gudaulin

The movie has a good camera and decent set design and Gian Maria Volonté, famous for his animalistic acting, was perhaps born for such borderline roles and certainly did not disgrace himself. On the other hand, it's quite cliché, and schematic, and the result in some places resembles a spaghetti western from a B-movie creator. For me, it's the weakest Damiani film I've had the pleasure to come across. Overall impression: 45%.

There are films that have a stupid script but solid direction. Then there are films with a decent script but terrible direction. And then there are films where both fail and unfortunately, Swelter belongs to that third category. Some folks say that the film has "average routine direction," but Parmer should consider that an honor. His editing is terrible, the action scenes are minimal which is fortunate because they are poorly shot, and it's evident that the director wanted to make a quick-draw Western because he fell in love with the fast and inappropriate drawing of guns in certain situations. The script is logically full of holes, and the only beacon of support is the cast. Not that you will find any A-list actors here, but the character actors do what is expected of them in a B-movie project, including Van Damme, who at least doesn't get in the way. Overall impression: 15%.

It is said that the first five minutes of a film determine how much you will like it. True, there are exceptions, so I gave Philomena a generous chance and made an effort to keep my attention until three-quarters through the runtime. My efforts were in vain. From the first minute until the infamous end, the story and the film itself were completely irrelevant to me. The emotional moments, acting performances, or really anything else didn't bother me, but I simply didn't connect with the film and it went over my head. Sometimes that happens. Sorry, Judi, but I won't be giving it an overall impression of more than 40%.

Even though I often change my ratings of older films after rewatching them, I hardly ever increase the number of stars. However, I'm making an exception for Con Air. It's not the best action movie of the 90s, but it is an ideal example that can describe all the pros and cons of the corresponding genre productions of American studios in the 90s. In this film, you will find all imaginable clichés that were used in action movies of the 90s, all the weaknesses and naiveties neatly arranged side by side, but at the same time, you will understand what their charm consisted of. Generous and highly professional production, utilization of quality character actors, and professional direction collide with the clumsiness of pseudo-stars, script acrobatics, and silly scenes. Nicolas Cage with his desperately limited range of acting unintentionally achieves a result similar to Bruce Willis, who is several levels higher as an actor. Cage's incompetence simply entertains, just like Willis' insight. When it comes to Con Air, I wouldn't speak of high quality, but it is decent entertainment. Overall impression: 55%. With the passage of time, you can enjoy the villainy of John Malkovich and the irresistible mass killer miniature Steve Buscemi.

The strength of A Very English Scandal does not lie in its authenticity or its subject matter, but rather in the complexity, precision, and convincing performances of the actors. The miniseries is strong both in its screenwriting and in its direction and casting. It can masterfully balance on the edge of several genres and will be appreciated by fans of British television production because A Very English Scandal is as British as it gets. The essentially serious theme is mixed with black humor and irony, perhaps with the exception of the last episode, which is more of a courtroom drama and does not avoid a touch of pathos in some scenes. In terms of the acting, the series has no weaknesses, and Hugh Grant deserves absolute recognition for his portrayal of a member of the upper class and a representative of political power. It is one of the best performances of his long acting career, and those who know him from stereotypical romantic comedies might be shocked by the range of roles he can choose and how he can sell such a repellent mixture of cowardice, snobbery, and arrogance. His counterpart is Ben Whishaw in the role of an effeminate homosexual who, despite his seemingly fragile exterior, does not exhibit cowardice and can surprise. A Very English Scandal is a story about a society coming to terms with homosexuality and about the transformations of British politics in the second half of the 20th century. It is highly professional and entertaining. Overall impression: 90%.

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%.