gudaulin

I have a long-standing positive relationship with the Dardenne brothers. I find them sympathetic in terms of their themes, the environment they depict, and their characters. However, I find their approach to storytelling less appealing. I appreciate a realistic approach and I usually don't mind a slower pace, but with their film The Son, the Dardenne brothers have crossed a certain imaginary line and the film becomes irritating. Soon enough, you realize the relationship between the master and his apprentice, and for the majority of the film, you are waiting for the one scene that, by the way, ends in a predictable manner, leading to catharsis. Originally, I gave it three stars, but that wouldn't be honest. For me, this is the least digestible film of the French creators of small social dramas. Overall impression: 45%.

With regard to Maciej Stuhr, the apple did not fall far from the tree, and his father can be, I think, satisfied with his son. His professor is charismatic and manly enough to win the favor of television viewers, and the criminal case is complicated enough to sustain a 10-episode series. If I have any objections, it would be towards the script, which makes the main protagonist too dominant. It seems as if the Polish teacher has undergone a training course for special service members and espionage practice. However, the series is filled with characters with great potential, and the storytelling logic does not bend in a way that would make me disagreeingly shake my head. Overall impression: 80%.

Believe it or not, this is the first film I've seen with the legendary master of one expression, Chuck Norris. I was hesitating whether to sacrifice that time, but if I hadn't watched it, my image of the film industry would have been deprived of one dimension. True, I didn't expect to see a clever and cultured spectacle, but I was hoping to have more fun with unintentional humor, cheesy nonsense, and the inability to pry out even a hint of acting prowess from the desperate cast. Well, that didn't happen, although Christopher Neame, in the role of the devil's servant Prosatanos, overacts to the best of his abilities and provides some distraction from the overall boredom. Unfortunately, it's not enough to give it even a single star. Overall impression: 10%.

I watched this film as part of a television series, and because it currently has a decent 73% on FilmBooster, I had the impression that I would discover a hidden treasure. However, as the minutes passed, doubts and a feeling that the film had deservedly collected dust in the archives crept in. Forman's Black Peter is timeless and you don't get the impression that it has aged. In addition, the combination of drama and comedy works excellently in it. The same cannot be said for A Pact with the Devil. The film has aged and the dramatic and comedic elements clash in an unfortunate way. The film is strangely inconsistent as if it was directed not by two, but three directors, and was written by several screenwriters who could not agree on anything. It belongs to the kinds of films where the individual details work well, but as a whole, it only causes doubts at best. A good gag is followed by an awkward joke, alongside which the following serious situation feels inappropriate. The failed party scene resembles Before Tonight Is Over and is one of the more successful parts, but again, we encounter that inconsistency that kills the atmosphere. In such cases, the potential of the top actors is partially wasted, with the exception of Menšík, who stands out. Overall impression: 45%.

Andrei Rublev is very important to Soviet, or rather Russian, cinema in that it is a monumental (and very expensive) medieval fresco. It was supposed to be a confident symbol of the post-war rise of Soviet film, representing the same thing for the era of Khrushchev's leadership as Ivan the Terrible did for Stalin and his gang. However, Tarkovsky guided the film toward religious symbolism and mysticism. After all, he originally named his work Andrei's Passion. The regime struggled for eight years to deal with the film, until it finally pardoned it. Tarkovsky dedicated a lot of energy to creating a sense of authenticity - he aimed for a raw, naturalistic style and used rough, unprocessed materials. It is undoubtedly a monumental work of national cinema, which would be difficult to create today. For me, it is Tarkovsky's most digestible film, but it is still true that the famous several-minute-long shots can tire out anyone. For me, the film represents a sympathetic and attractive version of the Middle Ages. The 205-minute director's cut proves that Tarkovsky did not take the viewer into consideration. Overall impression: 80%.

