gudaulin

I consider myself a left-wing liberal, but the first seasons of Downton Abbey enchanted me with its old-fashioned conservatism of the noble estate, where respect for traditions and natural authorities are not taken for granted, and after five episodes, I eagerly awarded it 5 stars. However, the second season followed, and it somehow declined in my eyes, and I more or less endured the third season. When I attempted to watch the fourth season, I began to feel an immune reaction in my body and gave up on it. It's not so much about the usual illness of TV series or a decline in the quality of the screenplay, but rather my political beliefs were being triggered, and the conservative idyll started to irritate me immensely. On such a large scale, any false note naturally becomes apparent, and I have to agree with the notion that Downton Abbey seems like a grandly staged soap opera for snobs. The on-screen events could be easily parodied. When you look at it closely, I always wondered how the cursed and despised genre of soap operas would look if it were filmed not as we know it from Czech or Latin American soap operas, but with careful attention to quality casting and directing, and in the case of Downton, I actually managed to find out. At first glance, it works, and one can admire the acting of the participants, the beauty of the women, the nobility of the men, and the scheming of the villains, but at the same time, one must not think too critically and must delicately turn a blind eye to some of the actions of the characters on TV. If I evaluate the series as a whole, I would give it a mere 2 stars and a 45% overall impression. If I were to evaluate only the first season, I could possibly consider giving it 4 stars.

Repeated viewing of this film convinced me that it is underrated. It has an excellent screenplay, a great retro atmosphere, and great acting. Perhaps the climax could have been somewhat more impressive, but even so, it was an extraordinarily enjoyable 113 minutes of my film life. The British simply mastered this genre mix. Overall impression: 90%.

The Sex Pistols represent one of the most important origins of the punk movement and a musical legend. Their behavior, provoking the establishment with their lyrics and music, is simply the essence of punk, and the twisted smirk of John Lydon is actually a punk identifier. In fact, the whole movie is punk. Dissolute, provocative, unconventional, vulgar, and self-centered, packed with plenty of visual material and information, skillfully edited, impressive, and simply good. It excellently manages to place the band's music production and performances in the context of the time and clarify the social and political dimensions of their production. This is how I imagine a music documentary. Overall impression: 90%.

Some films are able to make me angry, and fortunately, Kingsman did not succeed in that, even though the film missed the mark for me by a mile. I simply expected this outcome in advance. Kingsman is essentially James Bond for teenagers in a comedic form. The entire James Bond series is outside the scope of my interests and I haven't been a teenager for several decades. It's not my cup of tea, just like a Justin Bieber or Katy Perry concert. The film's humor doesn't work for me about 95% of the time, just like the catchphrases, and in some cases, I cringe when I hear them. The action scenes are filmed in a terrifying way - too fast, chaotic, and stupid, just like the plot of the film. Of course, it's a blockbuster that can offer entertainment and effects, so from my perspective, there is at least some satisfaction. And the presence of proven top British actors is also not to be dismissed. That all amounts to 2 stars. Compared to this creation, Live Free or Die Hard, for example, is genius in terms of the screenplay. Kingsman can be considered a perfect, and I mean perfect, adolescent film and the high percentages of popularity clearly indicate who makes up the majority of movie viewers. Overall impression: 35%. Yes, I agree that in a certain respect, Kingsman represents the future of the film industry. Unfortunately.

A very successful combination of Russian classics from the pen of satirist Gogol and members of the Drama Club at the peak of their fame. Here, one understands what a perfectly synchronized acting ensemble and dedication to acting mean. The comedy, which speaks to the present day, after all, is about human weaknesses that have accompanied us since time immemorial. The actors can be considered as a kind of prototype of sophisticated fraudulent groups. Overall impression: 95%.

If an animated feature film wants to succeed, it has become obligatory in the last two decades to come up with a concept for the whole family. This is not fulfilled by A Cat in Paris, as it is exclusively aimed at children and therefore lacks appeal for their adult accompaniment. On the other hand, it is definitely not a stupid film, as it has certain poetics that set it apart from North American films and it is also visually interesting. For those who don't mind returning to their childhood and are able to watch through the eyes of a child, it may not be a bad choice at all. For me, it's a 3.5, but this time I'm willing to add to it because European animated films don't have it easy in competition with Disney films. Overall impression: 70%.

