gudaulin

Of the four planned stops in Havana, I only ended up doing the first one. It wasn't a disaster, but there are many movies and series and little time, so I tend to look for things that exceed the average in quality, while the stops in Havana get lost in the grayness of the average. The actors are not charismatic (although Juana Acosta is at least pleasant to look at), there is a lack of chemistry between the characters, the plot doesn't deviate from the usual offering of crime motives, and the direction doesn't seem like something that would want to make you focus on Viscarret's future work. If the alternative is visiting an unpopular mother-in-law, then give The Stops in Havana a chance, but you definitely don't have to postpone a date because of them. Actually, the only thing that is truly interesting about the stops in Havana is the shots of deteriorating neighborhoods in old Havana taken from various angles, sometimes even impressively shot from above. Overall impression: 45%.

Well, this time the censors and overseers of the dear leader of North Korea did not please him at all. It is evident that some of the shots and intertitles were added later, but it is still a disgraceful failure, and I would not be surprised if it had a very unfavorable outcome for some Korean officials. It was supposed to be another propaganda triumph of the regime, but Vitalij Manskyj conceived the film as an indictment of dictatorship, which is a bizarre combination of oriental despotism and 20th-century leftist totalitarianism. You don't have to be able to read between the lines and decipher the cryptic messages to feel very uncomfortable and calculate for yourself what life in North Korea is actually like from what you see. Manskij places the shots in such a way as to constantly create a sarcastic impression, remove the pompous facade, and reveal the repulsive essence of the system. You can laugh at what he shows you, but for the most part, it will probably make you sad. Alongside great scenes, such as a subway ride or a showcase of arranged "workplaces" of both parents, the film features a number of places that drag on uncomfortably or repeat motifs that have already been used. Therefore, in the end, I lean toward a mere 3 stars and an overall impression of 65%.

The film is a dignified adaptation of Remarque's famous novel and at the same time one of the artistic peaks of American interwar film production. Of course, if you look for mistakes in it, you will find them. The technical quality corresponds to the time of its creation, which means that in some places it is necessary to turn a blind eye. The film, understandably, strongly resonates with the widespread pacifism after the First World War. Remarque's novel reads like an indictment of war, militarism, and authoritarianism, but in my opinion, it is not pacifist. In the film, pacifism has a declarative nature that blatantly stands out in some moments. The acting is still slightly burdened by the era of silent film, which had after all ended not long before the film was released. However, compared to other productions of that era, these minor shortcomings become insignificant. All Quiet on the Western Front towers in the same way as the Eiffel Tower towers over the Paris cityscape. Considering when it was made, I won't be nitpicky and I'll give it the maximum number of stars. This film deserves it. Overall impression: 90%.

Seven Samurai is considered one of the cornerstones of the action and adventure genre. It is a film that is usually discussed in superlatives and is exceptionally highly rated by film fans. So please explain to me why I felt as if I had worked a full day in a quarry after watching it, even though I watched it with a break and only saw the edited 160-minute version. The original has an additional runtime of 43 minutes. Film critics generally consider Kurosawa's peak creative period to be in the 1950s, but I, on the other hand, believe that while Kurosawa's work in the 1950s was daring, ambitious, and clearly superior in quality to the gray Japanese contemporary production, he was still striving for directorial mastery. His samurai excursions into ancient history suffer from a theatrical acting style that often crosses over into unpleasant affectation. In this regard, Toshiro Mifune's portrayal of Kikuchiyo is sometimes unbearable. It is strange that this characteristic of Kurosawa's historical films is almost unnoticed by others. In comparison to the more famous American remake The Magnificent Seven, Akira ultimately achieved a draw in my eyes, even though both films have their strengths and weaknesses in different areas. The original film has a realistic tone, with the mercenaries not triumphing over a nearly sixfold numerical advantage due to exceptional fighting skills, but rather by joining forces with the village residents, training them in defense of their homes, and teaching them tactics and weapon control. In contrast, the American version is faster-paced and more entertaining, with a reasonable runtime and better-developed characters, but it is steeped in genre clichés and is a typical western fairy tale about invincible gunmen defeating villains. Overall impression: 60%.

The second season of Twin Peaks actually started as good as the first, but the 4 stars I'm giving it are actually a compromise. i.e., the result of a process in which I slowly but surely distanced myself from the series in its second half, starting from my initial enthusiasm. Lynch couldn't keep his eccentricity and love for the fantastic in check. Step by step, the surreal elements and trips to another dimension were multiplied. The delicate balance that held the world of Twin Peaks together was disrupted. It was absurd and unsettling from the very beginning - after all, that was the reason why I loved the series. But too much of a good thing is too much, and the last and quite insane episode brought the realization that I as a viewer, and Lynch as the creator, were heading in different directions. Overall impression: 75%.

