gudaulin

A film romance that relies on the names of two big actors in the lead roles. Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino deliver their decent (above average) standard, but they cannot elevate the project to sky-high heights on their own. In the first half, where the Greek restaurant setting and the vibrant characters of the employees and guests come to life, the film maintains a level of weaker 4 stars. In the second half, where the film shifts to a more intimate tone and the central duo starts to deal with their feelings, instead of escalating, the film starts to lose its momentum. The screenplay simply lacks the strength that it needs. Overall impression: 60%.

Polanski ranks very high on my list of favorite directors, and I have never felt the need to rate his movies lower than 3 stars. However, when I look at his filmography, I must admit that I consider Frantic not necessarily the weakest, but personally the least interesting film from his creative workshop. The problem is not in the direction, although I don't find an atmosphere in the true sense of the word, and I only see Polanski's virtuosity in a few shots from the rooftops of houses, but it is still very decent and above-average craftsmanship. However, I do have a problem with the screenplay, which seems somewhat routine, not surprising, and unfinished to me. Polanski the screenwriter simply does not reach the level of Polanski the director. The most interesting part of the film is Harrison Ford's professional performance, who is at home in this kind of thriller and effortlessly handles both the role of a settled, serious bourgeois, and a man who jumps on rooftops and is willing to face professional killers. And I must not forget the charms of Emmanuelle Seigner, although I have the feeling that the interaction between Ford's character and hers is a bit forced, and Polanski simply wanted to please his life partner. Overall impression: 55%.

A legendary classic, which makes sense to assess in its contemporary context and which, nevertheless, still surprises with the decent craftsmanship of the film crew, direction, and acting performances. In terms of the dramatic plot, it is a relatively conventional matter, but considering the emphasis on the human side of physically disabled individuals and their right to dignity, it is a significant film with an ethical dimension. Overall impression: 80%.

It's actually a tragedy when one realizes that the theme is perfectly exhausted and neither the script nor the direction are exceptional if we subject the film to a thorough analysis. However, it scores points by maintaining a certain level, not using toilet humor, and not pandering cheaply. If this were the genre average, then American cinema would stand very high. The likable and experienced female cast delivers the maximum of their potential, resulting in a pleasant situational comedy with a reasonable duration. Overall impression: 70%.

One evening, agent Samuel L. Jackson calls Julianne Moore excitedly and says: "We have a bull's eye here! A super-successful bestseller and we have confirmed Julianne Moore for the lead role. There's no way this can be a failure!" Julianne Moore's experience was similar and the main attraction, of course, was Samuel L. Jackson. However, the original assumptions missed the mark with the result. The only thing that works is S. L. Jackson's charisma, and although Julianne Moore puts tremendous energy into her role as the unhappy mother, it is questionable whether her commitment sometimes goes into overacting. Nevertheless, it is these two who hold the film together, more or less. Joe Roth doesn't have the right sense for this combination of genres, and even though he tries, the film is hardly entertaining at any point and doesn't work according to viewer expectations. The dialogues are slightly longer than they should be, and the editing is in a similar vein. As a thriller, it is predictable, and as a psychological drama, it is shallow and emotionally overdone. As for the racial conflict, we've seen it portrayed more convincingly in dozens of other films. It's not a complete disaster, but it's also not a film that can be recommended. Overall impression: 45%.

Hilary Swank is an attractive and quality actress who convincingly portrays her roles without fluctuations. She is also the only truly positive aspect of this film, which is undermined by an unconvincing script. It is nice that the story is based on a real event, but the script idealizes and rushes the whole issue too much. The transformation of exemplary delinquents, gang members, and members of street communities into model readers of classic literature and producers of emotional essays is simply too simplistic and ultimately ridiculous. That's not how things work in the real world. The characters are black and white, and the whole film is ultimately more of an activist product than a film about real life. I say this with full awareness that the film's goal of showing that no one is predetermined to fail is very near and dear to me. Overall impression: 45%.

Absolute average of the sci-fi genre, which has a chance to captivate primarily with interesting casting of Mick Jagger in a supporting but significant and important role as the leader of a group of mercenaries, securing the supply of "freejacks" to dying billionaires who want to use young, healthy bodies to prolong their existence. Jagger played his part decently and, together with Hopkins, who portrayed a powerful businessman longing for immortality, overshadowed the somewhat expressionless Estevez in the leading role. The screenplay evidently fishes from the legacy of more famous genre predecessors and does not have great ambitions. The production is cheap - apparently there was not enough funding for a bigger spectacle. So, we are left with a few chases, shootouts, and a few Jagger lines. Overall impression: 50%.

The Holocaust viewed from the slightly different perspective of those who had relative luck and did not end up directly in the transport to the concentration camp. Their fate was constant hiding and escaping from the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo, and the local authorities. The story of the Free Land takes place in France, where they moved from occupied Paris to the Vichy part of the country, where the conditions were relatively more bearable, but still, the constant risk of denunciation by local fascists and collaborators persisted. France was soaked in anti-Semitism like a sponge after the rain. An old farmer and his daughter-in-law provide shelter to a Jewish family, who become a rare island of humanity in a crazy time. Although Free Land is not an exceptional film, and yet it does not manipulate emotions as we are accustomed to in Hollywood productions, and it provided me with several solid emotionally intense scenes. My overall impression is 70% and four stars.

The 62-year-old Hollywood veteran immersed herself in her role with all her professionalism, even though the character of Frances presented her with mischievous obstacles. A lifelong non-smoker, Michelle was forced to smoke more cigarettes for the role than she had in her entire previous professional life. She deserves recognition for her performance, but the film itself is considerably more problematic. I miss having a strong producer's hand, who should be the first to recognize that the film is heading towards failure. It is not clear who the film wants to appeal to, and it doesn't even have a clear genre it wants to be part of. Some of the characters should have been more well-defined. At times, the film requires an uncompromising edit. The screenwriter's work should have been returned to the table for (probably multiple) revisions. In this form, the film is destined to be quickly forgotten. Overall impression: 40%.

A charming film anecdote about how in a foreign environment and protected by apparent anonymity, we can let loose somewhat more than in a familiar environment, and we don't even need a dose of alcohol or drugs for it. A dialogue with an apparent stranger conducted in a foreign language leads to the consideration that I will never meet this person again in the future, and so in an incredibly short time, a passionate debate about favorite sexual practices gets going. Overall impression: 80%.