gudaulin

One could write many superlatives about A Beautiful Mind. It is a very professional film backed by a precise script, well cast and acted, and the direction is inventive and highly professional. The story is emotional and certainly unconventional - to have a mentally ill mathematician as the main character requires some production courage, as similar films do not automatically guarantee easy profits. On the other hand, the professional production approach is a weakness of the film. The lead role was played by a star - the great and handsome Russell Crowe, and, of course, the beautiful and charismatic Jennifer Connelly had to fall in love with him... The film literally overflows with heartfelt dialogues and boundless humanism. But in real life, everything is harder, harsher, and much sadder. I had a mentally ill family member, so I know what I'm talking about. The calculated nature of this blockbuster with its premeditated Oscar success bothered me a bit in this case. I simply cannot give five stars to this very high-quality product, it is too "polished" for that. On the other hand, there are several scenes worth mentioning: the opening play with the reflection of light on the tie is full of humor and the majority of the film unfolds in a similar spirit. Crowe approached his character a bit like the autist from Rain Man, and I'm not sure if that is appropriate for schizophrenia. But with an army of advisors, they probably couldn't have got it wrong... Overall impression 80%.

I either haven't seen Deray's film or I have completely blocked it out after a few decades, so I don't have the ability to compare the approaches of both directors and decide which one is more effective. Guadagnino's film seems somewhat dull, muted, and unremarkable to me. A Bigger Splash was supposed to be a combination of thriller and psychological drama, but the director would have had to work much more with the characters, play a sophisticated game full of hints, dose information, and veiled conflicts, which gradually and inevitably bubble to the surface only to explosively erupt in an emotional outburst, instead of using lengthy shots of the sunny Italian nature. Only the character of the not inherently evil, but self-centered, possessive, and hedonistic producer works as it should (I'm afraid mostly thanks to the performance of the acting chameleon Ralph Fiennes rather than the director's guidance). Dakota Johnson's Lolita only gets enough space to show off her naked body and send provocative looks, which is questionable considering the immodest duration. Tilda Swinton is a casting mistake. I consider her an interesting actress destined for special categories of roles such as androgynous or asexual beings and broken women whirled through life, but with the knowledge that a) she won't read this and b) I am at a sufficient distance away. I have to say that I cannot imagine Tilda as a sexual object arousing desire and jealousy. Matthias Schoenaerts fails to act as a counterpart to Ralph Fiennes on the same level, and this lack significantly sinks the dramatic conflict. It also wouldn't hurt to cut out about 12 minutes of runtime. A Bigger Splash is watchable, but apart from Fiennes and the soundtrack, it quickly evaporates from the mind. Overall impression: 55%.

One of the basic works of the French New Wave, which marked the beginning of Jean-Luc Godard's dazzling career and propelled Jean-Paul Belmondo into the spotlight. The director had a lucky hand in choosing the central acting duo, as they are exactly what charismatic actors and excellent performances should be. Even in acting school, Jean-Paul Belmondo was not predicted to have a film career, but after he did a great job in the role of the desperado Michel, interesting offers came his way. The character played by Jean Seberg is arguably more interesting due to her ambiguity and unpredictability for those around her. The script is simple, but Godard mastered the film craft perfectly, so he worked excellently with the film image, music, and editing. A very impressive film and a must-watch for film fans. Overall impression: 95%.

This film suffered based on when it was made, or rather from the time of its release because the fall of communism did not benefit cinema or the theater, and it took a good two years for the situation to stabilize. Many interesting films were overshadowed at the time, only to be replaced by disproportionately worse commercial trash. I dare to estimate that if Svoboda had made the same film today, it would have become at least a small film event. The film still showcases the high-quality craftsmanship of Barandov productions, which did have an undeniable level at the time. The fact is that 90% of current Czech film productions are simply not at this level. Some may wonder how such a critical film exposing the conditions of the 1950s could have been made by an engaged communist. To be honest, I find it to be a fairly logical consequence of the development of the Czech intellectual radical left-wing artistic scene. It is worth noting, however, that these people needed several decades and many bitter experiences to understand what was clear to many others from the beginning. At the same time, it is necessary to mention that the interest of these creators usually focuses on communist officials who became victims of the processes in the late stage of class struggle escalation, and they no longer pay attention to the many who were sent to labor camps much earlier, whether they were members of other political parties, priests, or private farmers - simply all those whom the regime considered its opponents. This film is not as excellent as Kachyňa's The Ear or Costa-Gavras' The Confession. It is somewhat schematic because the director wanted to depict the entire mechanism of how the political processes of that time worked, but for someone who wants to become acquainted with the political reality of the first half of the 1950s, it is certainly a good choice. Well-chosen actors deliver their high standards, and Jaromír Hanzlík is simply excellent in the role of a victim of the state security apparatus. Overall impression: 75%.

Thanks to artistically successful puppets, lighting, and colorful styling, an impressive animated film about the pride of Prague councilors who killed the creator of the Prague Astronomical Clock. The dark character of the film is underlined by the use of a choir and musical motif. Overall impression: 80%.

Let's face it, we watch movies mainly for the spectacle and entertainment. When Alexander Payne made his film About Schmidt, it was a film about a midlife crisis and therefore much more digestible to the average viewer than an intimate drama about old age, illness, dying, and loneliness, albeit with carefully measured subtle humor. This is simply too unpleasant a subject that we want to push out of our consciousness and not be reminded of it by a film drama. About Schmidt is a realistic film without cheap effects and shocking twists, with a slow narrative based on high-quality dialogue and Jack Nicholson's excellent performance. The screenwriter cleverly chose the main character's commentary in the form of letters addressed to a little boy in Central Africa, whom he sponsors. The way the events unfold after the protagonist's retirement is also how it happens in real life. The creators indeed chose a protagonist who is a member of the well-off managerial class in a significant insurance company, with decent financial security for old age, so average American retirees are certainly different and face many more problems. But it would be really difficult to make this kind of film in the American mainstream studio system, even though it was made possible solely because a star like Nicholson was involved. Movie fans will surely remember him from a series of epic films and various villains, where his expressive acting stood out, but in About Schmidt, he was able to display a vast range of emotions, and his performance might even be considered one of his best. Overall impression: 90%.

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%.

For its time, this is a remarkable TV film, despite the minimal budget, based on a quality literary source and is also decently acted. The romance of the sparsely populated wilderness, where different laws apply compared to civilization, is palpable in the film. However, it's true that there was hardly any competition in this theme back then. Overall impression, considering nostalgia: 70%.

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%.

Regarding Accattone being Pier Paolo Pasolini's debut film, it is surprisingly mature and of high quality, showcasing Pasolini's great directorial talent. At the same time, it fully reveals the left-leaning direction of this filmmaker, which is evident in the depiction of the living conditions of his characters. The stumbling block, however, is Pasolini's approach to the film's characters, as the protagonist, a pimp, is portrayed as a somewhat boastful and frivolous young man, who is nevertheless difficult to feel sympathy towards. This ultimately leads to the tragic ending of the film. According to Pasolini, prostitution is primarily a result of social deprivation, which is somewhat oversimplified. Overall impression: 65%.