gudaulin

Not only is this film not the peak of the genre but it is, in fact, quite a ways away. The culprit is the script, which cooks from proven but old and worn ingredients and the worst thing is that it doesn't work with mystery. The evildoers are known to the viewer, and there is simply no tension from their revelation. Scott Frank was probably supposed to replace it with atmosphere, but he didn't have the strength for it. A Walk Among the Tombstones is not an atmospheric film, and the comparison to Schumacher's 8MM is simply completely wrong. If Frank succeeds in building tension, it is thanks to the use of proven genre clichés, which any movie fan will consider somewhat overused. Another objection I have is (it is, of course, only my problem) that the most feared hunter of organized crime in retirement alias Liam Neeson slightly disgusted me with his acting in the various derivatives of Taken, so I did not perceive his experienced acting as a contribution. However, the film would still be good enough for a genre average and 3 stars, but there is also the anemic black boy, who, of course, was abandoned by his mother and found meaning in life through collaboration with the main protagonist. I am particularly sensitive to this trick, and the film loses one star because of it. I would only react worse to a blond blue-eyed girl suffering from leukemia, whom our brave detective platonically falls in love with. Overall impression: 40%.

Veronica appeared on Czech television repeatedly in the 70s and I was just in my early childhood years, so this adorable musical for kids suited me perfectly back then. A few days ago, I was on YouTube and tried to relive that experience from my adult perspective. I must admit, it was pure horror, and not just because I have long outgrown my childhood. What once looked playful and cute now seems like cheesy, heavily outdated special effects that would be indigestible for today's generation of children. The rating on FilmBooster is simply driven by the nostalgia of those who saw the film long ago, just like me. Overall impression: 20%.

The 70s were a period of moral unrest in America when even cinema underwent significant changes. Unlike previous decades dominated by big epic films like Cleopatra, serious social dramas came to the forefront and the phenomenon of independent film emerged. Jewison's film tells the story of a young idealistic lawyer who is frustrated by the bureaucracy and corruption of the judicial system, and the impossibility of effectively achieving justice, especially if one does not belong to the social elite. I can't help but agree with its message, but I feel that it is a bit too activist and straightforward for my taste. It doesn't try to lead the viewer to understanding but presents them with ready-made truths. On one hand, there is personified nobility, on the other hand, clearly identifiable absolute evil. The characters are simply too black and white, leaving no room for the viewer. Overall impression: 75%. Standing out from the cast is, of course, Al Pacino, who portrayed his character Arthur with passionate zeal.

Nicholas and Alexandra somewhat resembles a journey on the Trans-Siberian Railway. A long journey through deserted landscapes, then a short stop, and another long stretch. The duration is simply exhausting, and yet one constantly feels that they are missing out on many important events and phenomena. It is inevitably flattened because capturing the last 14 years of the existence of Imperial Russia with all its important twists and characters is simply impossible in one film. This required an eight to ten-part series; after all, today's popular docusoap genre comes to mind. The set design stands out the most, as no expenses were spared. It is simply a grandly conceived epic film, although history enthusiasts will rightfully criticize it for being too brief and incapable of capturing the truly important processes that led to the regime's downfall. On the other hand, unlike many so-called historical films that interpret history very loosely, Nicholas and Alexandra sticks to the essential historical facts. Overall impression: 60%.

An excellent experience that practically has no weaknesses. In the overwhelming majority of watched movies, and especially series, I find reasons for partial criticism. Here, however, when it comes to criticism, I essentially have nothing to say and, in fact, only superlatives come to mind. The script, cast, direction... well, all of it deserves praise. Even if I give a series the highest grade, I almost never have an irresistible urge to watch the next episode immediately, and I say goodbye to the series characters with a clear conscience, knowing that we will meet again in two days. But here, I felt like taking this thrilling ride in one go. Until the very last moment, it remains a surprising and immensely well-thought-out matter that combines three subgenres - classic crime, courtroom drama, and prison drama. All the settings and characters look convincing, and I didn't notice any false notes. Simply put, the series is craftsmanship of the highest quality. Overall impression: 100%.

