans as victims of the ruthlessness and greed of the expanding white civilization. In Pollack's film, these ideological views are suppressed, and the director simply depicts them as a logical conflict between two different civilizations, neither of which represents evil or good according to today's value ranking. Both sides simply tried to defend their interests and act according to their traditions and experiences. Logically, the one that was more adaptable, dynamic, and technologically advanced prevailed. Pollack directed his film as a slowly flowing ballad, highlighting the beauty of the American mountains and paying tribute to masculine friendship, when the meeting of two hunters in the wilderness makes do without exaggerated emotions and only with the briefest of speeches which, however, convey great mutual respect. Redford played his trapper with his usual professionalism, and the director appropriately took advantage of his likable appearance. I don't know if Pollock's view accurately reflects the reality of the Rocky Mountains at that time, but at the very least, the wild West could have been like that. Overall impression: 90%.

I will not give this film five stars because, despite its reputation as a quickly-made film with a lower rating on FilmBooster, I find Wag the Dog to be much more targeted, funnier, and more entertaining, and it has a much more powerful impact. However, for its time, Network is a highly above-average film, also demystifying the eighth superpower, i.e., the media, which enjoyed great respect in the 70s, and journalists and the press were considered pillars of democracy. Today we know that business interests and political influence can effectively undermine the efforts of journalists and that quality journalism is successfully overshadowed by tabloids and various obscure entertainment shows. Furthermore, in light of the recent scandal in Britain surrounding Murdoch's media empire, the truth can sometimes be worse than crazy fiction at first glance. However, I also believe that Network is a product of its time and today it has a somewhat slower pace, some story lines, such as the relationship between Max Schumacher and Diane Christensen, seem unnecessary to me and it lacks a powerful punch; it's just sometimes too talkative. The only completely impressive performance for me was the careerist brilliantly played by Faye Dunaway, who absolutely deserved her Oscar for her performance. Overall impression: 80%.

I have often seen comparisons with the movie Crash, but I find that misleading because Crossing Over has a different topic and treatment, and in my opinion, it is different even in terms of quality. While Crash tried to depict the issue of a multicultural society, i.e., the coexistence of different cultures and races, Crossing Over focuses on the theme of a wealthy country, into which people from various reasons try to immigrate with the desire to fulfill their work ambitions, support their families, or experience adventure. There are also many pests involved, such as smugglers, lawyers, corrupt officials, and a large number of foreign police officers. Although it is an interesting subject with high potential, the execution is learnedly referred to as midcult, i.e., a serious topic is presented in a way that can be understood by as many people as possible, and that corresponds to the polarization of characters into noble ones + victims and the evil ones, who should be punished. It also seemed too patriotic to me, the typical American patriotism with an enthusiastic view of the American flag, where immigrants arriving from around the world vow their loyalty to the new American homeland. The film is solidly cast, played, and directed, but the script is too "Hollywood" for me. Overall impression: 65%.

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%.

The film also features the well-known French director Olivier Marchal, who is known for his crime dramas that mercilessly attack the French justice system and police forces. It all takes place in the style that his work represents, i.e., mapping the corruption of political elites, the interplay between the police and the criminal underworld, and the overall chaos of French society. Unfortunately, the screenplay presents more of a hodgepodge that looks up to Olivier Marchal's masterpieces from a respectful distance. Unfortunately, it is implausible, and I say that from the perspective of a citizen of a country that has had unfortunate experiences and long-standing practices with what Marchal criticizes. In addition, the lead actor Gérard Depardieu seems to have chosen an acting vacation during filming, not putting his usual enthusiasm into it and rather treating it as routine. Furthermore, I get the feeling that in his case, the casting failed because he should have been cast in this sort of tough police role 25 years ago. I understand that the production of a star costs money, and when an actor already has a name, it is necessary to squeeze out as much as possible, but this is more of an attempt to destroy the good reputation of an acting legend than an example of a clever and effective move by the producers. Overall impression: 45%.