gudaulin

I will not review the series as a whole because I only watched it briefly, but my first encounter ended with great confusion, despite the luxurious cast. It is too forced, and childish, and I can't remember being bothered by canned laughter anywhere else like here. It is essentially the essence of the sitcom genre, which in such a pure form is, in my opinion, outdated. This is so sitcom-like that it could serve as a television backdrop within another series. It feels so exaggerated to me...

Nope, I can't do that to director Bogdanovich and this time I'm not handing out any stars. I would be too stingy and I consider Bogdanovich a director of excellent social dramas, like The Last Picture Show or Paper Moon. But this time, after just a few minutes, I felt that something was off. Making a conversational film with boring dialogue is the road to hell. The casting of Owen Wilson is basically a diagnosis in my eyes because I regularly miss out on his films where he gets a more significant role. I don't know if it's because he's unlucky with his roles or if his cuckoo mannerisms are just so annoying to me, but there simply isn't any chemistry between him and me. I watched half of the film without interest and realized that, with the highest probability, the second half wouldn't give me more than the first, so I gave up watching it with a clear conscience. I consider this comedy to be a typical case of a film that evokes a feeling of helplessness in all those involved in its production. As someone mentioned in a comment here, perhaps the most interesting thing is Jennifer Aniston's change of hairstyle, which I didn't even recognize at first. It's the first time since Friends that I felt she had detached herself from Rachel in terms of her appearance.

Bohdan Sláma is one of the few contemporary Czech directors who, in my opinion, has something to say to his audience. The problem is that he doesn't always choose adequate means and quite often comes up with rather lifeless constructs instead of real burning stories from life. In the case of Four Suns, after just a few minutes, I felt like Sláma was speaking a different language than the one I understood. I really didn't get this film. After 33 minutes of suffering, I gave up and, of course, in that case, I also gave up on rating it with stars. However, if I managed to endure until the end, the star allocation would truly be modest. Probably extremely modest. In one scene, Karel Roden asks the people present why they're here, and what they're doing, and I kept asking myself the whole time why I was watching it when there are thousands of more sensible ways to spend my free time...

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.

I don't dare to give this a star rating because I gave up on the movie after a while. The whole Ocean's series didn't sit well with me, and I didn't rate the first one because it quickly evaporated from my mind. I gave the second one 2 stars, and if I found the determination to endure, the third one would probably receive the same rating. The Ocean's series looks up to legends like The Sting from a respectable distance. It may be because with Ocean's Thirteen, it's clear from the beginning who will win, and the movie doesn't have any significant twists or shocking revelations. Considering the multitude of stars, the budget, and the advertising, it's a very average movie for my taste.