gudaulin

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.

Undoubtedly the biggest cinematic experience from the films of recent times. It is a very pleasant fairy tale fantasy, and very well acted, cast, and thoroughly handled both in terms of direction and script. An impressive romantic spectacle about the search for love and success in life. Contrary to some reviews, I don't think it suffers from poor set design. Scenes with the airship are among those that I will always remember, and as a boy, that's exactly the kind of airship I dreamed of. In several scenes, the authors poke fun at fairy tale stereotypes and lighten the storytelling with jokes and thrilling battles. Intrigues, passions, fights - simply everything that an audience can appreciate. With the exception of really young children (because the film does contain some more drastic scenes), the film is truly for everyone. Overall impression: 95%.

The original series was not a masterpiece and its quality had a downward trend. The last two seasons were basically garbage. Atlantis does not represent a significant quality improvement compared to the original Stargate, and though it may have better production value, the quality of the scripts is quite pathetic. Maybe I'm no longer in the right age category to enjoy a series like this, but while Star Trek in the 80s and 90s was full of ideas that certainly did not embarrass the sci-fi genre, this is a weak popular culture imitation. I have only seen three episodes, which of course cannot be objective considering the scale of the project. Overall impression: 35%.

Stargate: Continuum is a very nice example of how FilmBooster and other film databases would function if the proclaimed wishes of many film fans to rate only their favorite genres and create fan clubs that would propel very average but genre-specific films to great heights were fulfilled. The rating, which until recently was near 90% for such a hopelessly average and naive film, is in a way unbelievable. I gave the series 2 stars, but it should be noted that there are episodes that can be considered much better than this stretched-out feature film. This is a sci-fi fantasy that is digestible and usable only for fans of the original series. Overall impression: 25%.

Traditional Emmerich, a lot of clichés, heroic American soldiers, and naivety, which at the end, when the Egyptian people's revolution against the evil alien breaks out, as stirred up by an American mission, turns into a caricature of itself. I used to consider this film a genre average, and given what is being made today, that may be true, but when seen through my eyes today, it's a weak 2 stars. Overall impression: 35%.

If Star Trek earned the label of "sci-fi series for intellectuals" among television professionals and reviewers in the 1960s, then Stargate is a series for popcorn-loving audiences who expect light entertainment from a TV show, allowing them to turn off their brains, stretch out on the couch or in a comfy chair, and spend three-quarters of an hour doing nothing. It's naive, sometimes even silly, but in a charming way. It's no coincidence that it spawned a long string of seasons and had a significant commercial impact. Overall impression: 40%.

By the mid-80s, John Carpenter was a well-established director of stylish B-movies that had a respectable commercial reception within their means. As a result, he was given the opportunity to direct a generously budgeted sci-fi film for a major studio about the arrival of an alien on our planet. Although I consider Carpenter a solid director and don't see the film's weakness in his direction, the movie didn't impress me when I saw it in the movie theater. The problem lies in the screenplay and the overall approach to the topic. It’s a bland sci-fi romance that often elicited a bemused smile and, in one instance, even a chuckle from me - particularly when Karen Allen's character learns that their son will one day be an engineer. Overall impression: 45%.

I consider this movie a cinematic treat. A masterful example of modern, intricately crafted kitsch with a large budget and advertising. The high rating indicates that it is an exceedingly successful example. If this is a sample of an anti-war film and a satire on dumb series for teenagers, then I become an enthusiastic militarist and a consumer. Paul Verhoeven employs elements from teenage series, cheesy sci-fi movies, and bloody action films, while also using some elements from artworks and creating an impression of satirical exaggeration and criticism. Kitsch is simply something that pretends to be something else, and Verhoeven is a very good player. Those who give the film four or five stars, do it precisely for the outward appearance of action sci-fi movies, for the digital special effects, for the visual aspect of the film, and for those beautiful young actors who took a break from shooting commercials. However, you are aware of the superficiality and need to wrap it in some acceptable, seemingly critical form. Yes, it's dynamic, and colorful, with lots of lovely women. Overall impression: 40%.

Movies with Jean-Paul Belmondo sometimes suffer from the fact that audiences have become accustomed to seeing Belmondo in one single box, and anything that deviates from that receives criticism and misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I must point out here that the criticism is fully justified because Resnais did a poor job with it, resulting in a boring and lifeless film, where the main character lacks the charisma of the real Stavisky, despite Belmondo's efforts to imprint his usual charm. Resnais tries to portray his hero as someone who has believed too much in his own lies and plays his role regardless of the risks and the approaching end. The film lacks many things, including a more prominent female character or Belmondo's counterpart. Here, Resnais' hero is depicted as a victim of the system, and although there is some truth to it, I have seen many films where a similar theme is portrayed in a much more convincing manner. Overall impression: 40%.