gudaulin

If I were a football fan, I would definitely add another star, but I really am not. I understand the popularity of The Miracle in Bern in Germany because it is a kind and slightly cheesy film that soothes and blows on sore spots while pretending to open and address serious problems such as the war trauma of a returnee from Soviet captivity. But that film is too sweet and banal in its culmination. It is simply shallow, nicely groomed, and pleasant to watch, but that's really it. Overall impression: 45%.

I have heard people say that the movie started to annoy them after ten minutes. I was much worse off because I started feeling the same way after only three minutes. If I had to describe Gondry's film with adjectives, they would be "incredibly annoying" and "irritating." My wife pointed out that unbearable hyperactivity is exactly what characterizes the film. I lasted half an hour and then gave up because I realized that this time, Gondry and I really never saw eye to eye. Narratively, the film is a failure on all counts, and Gondry's world, which enchants others, remains closed to me on several levels. This style would be great for directing music videos, and after all, Gondry has already made quite a few of them. But I consider watching a 130-minute music video as a horrible and terrifying ordeal. Overall impression: 25% for the visual aspects and wild ideas.

A Conspiracy of Faith is a film of two completely different parts. I don't know if they are equally long, because subjectively the exposition of the story seemed too slow and about as exciting and captivating as a Christian documentary. The movie theater screen should help the film, but somehow I hesitated and thought that a television screen would be more than enough for this. But then came the scene where the ransom for the kidnapped siblings is supposed to be handed over on the train, and suddenly it looks as if a cyclist staggering somewhere at the tail end of the peloton realizes that he doesn't want to stay last and gives it his all. The dynamics change incredibly and suddenly you understand what the magic and global success of Scandinavian crime is all about. You have a jam-packed spectacle that does not spare any blood or shocking twists, and it engulfs you completely. But when the end credits start, you begin to think and certain doubts arise about the errors in logic that you didn't notice before. It's somewhere between 3 and 4 stars, but in the case of such highly-rated films, I usually choose a lower rating. The acting is decent and the subject matter is also unconventional, but the mistakes are simply noticeable. Overall impression: 65%.

Darkplace did not become for the horror genre what Red Dwarf is for fans of the sci-fi genre. The creators lacked greater moderation in setting the level of exaggeration, and a sense of defining the boundary when the joke needs to be cut off because intelligent viewers only need a hint, and there's no need to overdo it. Darkplace is too literal and attacks at the first signal, although it certainly cannot be criticized for a lack of ideas and wit. It functions as a funny parody of B-movie horror series and can accurately capture their numerous weaknesses, but on the other hand, this trashy production represents an all too easy target for ridicule. It does not create a functional micro-world and does not bring forth compelling characters that you would want to follow long-term and look forward to more sequels. It's too nonsensical and it exhausts itself after a few episodes. A six-part series was more than enough for me, whereas with Red Dwarf, as a little boy, I was excited about more seasons. The creators don't only go after the horror genre, as it can also be seen as a parody of series set in a hospital environment. Last but not least, the series also points out phenomena such as the transformation of the roles of female protagonists because in the 80s, macho heroes were still ruling and Ripley was just an exceptional phenomenon. For me, the funniest parts were the speeches of the creators, which exuded immense ego and an effort to defend a production that has minimal credit. Overall impression: 70%.

The Great Journey or How to Propagandize and Abuse Jaroslav Hašek. The film does deserve one star for the strong cast of both well-established giants of Czechoslovak cinema and the talented newcomer Josef Abrhám. However, everything else is highly problematic. It is true that the rebel and leftist Hašek turned to the Bolsheviks and considered serving the Soviet revolution as a natural culmination of his lifelong journey. However, his book "Behind the Lines" is evidence that he did not lose his critical thinking in the slightest, and if he had stayed in Soviet Russia, the Stalinist machinery would have mercilessly crushed him. This is simply an outrageous distortion of the original text, influenced by the time of its creation and serving regime propaganda. The creators cleverly try to exploit the popularity of the two film adaptations of "The Good Soldier Schweik," which were made several years earlier. But where Hrušínský and others were brilliant, here the false tones clearly creep in. Even in terms of dramaturgy, the film is not well executed. My last criticism is that Josef Abrhám does not even remotely resemble Jaroslav Hašek. However, the complete reversal of the literary work's idea is unforgivable. Overall impression: 25%.