From 2008 to 2009, a racist group undertook a series of brutal attacks against local Roma people in Hungary. They used Molotov cocktails to set fire to houses on the outskirts of settlements and shot at those fleeing with shotguns. Their rampage left several injured and six dead, including a four-year-old boy. The event was shocking even in the context of Central Europe, which is saturated with racism and other prejudices. A film based on this event could have had immense potential and could have awakened the public from lethargy. However, Benedek Fliegauf approached this bitter social issue in his own way and slowly directed a quasi-documentary about one day in the lives of a Romani family. He filmed it in a manner that art festival enthusiasts may appreciate, but that will reliably deter regular viewers with its form. They will feel like they are watching a hastily made film with poor camera work and lighting, filmed in an uninvolved manner and without a prominent protagonist. In short, a documentary that bores and elicits emotions only rarely. I dare say that there are only two scenes in the entire film that have the potential to appeal to a broader audience. Besides the final massacre, the scene is the cynical dialogue between two police officers at the crime scene, where the director illustrates the attitude of the security forces towards the "Gypsy question." This is not the most fundamental film about racism ever made, as some people say. This only speaks to the self-centeredness of the intellectual environment of the closed club viewer immersed in their cultural bubble. What matters is a film that sparks public debate, affects a significant part of society, and affects public opinion. This film is one of those for viewers who are already aware and which tries to convince those who do not need convincing. It fits precisely into the type of works that are screened around midnight on the Art channel. For myself, I say that this is my first and also the last film by Fliegauf. Clearly, we do not and will not understand each other. Overall impression: 25%.

This is one in a long series of films that attempt to convey the horror of the Holocaust to contemporary audiences. However, I certainly didn't feel like I was having an exceptional cinematic experience. Some of the reservations mentioned in the comments have a real basis. The film is a bit rough in places and some scenes look unnatural, and yet the foundation, i.e., the drama of people condemned to death, who are herded into cattle cars and die of thirst in tropical heat, still functions. The incident with the spilled bucket, the small dramas resulting from a lack of personal space, and clinging to futile hopes, are all powerful moments that make the film function decently, and the cast is certainly not bad. The film is most harmed by the fact that it was produced in a German setting and tries to justify the idea that many Germans thought differently and tried to "help and protect" however they could despite the repulsive nature of Nazism. That is why there is a scene where German soldiers returning from the eastern front share their supplies with a Jewish transport and even come into conflict with the guarding SS officers, risking a shootout with their commander. Anyone who has any idea about the intense indoctrination of anti-Semitism that the Wehrmacht was subjected to, the strong tradition of anti-Semitism even before the fascists came to power, the extent to which units in the east were involved in war crimes, the level of identification with the regime that existed in the army, and the draconian punishments for any cooperation with the enemy, can only laugh at such fantasy. Especially when they realize the strict discipline that service in the Wehrmacht demanded and the privileged position that the SS units held. No, not even my fondness for Dana Vávrová will lead me to give it four stars. Overall impression: 65%.

I admit that I don't like activists for their one-dimensional view of complex issues. Activism, at the very least, flattens and hinders discussion; I simply look at its expressions with suspicion. However, I don't primarily blame Fruitvale Station for its activist stances and emotional manipulation; the film simply falls into the category of engaged cinema. Although I somewhat identify with its goals, I also note that I haven't seen a title for a long time that so blatantly owed its victory in the festival battle to its subject matter. It is simply too unexciting and unremarkable, lacking emphasis and provocativeness, an incorrect rebellion in the style of Spike Lee. I don't find any directorial or screenwriting mastery here either. I'm giving three stars this time more out of courtesy and for the subject matter. Overall impression: 50%.

An excellently written drama that raises very uncomfortable questions about morality, responsibility, guilt, and punishment. It is shortly after the Second World War and the Danish coast is infested with a huge number of mines. No one wants to risk the worst possible outcome while disposing of them, and the logical consequence is to call on prisoners of war. The soldier in charge of supervising the unit has no reason to be lenient towards the Germans - in fact, he wants to repay them for years of humiliation and suffering with interest. But at the end of the war, there were no experienced war veterans on the Jutland Peninsula, and the collapsing German Reich needed battle-ready men on critical sections of the front. To one soldier's surprise, he finds himself in charge of a group of young boys in military uniforms. His determination to humiliate and crush the prisoners begins to crack. The culprits of the war and the defeated side are clear, but how severe should the punishment be and who exactly should be guilty of paying it is no longer so clear. Land of Mine is a film that humanizes the enemy by showing their faces. It stands in opposition to the ancient eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality. At the same time, at the time when the story takes place, European countries were dealing with the problem of collaboration and minorities composed of members of defeated nations. Where passions could be tamed from the beginning and efforts for retaliation could be curbed, and where a stop to moral depravity was declared, they ultimately fared much better and resisted the allure of political radicalism. On the other hand, it is good to look at events and problems from all sides and to understand the motives of the supervisor, I would recommend watching films like The Pianist, Come and See, or Son of Saul. Overall impression: 95%.

All of us have our own ideas about happiness and contentment, but not everyone can fulfill them. Adam lives in a poor and turbulent Central African country, but fate has been kind to him for a long time. He had a decently paid job that was also his hobby, and his family was doing well. But happiness cannot last forever, and one day Adam loses his job. He loses his social status and, above all, the purpose of his life. What is he willing to pay to maintain his position? The price may seem acceptable, especially if someone else pays it. But the consequences of our decisions and actions sometimes catch up with us unexpectedly and hit us in the most sensitive spot... I really wouldn't want to bear Adam's burden. A Screaming Man is an intimate low-budget arthouse film where you have to deal with a slower pace, but emotionally it is a strong experience. Overall impression: 80%.