gudaulin

It's strange - one would say that a film that presents a director's autobiographical journey into his youth and early career will be among his priorities and he will approach it with maximum enthusiasm. However, if I were to find a title in Mazursky's filmography that I would revisit, it would be Moscow on the Hudson, not this one. The most damaging aspect of it is probably the mediocre cast with an uncharismatic actor in the lead role. Worth mentioning is perhaps Walken and Goldblum in very minor supporting roles, but everything else is interchangeable, and honestly, to me, the performances or characters often come across as annoying rather than charming and humorous in any way. The memorable scenes are minimal. I can't help it, but for me, Mazursky is more interesting as an actor than as the person behind the camera. Overall impression: 45%.

I have written before that Westerns do not appeal to me as a genre because they consist of "sweaty romance" and plenty of awkward genre clichés. Ulzana's Raid suffers from none of that, as you would search in vain for the usual naivety and the division of roles into noble Indians as victims and white men as ruthless aggressors. It is not so much a Western as it is an adventure drama that is of its time period and is shot in a realistic manner. It demonizes neither side of the conflict and objectively describes cultural differences and the resulting conflicts. If the genre was like this on average, I wouldn't have any problems with it. Overall impression: 75%.

It has a weak story, not much character development, and there's no significant point. The film relies on the picturesque setting of the Moroccan countryside and the depiction of the exotic and colorful multicultural Paris. It's a film that definitely won't offend but won't impress either. Overall impression: 50%.

I've heard about a film in which two people cannot agree on whether to go see a film on Saturday night and Sunday morning. Many years later I found out that the mentioned title actually exists. Perhaps no other film from the 50s captures the life of the British working class so convincingly. Reisz's style, similar to a documentary film, managed to capture the look and atmosphere of the working-class neighborhoods of that era. The young people of that time saw in the main character someone who was not afraid to live his own life and who threw social conventions out the window. One should not perceive Arthur Seaton as a rebel who wants to change and fix the world, but rather as an unfinished predecessor to Renton from Trainspotting. Arthur just wants to enjoy himself and he actually needs very little - some alcohol, available sex without commitments, and the feeling that no one is telling him what to do in life. The film violated two fundamental social taboos of its time - the affair of a married woman with a scoundrel and, above all, abortion, which was understandably strictly prohibited at that time. The sexual revolution was far from being on the agenda, and the society of the 50s was prudish. Overall impression: 85%.

After a few minutes, you will realize the connection between the director and the authorship of his probably most famous film Death Wish. Winner was never a complicated creator with the ability to delve into the substance. He filmed straightforwardly, I wouldn't hesitate to say stereotypically, and that is also evident in Chato's Land. A very simple story of revenge and the fight of a lonely individual against a gang of villains. More than ever, I realized that Charles Bronson was just a typical actor who simply didn't have the ability to handle more complex acting roles. Not that the role of a silent Indian required acting miracles, but still, there are a few places where it's disappointing that he couldn't put some emotions into his performance. The critique of racism, typical for 70s Hollywood productions, stands out somewhat clumsily here, but I mean Winner really isn't a creator capable of subtle work with the material. The biggest problem of the movie is the desperate predictability of the plot. Winner has nothing to surprise us with, so it's only about how his directorial style suits you. My overall impression is about 40%.

I'll be honest with you: I have never really understood Ingmar Bergman, though with a few exceptions, and his critically acclaimed dramas usually simply bore me. The Seventh Seal is one of the few titles I come back to - perhaps because as an atheist, the spiritual aspect of the film passes me by, and unlike the interpreters of Bergman's work, I couldn't care less about the existential discussions of the 1950s conducted in the shadow of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear apocalypse. For me, the film remains a simple game about the fact that you can't outsmart death, or rather, that we all have to face it. Bergman had a lucky hand in choosing the actors, and perhaps even more than Max von Sydow in the main role, I find Gunnar Björnstrand's performance as the knight's squire, Jöns, likable. Perhaps the only thing I would criticize about the film is its overly stylized theatrical expression influenced by the fact that it was practically entirely created in the studio. Overall impression: 75%.