Fargo, or Bloody Tales from the American Underworld, comes in series form for the second time, and this time after some hesitation, I am giving it five stars. Essentially for two reasons. The first season was carried by two characters and two actors. Billy Bob Thornton in particular basically stole the series for himself. Lorne Malvo, a neglected little man with sharp eyes and a virtuoso ability to unsettle his surroundings with his speech full of implied dark threats, is a villain you can't forget. The second season is much more balanced. It doesn't rely on stars, although Kirsten Dunst definitely belongs to the famous names of the American acting scene. However, there are several dozen attractive characters here capable of capturing the viewer's attention, and they should have a chance for a potential spin-off to be built around them. That is to say that they would if the malicious screenwriter didn't let them be massacred in a grandiose style. The rivalry between two criminal gangs sometimes resembles a minor civil war and I get the feeling that certain military operations in the last century have cost Americans fewer lives. The underling Hanzee, who decides to stop being obedient and wants to play his own significant game, the philosophical gangster Mike Milligan, who would be better suited for academia, the silent twin brother killers, the diligent tough cop or sheriff who remembers a lot and predicts a lot - they all function perfectly. The second reason for the fifth star is the married couple who act as a catalyst for everything that happens. Both the butcher Ed, who longs for his own butchery, and the hairdresser Peggy, who is a funny caricature of American feminism, are so obsessed with their own idea of happiness that they don't notice the immense trouble they are getting themselves into and that they are also dragging their surroundings in with them. This season contains more comedic elements than the first and at the same time represents thoroughly modern and clever filmmaking, confirming the well-known fact that interesting things happen on the television screen nowadays. The screenwriter has a tendency to resolve the plot in a deus ex machina style and not everyone can digest the flying saucers, but I simply consider them part of the game with the viewer, which you can either embrace and have a good time with or not. What disappoints me a little is the insufficient connection between the two seasons, which could have been much greater - the bag filled with millions from the first season was practically asking for it. Nevertheless, for me, it was a great bit of satisfaction, and if another season is made, I want to see it. Overall impression: 90%.

Zulu feels like a trip to the countryside to an old house of deceased grandparents, which has been abandoned for years in solitude and is waiting for someone to visit it. Open the door and you will discover preserved furnishings that smell musty and look somewhat quaintly old-fashioned. You wouldn't want to live in it, but it can be enchanting to lovers of antiques. Open the wardrobe and you see clothes long out of fashion. Zulu could once have seemed like an epic blockbuster, but today it can only evoke an indulgent smile. In a sense, it reminds me of old westerns or movies about Native Americans, where settlers traveling westward on the prairie fend off attacks from wild Comanches. The film pays homage to the peak of the colonial era in Victorian Britain when white men took their share of colonial conquests as a civilizing mission of European culture into the wilderness. It features not so much living characters as human types, and the behavior of the officers reminded me of one of Michael Palin's Ripping Yarns episodes, which satirized the stiff British army. The film can be criticized from today's perspective for many things, from choreography to pathos. However, those who appreciate beautifully colorful uniforms and a world that was simple and had a black-and-white dimension can still enjoy Zulu today. Overall impression: 40%.

Some people claim that the remake is more entertaining. I gave the remake a very average 3 stars at the time and practically completely blocked it from my memory. There really is no need to remember it. In the end, I will give the original only 2. One star is for the always excellent Michael Caine, and the second one is for flashes of British humor mainly concentrated in the character of the boss of the British underworld, currently in a correctional facility. The rest somehow drags on, it is not funny enough or smart enough, and I get the feeling that it doesn't even properly know what it wants to be. The secondary characters of the thieving team are mostly uninteresting, and the action elements don't work for me. However, what is worth mentioning is the final scene, which will probably be the only thing to stay in my memory forever. If the rest of the movie was like that, it would indeed be a delightful thing. Overall impression: 45%.

Does a film that almost has an 80% rating on FilmBooster deserve only one star? Let me ask the question differently. Do I deserve to lose almost three hours of time at my age watching a pompous and exhausted propaganda spectacle? Or, wouldn't it be worth it for other users to take off their blinders, get rid of nostalgia, and watch these old works again? In some cases, this could lead to a fundamental reassessment of current impressions. Over a few days, I watched Bondarchuk's debut Fate of a Man, and then this film, which can be considered a total artistic defeat, as Bondarchuk suppressed everything progressive and directed an educational film full of pathos, attempting to construct the myth of the Soviet man and a propagandistic offspring of the official Soviet cinema of the 70s. If I am bothered by the ubiquitous patriotism and glorification of American heroism in famous American war films, such as Spielberg's drama Saving Private Ryan, here I am reminded to a large extent of the slogan of voucher privatization. Bondarchuk doesn't even avoid having incredible tragicomic scenes, such as repeated cuts to the face of a frightened German soldier confronted with a pathetic expression and burning eyes of a Soviet soldier moving forward, or a German unit calmly marching along the road in the middle of a fierce tank battle under the leadership of a drunken officer. The rest of my family gathered in front of the screen and watched incredulously, then asked uncertainly if it was a parody. At the same time as when this film came out, completely different processes were taking place in world cinema and top-notch works were being created. Here, under state supervision, time stopped, or rather, returned to the 50s. The attempt to focus on the personal characters of the soldiers sounds worn out and boring, the choreography of the battles is incredibly dull, and you can't help but think of traditionally undernourished European television production, represented, for example, by the German BRD trilogy, which presents only one tank as the pinnacle of its offer. However, it is filmed inventively and beats Bondarchuk's film by several classes. It really is not about money and the amount of military equipment but about courage, cleverness, and skill. Overall impression: 25%.

In September 1939, not only German-Soviet allies invaded Poland, but the Slovak state and Slovak soldiers also decided to exploit the fall of the Polish state and entered the territory of eastern Poland. Ivan Balaďa's drama is most valuable today precisely because it reminds the public of this long-forgotten war episode. It is a psychological drama about how people reveal their characters to the extreme in war situations, and what could otherwise be a source of sarcastic remarks, gossip, and marital quarrels in calmer times turns into a tragic drama ending in human death. The film did not impress me significantly, but it is worth mentioning the excellent cinematography with black and white images and the participation of leading Slovak actors. It is a film about human pettiness and cowardice. Overall impression: 60%.