gudaulin

Vladimír Körner approached writing his scripts with a deep knowledge of history and he managed to combine the requirement for an exciting story with an escalating plot and historical accuracy. At the same time, there is always an added value to be found there. In this case, it is clear what he wanted to remind and warn about. The student who once, in a moment of weakness, signed a collaboration with the secret police of the Austro-Hungarian Empire recalls the fate of those who, under similar pressure, signed a collaboration with the State Security. The protagonist of the story gradually loses everything, including the love of his loved ones and his own self-respect, only to find a small satisfaction in the form of vengeance against the state power that abused him. However, as a Prussian military commander says, no one likes a traitor, and so Olaf Lubaszenko, the student, cannot escape the bitterness of his end. I appreciate quality historical stories and here, I think, they managed to depict the era of the second half of the 19th century quite well and also show that espionage did not begin in the 20th century and even in the past it could be dangerous and its actors could play complex games. Perhaps only the co-production format is a bit unfortunate and I could also imagine a better performance by the main character played by Lubaszenko. His lackluster performance surprised me a bit, as I know him to be an excellent actor... However, Petr Čepek was traditionally reliable in his acting and his officer was repulsive. Overall impression: 70%.

It can be said that Vincent, François, Paul and the Others is worth watching. The question is rather how to justify that time retrospectively because even though I have understandably seen countless worse movies, within its genre and theme, this film is purely average and I would not hesitate to even say slightly uninteresting. Some films fade from your memory after a few days, and Vincent belongs more to those whose stories and protagonists you forget after a few hours. At most, you remember when you come across the title somewhere in the TV program, that Montand, Piccoli, and Depardieu starred in it, but unfortunately, these famous figures of French cinema are fixed in your mind with different roles and their protagonists and deeds from Sautet's film are perfectly erased from your memory. This type of filmmaking tempts temps one to give it a better review simply because of the presence of the stars, and also considering the genre label of a film with artistic intent - in the commercial part of cinema, viewers would probably be more unforgiving. Vincent, François, Paul and the Others is a film about a midlife crisis and friendship, but there have been plenty of such films in French cinema, and most of them had more distinctive plots and more charismatic characters. My impression is somewhere between two and three stars, but according to my usual approach, I will lean toward a lower rating for the film, also because three stars are usually given to films that I can watch repeatedly, and I really don't want to watch this again. Overall impression: 45%.

In the mid-90s, Robert Zemeckis came up with the idea of satirizing the famous American life optimism and love for happy endings in movies and combined them with the concept of classic tales about "stupid John" (you can adapt the name to whomever because similar motifs are universal), who, despite his passivity and minimal abilities, found happiness through good deeds. Forrest Gump was born - a simpleton who navigates through modern history without a scratch, leaving his mark everywhere and unknowingly influencing key events in American history. The Swedes decided to adapt a similar story to their own and based it on the best-selling novel by Jonas Jonasson. That film had romantic sentiment, and unfulfilled love, accompanied by the handsome face of Tom Hanks. The hero of the Swedish comedy is a sprightly old man to whom women never mattered much in life because he found the greatest excitement in explosives. The Swedish hero is not a fool, just somewhat self-centered and stubborn, who simply does his own thing and now and then - actually quite often - influences world events and is the driving force behind key turns on the political chessboard of Europe. He celebrates his birthday by escaping from the retirement home and, incidentally (as always by mistake), decimating a criminal gang, gaining a few good friends, and a suitcase full of money. This absurd comedy uses traditional outrageous and very black Scandinavian humor, and even though I wouldn't consider it the pinnacle of the Scandinavian comedy genre, it is definitely worth seeing because it is bursting with originality, energy, and exaggeration. Overall impression: 75%.

I'm being an opportunist by giving Vinyan five stars and I'm bluntly saying that under normal circumstances it would get one less star from me. However, if Du Welz's film does not have primacy at all, then it is certainly at least one of the most underrated feature films that exist in the database. Partly responsible is the horror genre label, which encouraged even those viewers who prefer The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween to watch Vinyan. This film simply missed its target audience, but it is very useful in how beautifully it highlights two problems that affect the ratings in the database. Vinyan has practically the same premise as the disproportionately more famous Antichrist by Lars von Trier. One could even say that if it had been made a year later, Du Welz would have been labeled a plagiarist. In fact, Vinyan came first and both films were created independently of each other, although almost simultaneously. However, Vinyan is much more audience friendly and where Lars uses a series of surrealistic images, Fabrice Du Welz tells a real story with a linear plot and logical structure. Du Welz relies on visual storytelling, so the dialogues are minimalist and only provide additional scenes on the screen. Nevertheless, I dare to argue that the director provides his viewers with the key to all events and there is nothing incomprehensible about it. It is so simple that its literalness may even deter some die-hard intellectuals. Therefore, if there are objections in several comments regarding the absolute incomprehensibility, confusion, and perversity of the film, it is paradoxical that Lars von Trier, who went much further, receives three alibistic stars and neutral comments from the mass audience. So, comparing these two films clearly shows the snobbery and conformity of many who follow the majority's ratings or those who are considered authorities within the community. Secondly, this comparison speaks to the position that well-known directorial names hold, where their new films earn points with their fan clubs, media favor, and snobbery once again. For myself, I can say that Vinyan won me over completely and I quite enjoyed the anabasis of the married couple on their journey toward self-destruction and the gradual disintegration of their psyche, as perverse as it may sound. Overall impression: 75%.