Ray Donovan is not a private eye from classic film noirs and doesn't own a detective agency. Together with his colleagues, he runs a cleaning company that cleans up the mess left by successful celebrities and the wealthy elite of Los Angeles. Given the choice, he chooses the path of law, but it doesn't give him the slightest problem with using a wide range of illegal activities, including extortion, intimidation, manipulation, and sometimes even brutal violence. He is one of the best in his field, and therefore, he enters an environment that is inaccessible to the vast majority of mortals. The series is brilliantly cast, with Liev Schreiber as a seasoned Hollywood project master and perfectly suited for the role of an unscrupulous tough guy who also manages to be a sensitive father and brother. There is not much to criticize about the script either; it rightfully belongs amongst the highest quality that television production currently offers. The environment of the Hollywood elites and the music and sports stars is attractive to the viewer, and the series perfectly captures the decadent notions of their extravagant lives. Corrupt scoundrels and starlets immersed in cocaine and promiscuity everywhere you look. It's true, it's hard to find someone in this environment who you can identify with without reservations. Overall impression: 85%.

Films from the world of organized crime (I intentionally don't use the term mafia films or gangster films because Munzi definitely didn't make an attempt at this genre; he was essentially focused on a family drama set in the environment of the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta) are usually made in three ways. The first involves gunfire and explosions, the second involves a lot of talking and scheming, and the third is dominated by gloomy silent faces and long meaningful glances. Black Souls falls into the third category, which in and of itself wouldn't be a serious problem. I know of a number of films filled with several-minute shots of men walking down the street or performing mundane tasks, and yet while watching them, you're on the edge of your seat, holding your breath with excitement. It's because these films have atmosphere and know how to work with tension. However, Munzi doesn't know how to draw the viewer into his world, nor make the setting more appealing or create interest in the characters. He avoids any elements that would bring him closer to popular culture and directs his offer toward the festival environment and club scene. His film is slow, which, I repeat, is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that it falls into the category of boring or not entertaining. What he unfolds can now be seen in any episode of HBO or Netflix series productions, and they know how to sell it in a much more attractive package full of ideas and interesting scenes, without giving up on artistic ambitions. Overall impression: 45%.

On YouTube, I often search for cover versions of popular songs and discover surprising arrangements and musical genres in which the original melodies and lyrics are placed. I am no longer interested in film remakes, mostly because Americans refuse to dub, so foreign hits are adjusted to their needs, just so that the American producer can earn a few more bucks. However, I gave Honey Night a chance because, after all, I was curious to see how the remake of one of the most fundamental films about the nature of the communist regime turned out. I was convinced that I would condemn the film, but its relocation to the Balkans basically works, and most likely it is Trajkov's best film. Indeed, based on such a strong literary source, it would be difficult to completely discard the film. Of course, Trajko is not Kachyňa and he cannot create such an atmosphere. The Macedonian regime resembled at most the Mečiar regime of the 90s, so it is not about slashed throats and torture chambers, and much of the chilling original material disappears or is not transferable. The cruel allegory of the nature of power has turned into a study of the cowardice of a careerist who once gained some power. However, if you don't compare it to The Ear, you can enjoy the film. I feel sorry for Verica Nedeska, she has so few opportunities in the Czech Republic, even though she is a top-notch actress. Overall impression: 70%. I can imagine a great adaptation of The Ear in authoritarian regimes like Iran or Russia, and it would be spicy to watch a version where Salman's favorite princeling in Riyadh gets on the nerves of his relatives during Saudi Arabian family purges...

I have never considered myself a Trekkie, but in the 90s, I diligently watched everything that the Star Trek universe offered me, including The Next Generation, the first season of Deep Space Nine, and even the old original series from 1966. However, it is all laughably bizarre from today's perspective. I have also gradually watched most of the feature films. I can thus now make comparisons and evaluate with a certain knowledge of the phenomenon. The problem with Discovery is that it stayed somewhere halfway. Most of those who have a problem with Discovery will likely criticize it from the opposite side and find it too sacrilegious compared to the earlier series. On the other hand, I believe that it should have gone much further. Maybe to the extent that Abrams aimed with his pop-inspired Star Trek from 2009 (which by no means do I claim is the only possible way to cope with the passage of time). In order for me to take Discovery seriously, it would have to have much dirtier characters, a darker atmosphere, a less sterile environment, a more charismatic actress in the lead role, less annoying characters in supporting roles (Rapp, Wiseman), and a better screenplay. After just a few episodes, it was clear to me that my interest was rapidly dropping dangerously low. Actually, my reaction doesn't surprise me, just like the surprise cannot be expected from a team that is bound by Star Trek canon and traditions. Overall impression: 40%.