Have you ever seen a baseball player during a baseball game? I mean the moment when he attentively watches the pitcher's movement, carefully prepares the bat, and calculates every fraction of a second of his decisive hit - to place the ball, zooming at a terrifying speed, right in your crotch. That's the feeling I had after a few shots of this horror spectacle, which film fans honored on FilmBooster. Not only that but in the following minutes, it seemed that the batter, frustrated by an unsuccessful hit, ran toward me with the bat in hand and delivered a series of painful blows to my most sensitive areas. I have no words for what happened on the television screen - well, no decent words. The expressions that come to mind are usually used when a hammer falls on my little finger or when my foot slides into dog excrement. The absence of any logic in the film characters. A screenplay that could have only been created as a joke or a cruel trick by filmmakers on the audience. A police commando, to be sent on an extremely important mission that reeks of a huge disaster, consists of members whose stupidity surpasses all limits, they must have been cast in a global casting call. The inhabitants of the house affected by the epidemic scream, wildly swing their arms, and without exception, do the last thing that would come to mind when facing a real threat. The constant instructions to use cameras to document what is seen here lack any logic, although this doesn't matter because practically everything lacks logic here. However, this dreadful experience raises the question of how sane I was when I gave the first film a rating of 3 stars. I must have been slightly affected by dementia or influenced by some chemical. Such a decline in quality is not possible between two parts and practically the same crew. Overall impression: triple underscore zero.

There are movie enthusiasts who are capable of criticizing a war film for featuring a different type of tank, plane, or any weapon than the one used in a specific battle, but those things usually leave me unfazed. However, Morituri is a case of a film that was written by a screenwriter who knows very little about the realities of World War II, the style of warfare, and the real life of sailors at sea, and frankly, he doesn't even care. He writes a fictional adventure story that the director skillfully manages to bring to life and cast with famous actors of their time. The result satisfies many viewers, and they experience tension and cheer for the heroes. However, in some scenes, I found myself shaking my head, or to be more precise, my lips mostly twitched in a tolerant smile. Despite Marlon Brando's charisma and his high-standard performance, and Yul Brynner's arguably best performance of his career, I can't give the film more than 3 stars. Overall impression: 65%.

I would say that this is a typical representative of European art. American studios have the ability to grasp a phenomenon, reputation, famous historical figure, or legend and, in the best case, turn it into an interesting narrative that is communicative worldwide regardless of cultural differences. In the worst case, it turns into a pop-cultural sludge that can be sold to practically anyone. European creators, on the other hand, are often proud that their work is practically not consumable by a wider range of viewers. The creators of The Flying Dutchman want to tell the story of the birth of a Flemish legend, but legends are definitely not born this way. They emerge from a collective mass experience, whereas this game is actually an intimate matter of a few characters traversing the film. Although I usually have no trouble understanding a film story and its individual scenes and elements, here I didn't grasp a few things, not just because the creators intentionally left many things unspoken. For example, the motif of the rebels holding a giant head, which remains a memento of a distant tragedy, somehow escapes me. I understand that film characters don't always behave as I would imagine, but here the psychological motivation in several scenes is similar to the idea of a puppeteer and a soldier having sex in the middle of the Battle of Austerlitz. On the other hand, the film has many things that a film fan can appreciate. Excellent camera work, and thanks to the coproduction a very decent budget by European standards, which allows for the illusion of the 16th century. Some images create a sense of magical realism, the actors are fresh-faced yet of high quality, and the director took care in the casting to ensure that his vision of history is full of strangely looking characters - although personally I think he went too far and this collection of freaks could have been seen at most in a medieval madhouse. I see the overall result positively, despite the long duration and slow pace. I was not bored, but I cannot give the film more than 3 strong stars considering the aforementioned. Overall impression: 65%.

Iñárritu's debut Amores Perros once knocked me off my feet and I developed a special relationship and understanding with this Latin American director. None of his other films surpassed that debut, but I never gave Iñárritu less than 4 stars, simply because it wasn't necessary. I went into Birdman with a sense of certainty that I couldn't go wrong regardless of the positive reviews, yet after just ten minutes, I felt that I was missing the director's vision of the world this time. With every passing minute, my displeasure and rejection of what I saw grew. On the way back, I drove through red lights at intersections, scaring pedestrians on crosswalks with a devilish laugh. But that still didn't help; I had a perfectly ruined evening. If I had relied solely on emotions, it would have turned out even worse than a mere 2 stars, but I can't deny Iñárritu's formal filmmaking quality. I simply don't like theatrical, pretentious, and affected films. I avoid the term pseudo-intellectual because it is often used by ultra-right-wingers to label uncomfortable individuals, but the term pseudo-intellectual fits this film like a screw to a nut. A typical example of midcult, desperately pretending to have intellectual depth. Some time ago, a doctor diagnosed me with a throat infection and prescribed a treatment regimen. After completing it, I locked myself in the toilet for two sunsets and observed my stool to see if I was okay. I find Iñárritu's approach to be similar to that unpleasant activity of mine. If there's anything I can appreciate, it's Edward Norton's performance. His confident and spoiled theater star played with pleasure is the highlight of the film; this type of selfish jerk suits Norton perfectly. Emma Stone's presence was also nice. I anticipated the Academy Award nominations for her, and I think this kind of artistic torment and perspective suits her perfectly. Personally, I say - never again to this film... Overall impression: 40%.