gudaulin

Bruce has all the qualities of a human that we label with the ugly term "asshole." No vice is foreign to him, no deceit or malice is too vile for him to use, and no friend is so valuable that he wouldn't sink, exploit, or humiliate them without a second thought. Life is an endless joyride for him, and he looks at everything around him pragmatically, aiming to get the most out of it. The comfortable life full of drugs, alcohol, and sexual pleasures is disrupted by the news that the position of the head of the criminal department has become available, a position he wants only so that he can enjoy and indulge himself even more. He focuses all his energy on sowing discord and compromising his colleagues, but at a certain point it becomes clear that the one who laughs last may not necessarily be the one who understood the joke last, but simply the one who is in the right place at the right time and knows how to be careful. In the first half, the film resembles a combination of Trainspotting and Californication, where the viewer can thoroughly laugh at Bruce's escapades. However, the second half quickly becomes more serious, with hallucinatory states, remorse, (self)pity, and fear. In short, the film radically changes. The author of the original story is Irvine Welsh, who has already made a name for himself with "Trainspotting" or "The Acid House," and his long experience of living among the underworld, junkies, and street gangs is clearly felt therein. He conceived the film as a drug whip, where at first there is a feeling of euphoria, and feverish activity, which is then replaced by hallucinations, depression, withdrawal, and exhaustion. Or you can see the film as the life story of a junkie, where at the beginning the drug gives and in the next phase it mercilessly takes more and more. The film relies on cynicism, black humor, and James McAvoy in the lead role, who has long been known to moviegoers as an excellent character actor with a hefty dose of charisma. Don't let the filth and the depravity of human relationships and the immorality of the main hero's behavior discourage you. This film is really not about miracles and heroic upholders of law and order. Overall impression: 80%. Bad Lieutenant with Nicolas Cage is two classes worse. This film has style, courage, and drive.

According to many, this is the best film by Otakar Vávra. But let's be fair, Vávra is somewhat of a concept and Hrubín, as the author of the poetic book, is an institution in himself. Even though I consider Romance for Bugle to be an above-average Czech film, it didn't evoke enough impressions in me to give it 4 stars. The plot is sparse and too poetic. Vávra made a bigger impression on me, for example, with Krakatit. The top-notch craftsmanship here cannot be denied, and the solid cast of actors as well. However, thematically, it is overused, as there are very few topics that appear as often as stories about immature unfulfilled love. It is worth thinking about what would have happened if, at the decisive moment, Vojta's sense of duty toward his own family hadn't kicked in and the two lovers had run away - to where exactly? How quickly would exaggerated expectations and romantic naive ideas dissolve, and how much would the down-to-earth reality of everyday life and the stereotype of a partnership hurt? Overall impression: 65%.

As much as I consider Trading Places to be a sympathetic and very well-functioning comedy even years later, I have to say that after just ten minutes I felt that I was simply not understanding Landis' idea of humor and exaggeration when it came to The Blues Brothers. I didn't find it funny, and especially the rather monotonous carousel of chases, car crashes, and explosions seemed to me if not downright silly, then certainly not clever. In comparison, the Czech comedy Blockbuster, which I definitely don't consider a shining example of a top-notch and clever film, seems to me like a masterpiece for intellectuals. I didn't like John Belushi and I was puzzled by the simple, almost non-existent story and screenplay. The only thing that appealed to me was the music, and in the first half, I thought I would at least give the film 2 stars, but after country music got involved and the film moved to its final third in a large hall with a concert for a police choir and the present masses, it didn't appeal to me anymore. Overall impression: 25%.

If the definition of pornography states that it is a work that resigns from aesthetic values and its sole purpose is to evoke sexual arousal, then this film leans more towards classic pornography than cultivated television entertainment, perhaps with the only difference being that there is significantly less sex than is usual in pornographic films. The letters are simply tasteless and largely unfunny. Dagmar Ďásková doesn't suffice as an actress beyond appearing in pornographic films, and it's painfully obvious. For the other actors, it's more of a diversion, where they either overact or simply assist. In the first few minutes, looking at the white-powdered faces, I felt like it was some sort of parody of ghostly antics, but then I just stared. I understand that in the relaxed New Year's Eve atmosphere, where alcohol is abundant and television seems more like a backdrop, this piece might strike a chord with certain groups, but unfortunately, I saw it sober and in a completely different environment. Overall impression: 10%.

The Joneses would like to be a smart satire that targets the consumerist lifestyle and the American dream, but the film lacks balls and loses points by operating within the well-established safe framework of mainstream American films produced by calculating managers of big studios. The film doesn't work as comedy or drama because, at crucial moments, it lacks the courage to truly bite, be cynical, and be merciless. However, it is a professionally made film that is unquestionably above-average, and for about 3/4 of it, I thought I was watching a movie that I would give 4 stars to, even though they would be weaker, they would still be achieved. But then came Steve's confession to lies and manipulation, after which the film basically became a cheap morality tale, and the final happy ending topped it off. But then I reflected and realized that the film fails in what it wants to be (among other things because it's absurd for top-paid stars, who are famous for their consumerist lifestyle, to shoot an anti-consumerist satire), but on the other hand, it works very well as a romantic love story with an original plot. It's solidly cast and acted (I would like to note that I don't particularly like Demi Moore, but here she matched the type and acting required of her). Overall impression: 70%.