The comedy has is good and fully functional only in the first quarter-hour, which mostly takes place in the reception hall where the suitor Milan Lasica came to ask for his beloved's hand in marriage. Only a very averagely intelligent man, endowed with a sense of self-preservation, would have to immediately retreat upon seeing the mother. However, Milan Lasica proves to be an extraordinarily determined suicide candidate, willing to undergo anything due to his blinded love and male vanity to win his bride. Unfortunately, as the minutes pass, the ideas diminish, and the whole thing only works on the basis of famous names and familiar faces. Overall impression: 55%.

I saw this film again after nearly three decades and I was curious how it would affect me. Kachyňa was among the absolute best film directors and it is evident even in this unambitious film intended for family audiences and especially for child viewers. Of course, it is not a masterpiece, but rather a typical consumer product. Yet it is filmed with taste, with the ability to lead the child actors, and with poetic camera work (the feather floating in the air after a shootout). In this case, Kachyňa did not compromise with the regime, or rather he fulfilled the need to emphasize patriotism, but he could have fulfilled the need for engagement and brotherly love for the Soviet Union to a much greater extent. Kachyňa sensibly found a balance here, so in this regard, the film is fully acceptable even today. However, I no longer belong to the target audience and cinema has also moved forward since then, so it just deserves an average of 3 stars. Overall impression: 55%.

I don't know if I will hurt the feelings of devout worshippers of classical English drama and the legendary William Shakespeare in particular. One star is for the generous production, where it is evident that the British truly respect their classic playwright and make every effort to meet the needs of his historical dramas. Therefore, one can admire the magnificent British castles, which have a genuine medieval atmosphere, and one can also admire the knightly armor and costumes of the film protagonists. The second star is for the story because Shakespeare drew from the real history of the English crown, which was rich in events and captivating human dramas in the 14th and 15th centuries. Other than that, I don't know what else to appreciate about it. The four-part series mainly relies on the holy respect that the creators hold for Shakespeare, and the resulting maximum effort to preserve his plays without adaptations that would make Shakespeare's plays more accessible to today's audiences and fit into the format of a film rather than a stage play. There is simply too much blank verse - that is, Shakespearean verses - too many monologues in completely inappropriate moments when the protagonist thinks out loud to convey his thoughts to the audience. There are too many noble words and pathetic phrases, and it is quite clear that the author wrote this during the pinnacle of the Renaissance for the court audience. This simply does not represent the thinking of medieval characters. It is almost amusing that the fantasy series Game of Thrones, whose author drew from the stories of feudal clans during the War of the Roses - if we disregard the burden of fantasy elements - is able to convey the atmosphere of the high Middle Ages better than Shakespeare. Overall impression: 40%.

"Daddy, who is a hero?" - "A person who died in vain. Unlike others who live in vain." When I recently reviewed Brynych's Transport from Paradise, I wrote that it is probably his best film. But I still hadn't seen this film, which I consider to be the real peak of his work from that moment on. This film has several common elements with Transport from Paradise, and you can see that it was created by one creator in one creative period. Black-and-white images, interesting camera work, expressively resonating scenes, and the tragedy of people in a hopeless situation. However, this film better utilizes its space, and there are no long empty shots. Even the Prague streets without people have meaning and evoke a feeling of claustrophobia and a sense of real threat. Brynych's protagonist, excellently played by Miroslav Macháček, is an unhappy man in the wrong place. A Jew in Protectorate Prague who knows well where everything is heading and, thanks to his intelligence and scientific analytical thinking, has no illusions about his fate. He tries to distract himself from the gloomy reality by carefully performing his work and taking care of confiscated watches at the relevant occupation office. One day, he is presented with an opportunity to help an injured resistance fighter and in a way, take revenge on the regime and show his humanity one last time. The film is excellently cast and there are very few similar films where a lot of famous names from Czech cinema appear in episodic roles on such a small stage. In the confined spaces of a Prague tenement occupied by the Gestapo, the human characters are also very well exposed, once again overturning the instinct of self-preservation and fear in all possible forms. I only have one remark - life has taught me that people under pressure often behave completely differently than in times of ease, and you are often disappointed by the one you least expect. Here, the weak link is clear from the beginning, and the director, or rather the screenwriter, does not hide any surprises for us. Overall impression: 85%.

This film is a solidly directed and acted crime thriller, but unfortunately, director José Giovanni has the upper hand over screenwriter José Giovanni. This is paradoxical because Giovanni is considered to be probably the best screenwriter of French crime films, but here he succeeded in plucking on the romantic string so diligently that he sank into romanticizing mud, which made the motivations and logic of his characters unbelievable. In the second half, he intensively shows the good side of his protagonist, squeezing out and devaluing the previously well-functioning story and suspenseful moments. It is a film without big stars of the era, but that is the least I would blame it for, because the actors are not a weakness at all, and one wonders why, for example, Jean-Claude Bouillon did not become a famous face of French gangster films. Overall impression: 60%.

Unlike others, I think that Crazy Heart is a bit better than Country Strength. Even though one of my reasons for this is my age - because the film obviously targets an audience about two decades younger - there is still a significant difference left for me to give it 3 stars, because that's exactly how I appreciated Crazy Heart. In my opinion, Country Strength is more sappy, it doesn't go as deep and it tries to sell us banalities. Lastly, there are more country songs in it, and I don't particularly like this genre. Overall impression: 45% (mostly for Gwyneth Paltrow). It's not that her performance is dazzling, but it cannot be overlooked that she is a top actress. Country Strength is both primarily and secondarily a romance, not a drama with a broader reach.