IviDvo

Touda is a bold, principled and above all very talented singer who longs for a better life for herself and her son. In a small town, she is confronted with meanness, rude behaviour, harassment and humiliation. She dreams of earning admiration and respect in a big city like Casablanca with her truly amazing voice, which makes the film's finale all the more impressive... because people are the same everywhere. [Festival de Cannes 2024]

Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most distinctive directors of our time and his unconventional work entertains, shocks and divides into two camps. I'm a huge fan of his recent Poor Things and probably less of a fan of Kinds of Kindness. I really like the concept of three different stories with the same and excellent actors in different roles, but it lacks more coherence between them, and as a result it's just three more or less bizarre stories side by side. I'm not saying it’s bad, I think there's a lot of truth in the absurdity too, and some scenes are chilling in their realism, others are shocking in their rawness and cruelty, while there's a lot of humour, but as a whole it's kind of disjointed. The film is accompanied by the now very typical and recognisable soundtrack (if you can call it that) by Jerskin Fendrix, which adds to the bizarre and mysterious atmosphere. Despite the fact that I wasn't as impressed with this Lanthimos film as some of his previous ones, I will always look forward to his future work. [Festival de Cannes 2024]

Holy Cow is in my opinion a very successful feature film debut of director Louise Courvoisier, which immerses us in the environment from which the director herself comes. It depicts the ordinary lives of young farmers, teenagers and the everyday worries they have to deal with, whether it's the daily grind, love troubles, hangovers or the loss of a loved one. A great thing in the the film for me is that the protagonists are real-life, hitherto non-actors, farmers, chicken and cow keepers, which adds a certain authenticity to the story. The most endearing thing about the film is how ordinary and real the story is. There is plenty of injustice and despair, but also truth, love and tenderness, so that the viewer is left with a warm feeling at the end of the film. [Festival de Cannes 2024]

Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis brings us to a futuristic, decadent and antiquely stylized New York, New Rome. I found this combination of ancient culture (clothes, names, entertainment) with a futuristic vision of the world very appealing, and the entire film is punctuated with quotes from ancient thinkers, which only underscore their timelessness in how they still apply to today. They highlight the absurdity of certain aspects of modern times, especially the fact that we are still the same people (animals) as in the days of ancient Rome, we are just playing at being a civilized and advanced society. This is portrayed brilliantly in the film, but that's probably the end of all the pros of this "masterpiece". I should also mention that although my favourite of the entire cast is Adam Driver (who was excellent as usual), the biggest praise should go to Shia LaBeouf, who once again shows something completely new, and proves that he can still surprise. Megalopolis had a lot of potential, a lot of great ideas that deserved to be fleshed out more. The huge disappointment for me was that the main character may have the power to stop time, but he doesn't make any use of it, I thought that would have been much more meaningful or impactful to the development of the film. As it is, the whole thing just comes across as a critique of society hoping for a brighter tomorrow, coupled with a simple family drama without much transcendence, which I find very insufficient. At the end of the film, I wondered if I had accidentally fallen asleep during the screening, that I must have missed something... Or maybe I just didn't understand the whole thing. [Festival de Cannes 2024]

Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix are names that will always automatically raise expectations. I definitely can't say I was bored because the production design, the battlefield scenes are very engaging. But less is sometimes more, and Ridley, to his detriment, tried harder. Napoleon is such a bloated montage of Bonaparte's most pivotal battles and campaigns, interspersed with a "romantic" line with Josephine. I would have appreciated a lot more focus on one or two specific periods and battles, and I would have especially packed in a lot more psychology and politics to go much more in depth in the characters, because honestly I found Napoleon presented this way to be terribly flat and soulless, despite Joaquin's standard good acting. I would have delved more into his motives and complexes. The relationship with Josephine feels terribly underdeveloped, because on the one hand we have mutual love letters full of respect, and on the other, in front of the camera, we see a kind of cold relationship where love and respect are not visible even from a distant express train. It's a shame, I think the audience would have been much more interested in a deeper analysis of the character of Napoleon himself, to take something we've seen hundreds of times and present it in a slightly different way as we saw in, for example, Todd Phillips' Joker. I just don't see any added value here. But I'm also quite interested in the Director's Cut, because I only just realised that I saw French actress Ludivine Sagnier in the opening credits, who is not in this cinema version at all So what is the Director's Cut hiding?

The biggest problem with Maestro is that it has all the ingredients for success: we see precise and solid filmmaking and great, award-worthy performances, but it absolutely lacks soul. For me, that means I'm unable to form a connection to any of the characters, and there's a lack of emotional involvement. You finish watching it and then you can immediately go on to the next one, which to me is not the mark of a good film. So I totally understand the low rating. I'm not able to give more than 3 stars myself, and the third one is for Bradley Cooper's performance.