To be honest, I expected something much worse, like a redneck comedy for a tired audience. It actually turned out to be quite a sophisticated comedy for a general audience. While watching, it reminded me of the title of the film Lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola. The charm of the film lies largely in the confrontation of regional dialect with formal French, and some charming linguistic puns are probably lost in the dubbing. The rest, from my perspective, can be considered as an average comedy, where the French variations of worn-out jokes and provincial characters seemed too soft to capture my interest. If I were able to understand the original version, I would definitely give it 3 stars, but even then, I wouldn't rate it any higher. They way it is it only gets 2 stars and a 45% overall impression.

The money of the Italian producer and Bondarchuk's ability to handle monumental scenes happily combined and led to the creation of a magnificent reconstruction of one of the most famous battles in history. It is quite possibly the pinnacle of its genre because nowadays, such a war epic with a cast of thousands can only be made in China, which is a completely different culture. Personally, I have a slight problem with this filmmaking style. It is too grand, the individual gets lost in it, and the camera's eye fondly rests on marching formations, waving flags, colorful uniforms, and famous commanders. Only the Soviet uniforms full of metals are missing. In a way, it really reminds me of Soviet society and its contempt for the individual. The camera work is excellent and the film has a strong cast, and personally, I have no problem with Rod Steiger's performance, who portrayed Napoleon as a somewhat mentally unstable and exhausted man past his prime. Overall impression: 80%.

I only gave it 2 stars, which does not indicate any enthusiasm, but I will start with what works well in my view of the film. Firstly, the presence of Alain Delon. He was at the peak of his career at that time, and his minimalist acting in the roles of tough guys rightfully gained a lot of success with the audience. Secondly, the presence of the second movie star, Charles Bronson, also contributes to the film. No one expects character acting from him, and he was very solid in typical roles of adventurers with a strong fist. Thirdly, the typical 60s visual style, from the hairstyles and costumes to cars - for those who like this era, this film is a feast for the eyes. The chemistry between the two main characters works decently, and the film is a celebration of male friendship. Unfortunately, that's where the list of positives ends. The main obstacle is the overly complicated and far-fetched screenplay, which requires its characters to have completely twisted mental processes and relies heavily on extreme coincidences. The surprising resolution falls into the category that can only elicit a forgiving smile and sarcasm. Upon closer inspection, one cannot help but notice numerous logical gaps and absurdities that bring the film to its knees. On the other hand, it is not a film that makes me angry or that I consider a waste of time. Overall impression: 45%.

Many animated films can make you laugh, and many others can successfully move you. On the other hand, animated films that can scare you are extremely rare. Laokoon certainly belongs to this minority. Firstly, thanks to its unique, oppressive visual aspect, and secondly, thanks to the captivating voice of Jan Kačer as the representative of an aggressive extraterrestrial life form. Animation was not at its peak when the film was created, but that did not affect the functionality of the film, sd it is powerful in its atmosphere. It's just a pity that such an interesting subject could not be developed in a longer length and that, in its brevity, it is actually just a simple moral about human greed. I can imagine that this potential could have been transformed into something much bigger and more attractive. Overall impression: 75%.

If you have a high-quality script, actors, and director, you can achieve a masterpiece in the mysterious drama genre, just like Fight Club was in its time. However, if you have a weak script, not even a diligent director and a star-studded cast can save it. For Jim Carrey, the film represented an exceptional opportunity to play a truly dark and complicated character that had never appeared in his career before. In fact, Jim never went beyond the grotesque character of Uncle Olaf in A Series of Unfortunate Events. However, all his energy goes to waste because his paranoid character simply cannot develop properly in the unfortunate and predictable script. Perhaps the best difference between a top-notch film and a mediocre one is characterized by the final scene in Fight Club when all certainties of the existing world collapse and the anti-hero of the story knows that he is personally responsible for it. In The Number 23, you get to see an overly moralistic scene that undermines the previous plot to the point of absurdity. Overall impression: 35%.