This film was inspired by the Soviet science fiction novel published in the early 70s by a group of authors under a pseudonym. The sci-fi genre didn’t thrive in the ideologically constrained cultural environment, and mostly survived on the fringes until the mid-80s. The story had a horror tone, where a group of scientists, backed by the political and military elite of a country, conducted experiments on children to create a genetically modified race capable of colonizing Mars. The television adaptation is a typical regional studio production with a minimal budget, and thus couldn't impress except through the performances of the actors involved. The screenplay logically cut out a lot of literary material, leaving a stripped-down version that deserves no more than 2 stars, mostly for the amazing potential this title had. I can imagine that in the hands of a capable director with a love for the genre, like the young Herz, it could have been a dark and immensely impactful film. Overall impression: 35%. It's a shame that this is probably the only adaptation of this novel. If a major studio had taken it on, sci-fi and horror fans could have rejoiced...

A historical television studio play about a real figure from ancient history, the last Roman emperor who practiced old pagan cults and attempted to reverse the shift towards monotheistic religion. This film is simply poorly written; it doesn’t work as a drama, and instead of building towards any catharsis, it stalls and bores. Regarding historical figures from thousands of years ago, we obviously know very little, but even what is known about Julian completely contradicts the portrayal the screenwriter attempts to sell to the audience. Julian, played by Rudolf Hrušínský, is depicted as perpetually absent-minded, emotionally unstable, and entirely incapable of managing the empire. The only thing the play can offer is top-notch casting. I fear that this, along with respect for an old title from the television archive, is what led to its high rating, because otherwise, it is rightfully a forgotten affair. Overall impression: 25%.

The black-and-white material and the chosen musical accompaniment create a quite suitable dark atmosphere, fitting for Robert Louis Stevenson's literary original. Of course, the presence of legends of Czech acting, starting with Martin Růžek and ending with the then-young Jiří Kodet, must be appreciated. On the other hand, there's not much to show on the screen, and neither the direction nor the screenplay seem to me to be of such quality that I would give more than 3 strong stars. The novel is a cornerstone of its genre and deserves a newer and more elaborate adaptation, but unfortunately, Czechs don't have the resources for that, nor likely the talent among directors. Overall impression: 65%. This film now mainly functions as an interesting example of the early days of Czech dramatic television production.

I considered this movie suitable for watching together with my partner. But after about 15 minutes, she gave up and said she would rather do household chores. I bravely persevered until the end only because the alternative of cleaning the house made me feel nervous. However, I did not fall in love or sympathize with this French comedy about customs officers affected by the European Union's disaster without internal borders. It is not offensive, stupid, or downright dysfunctional. On the other hand, if a television station airs the title on a weekday at 9:30 in the morning, it has no illusions about its audience potential - it simply won't be a blockbuster. The humor used in the movie did not appeal to me because of its excessive literalness and straightforwardness. Moreover, I like it when such humor is presented more civilly. Here, for a greater effect, it was exaggerated by a few percent more than I consider reasonable. Overall impression: 45%.

When Lourdes appeared in the lineup of the French Film Festival, I strongly considered going to the movie theater to see it - mainly because of Sylvie Testud, a charismatic actress who, since Fear and Trembling, has repeatedly proven that her films are worth watching and that beneath the appearance of a gray mouse lies a wide artistic talent. However, even then, my instinct and experience warned me that this time there would be too little of Sylvia in Lourdes and too many delays, meditation, and prayers. For the most part, I was mistaken because in Lourdes there was ultimately too much of only the former. On the other hand, there was remarkably little of everything else, including human sadness, pain, and hope. A runtime of 96 minutes may seem reasonable in a time when two-hour action movies have become the norm, but the problem is what it is, or rather what it isn't, filled with. The content and message of Lourdes could easily fit into a 50-minute medium-length film. The rest is filler caused by Jessica Hausner's unwillingness to edit. With this lady, you can count on the fact that when she plays a karaoke song for you, you will enjoy it to the last note, and when lunch is served, you can also eat it and finish it with the film characters. Lourdes is very static and slow. To such an extent that films about permanently paralyzed lives that take place in a bed or on a chair (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Sea Inside) are explosions of excitement and dynamism compared to it. Jessica Hausner takes the position of a (seemingly) impartial observer who casually records the events surrounding a pilgrimage to a famous site. We see the hopes and doubts of its participants and we can root for the main character to make her moment of happiness last as long as possible. However, this interesting and undoubtedly powerful film falls apart due to the aforementioned "watering down" of the subject. It is exactly the kind of film that, due to the director's self-centeredness, subjectively feels twice as long as it actually is. Overall impression: 40%.