Normally, I don’t review Czech productions, but I promised this to a friend. I honestly haven't seen anything so terribly pathetic and embarrassing in a long time. It’s one disgusting cliché after another. It seems that it doesn't matter if women are capable, self-sufficient and successful at work, as soon as a man with a capital M appears in our lives, we fall in love after only 20 minutes spent together, and mysteriously become helpless and miserable cows. We don't take being dumped well, so we devise an ingenious revenge plan: we go to the hairdresser to look even better than before and let him know we can live without him, and what happens? He realises we're the one, we love each other so much after 3 dates? WTF? And I’d rather not say anything about the friends. I may sleep with my best friend's boyfriend, but she will basically forgives me after a slap and one drink and is still happy to go to my wedding. This film is neither romantic nor funny, I mean I laughed, or rather I chuckled at how utterly stupid and rubbish it is. The cast? I understand actors have to pay the bills, but my God! If it was at least some kind of satire, but it's meant to be serious, and that makes me really upset.

I'm incredibly happy that my internal assessment agreed with the main jury of this year's Cannes Film Festival, headed by Ruben Östlund (Triangle of Sadness, The Square), and that Anatomy of a Fall won the main prize, the Palme d'Or. I was incredibly surprised by Justine Triet because I found Sibyl, the last film she presented at Cannes, rather mediocre. On the other hand, it was the first time I saw Sandra Hüller and I was immediately attracted to her, her scenes are the best of the film. Anatomy of a Fall jumps to the top of my rating system and I consider it a masterpiece that I will definitely want to see again. Sandra, Samuel and their son Daniel live in the mountains, not far from Grenoble. The opening scene already suggests that Sandra and Samuel's relationship is likely to be strained, and a few minutes later, Samuel is found dead. The investigation into this mysterious death, which basically admits only two theories, and the subsequent trial, leads to a deep analysis of the couple's relationship. Daniel, who, despite his visual impairment, is a key witness, also has to take part in all this. So far, it doesn’t look like an original and innovative story, right? But Justine Triet manages to present this theme seen a thousand times before in a fresh and unusual way. I can say for myself that I loved every minute of the long running time, I wasn't bored for a second and I can't find a single dead spot. A lot of credit goes to all the actors, whose performances are breathtaking. Sandra Hüller is undoubtedly the queen, but Milo Machado Graner is equally fabulous, and I have to give credit to Antoine Reinartz as the prosecutor. The screenplay and the dialogues also deserve credit. The gradual unraveling of the relationship dynamics between Sandra and Samuel, the revelation of their pasts, problems and disputes to help reveal the truth, as well as Daniel's contradiction between his own memories and what he hears in court, which leads to his utter confusion, are absolutely brilliant. The figure of Daniel, tormented by uncertainty and doubt, is of crucial importance for the denouement, and at the same time it is a mirror of the viewers themselves, who also cannot say for sure how it all happened. A very important moment is the dialogue between Daniel and the social worker: When we are in doubt and unsure, we have no choice but to make a decision... and so, in the end, must we. [Festival de Cannes 2023]

This film was presented at the festival by Quentin Tarantino himself, who described it as one of the films that influenced him the most, and to which he even devotes an entire chapter in his book “Cinema Speculation”. Before the screening, he urged us not to look at the film like the French, but to let our emotions go; to shout, clap and whistle if we feel like it, and the screening looked like that, which may have added to my experience, and I enjoyed the film immensely. I guess that's why I dare say it's one of the best vendetta movies I've ever seen. We are very slowly introduced to the main character Charles, a survivor of imprisonment and torture in Vietnam. On his return he receives a large reward as compensation and he immediately becomes victim of robbers, but he is so hardened by all the torture that getting a sound of pain out of him is an impossible task for these Mexican thugs. After the killing of his wife and son, he begins to prepare for revenge, which may seem lengthy, but slowly leads to that great carnage of a finale. William Devane plays emotionlessness brilliantly, inspiring both respect and compassion, and one quickly grows to like him. Tommy Lee Jones is a great second to him, and Linda Haynes also shines. From what I understand, this film is quite a cult classic in America and not very well known here, which is quite a shame, so let's fix that 😊 [Festival de Cannes 2023]

Considering that I like Italian films, and that I attended a press conference where journalists praised this film highly, I probably had too high expectations. The premise is quite good: a film director dealing with the pitfalls of filmmaking, but also facing personal problems and the disintegration of a film culture that is losing its charm due to contemporary trends. It's a comedy, but all the humour is mostly due to Moretti as an actor who pulls the film along with his distinctive charm. It will probably depend a lot on the viewer and their sense of humour, because next to me in the cinema there were many people who laughed at moments when I didn't laugh at all... so, try and see 😊 For me it was missing something. [Festival de Cannes 2023]