One evening, agent Samuel L. Jackson calls Julianne Moore excitedly and says: "We have a bull's eye here! A super-successful bestseller and we have confirmed Julianne Moore for the lead role. There's no way this can be a failure!" Julianne Moore's experience was similar and the main attraction, of course, was Samuel L. Jackson. However, the original assumptions missed the mark with the result. The only thing that works is S. L. Jackson's charisma, and although Julianne Moore puts tremendous energy into her role as the unhappy mother, it is questionable whether her commitment sometimes goes into overacting. Nevertheless, it is these two who hold the film together, more or less. Joe Roth doesn't have the right sense for this combination of genres, and even though he tries, the film is hardly entertaining at any point and doesn't work according to viewer expectations. The dialogues are slightly longer than they should be, and the editing is in a similar vein. As a thriller, it is predictable, and as a psychological drama, it is shallow and emotionally overdone. As for the racial conflict, we've seen it portrayed more convincingly in dozens of other films. It's not a complete disaster, but it's also not a film that can be recommended. Overall impression: 45%.

The Idealist will be appreciated by those who prioritize content and social commentary over form and effectiveness. Do not expect the usual thriller and action elements, chases, or life-threatening plots. The Idealist is a realistically narrated and fact-based story about an investigative journalist's involvement with state power and political interests. Personally, I am not enthusiastic about the filmmaker's style, which focuses more on maintaining a sense of authenticity at the expense of attractiveness for the viewer. The Idealist approaches the fictional documentary genre. The pace reflects the patience required for thorough fact-finding in the field and their subsequent composition into an informative picture of the Danish political scene. This time, I will round down to three and a half stars, but my overall impression of 65% is certainly not a bad result. In my opinion, the film could have had more urgency, passion, and emotion, but that is, of course, a matter of opinion.

The Distinguished Citizen is a valuable, albeit somewhat cynical and malicious contribution to the discussion on the role of intellectuals in today's society. I cannot recommend it to casual viewers. It will likely be appreciated by those who have already experienced some things in life and are not trapped in their social bubbles. It is not an impressive and showy film, but it is cleverly constructed and reliably takes you where it wants you to go. It never bores, and it occasionally stings or slaps you cruelly, and constantly gives you a conspiratorial wink, asking if you understand how life works. The direction is not dazzling, as the strength of the film does not lie therein, but the script did enchant me, as did the characters and the questions the film raises. For Oscar Martinez's focused performance and especially for the opening speech, through which his protagonist shocked the social elite while accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature, I am giving it five stars. Even Ricky Gervais doesn't have the balls for such a knockout, and God knows what I would give to see the shocked faces of establishment figures in a live broadcast. Overall impression: 90%.

Reviewing Phoenix is a really tricky issue. Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever labeling Phoenix as a truly bad film. A fundamentally bad film, to be exact. On the other hand, Phoenix is bad in such a charmingly twisted way and its craftsmanship undeniably has many strengths. It's a film that literally screams falsehood. It is untrustworthy in its portrayal of human emotions, thought processes, and the actions of its characters. By attempting to be earnestly serious, it teeters on the edge of absurdity, and by desperately striving for catharsis, it goes beyond that threshold. I actually felt sorry for Nina Hoss for what the director put her through. It's not important that Phoenix is a construct. There are plenty of films like that and yet they manage to be fully functional. One such example is Hitchcock's Vertigo, which many people refer to. The problem is that it is a naive and awkward construct. I liked the cinematography, Ronald Zehrfeld portrayed Johny very nicely, and I also liked the atmosphere. However, my overall impression is still only 40%, and Petzold should be glad for even this modest number, considering how he handled a serious topic.

Brit Marling is truly a charismatic and attractive actress equipped with a decent dose of talent, and she perfectly fits into her role as the cult leader. The director is not a novice and knows what he wants to achieve. The problem is that I am not the right type of viewer for his artistic intent. I have a clearly defined opinion on the functioning of religious cults, where there is no place for games, where the boundary between reality and the world of occult forces and mysteries begins. For me, Maggie is a manipulator, not a mystery or a myth. Overall impression: 60%.