gudaulin

The evaluation of Black Hawk Down has two levels. The first level is the technical aspects of the film, which are simply brilliant. Ridley Scott started the production of the film when he already had a long filmography behind him, and it shows in the result. This was made by an experienced top-notch craftsman who perfectly masters the camera work, sound, editing, directing the actors, and also has a very decent budget, resulting in a magnificent action shooter, one of the peaks of the action war genre. You literally feel the firing around you, bullets whizzing, holding your breath over dynamic battle shots. For this, Ridley receives 4 stars from me, because it is decent entertainment, no doubt about it. On the second level, I would like to say that Scott fails, but that would not be true. The film is missing another dimension - depth, what lies behind the facade of street fighting. And it is missing because Scott did not aim for something like that. He simply made a propaganda film about the heroism, determination, and self-sacrifice of American soldiers who defend the most humane goals and protect the local population from genocide on a foreign continent. Of course, the reality was much more complicated, and if it were not for so many human lives at stake, it would be reminiscent of a comedy. The American units were tasked in Somalia with nothing less than a demonstrative operation to capture General Aidid, the leader of the most powerful Somali clan. Aidid was an experienced veteran of wars in East Africa and as the head of the Secret Service, he cooperated with the Americans, with whom he had truly exceptional relationships. His son, as was quite common, studied in America, where he also obtained citizenship and became a military professional. As a volunteer, he applied for action in Somalia, where the Americans, enthusiastic about finally having an expert on local conditions with language skills, also engaged him. Nobody thought to verify their family ties, so the son, who was a member of the US Navy, was supposed to catch his own father. In reality, of course, General Aidid had a very good overview of what was happening, thanks to this bizarre situation, so the American units encountered strong resistance from a poorly-trained opponent armed only with light infantry weapons, but nevertheless determined and familiar with the terrain. Of course, due to the enormous material superiority, the ratio of African losses was many times greater, but given that euro-American public opinion is much more sensitive to losses, it could be clearly spoken of as a failure. The units were withdrawn, and General Aidid, who until then was losing the civil war and practically controlled only the capital, significantly strengthened himself and became the president. Many things that a thoughtful filmmaker could incorporate into the film, and which would be worth it, are simply missing. It would be worth asking where the captive arms dealer obtained the material with which he supplied Aidid's militiamen, and so on. But as I already mentioned, Scott is taking a different path. The result is a film that could be broadcast with positive responses anytime on Fox News station and that American recruiters could successfully show to those interested in joining the army. Overall impression: 75%.

The world of uneducated tough guys from the streets, who were destined for a career as pimps, drug dealers, bouncers, or thieves, and instead successfully started a music career and became famous rappers. The new position and self-confidence often became associated with old habits in the event of success, so the gentlemen appeared in public with a large security detail, adorned with gold chains, famous for their boastfulness, usually accompanied by black females dazzled by bling. Notorious does not stand out as a biographical film, nor as a drama, and not even as a representative of the music genre. It has significance for fans of black rap, specifically Christopher Wallace. Overall impression: 40%.

A charismatic serial killer is a safe bet for a movie. Kevin Costner no longer has the same status as he did in the 90s, and Mr. Brooks is one of the more promising attempts to return to the limelight. He convincingly plays his killer for pleasure, and if one villain wasn't enough, the screenwriter also uses the hallucinogenic alter ego of Mr. Brooks in a stylish performance by William Hurt. The dialogue of the main character with his uncompromising and straightforward self is ultimately the most interesting part of the whole movie. The script is somewhat overdone, but what can you do, in today's inflation of movie titles, you simply have to grab attention somehow. The biggest disadvantage for Mr. Brooks is the absence of an opponent at his level - unfortunately, Demi Moore is not that. Not so much because of her dull acting, but rather because of the script, which doesn't give her as much space and opportunity. Overall impression: 60%.

Zafranovič, of course, did not change his directorial style compared to the previous two parts of the loose trilogy about Yugoslavia tormented by the madness of World War II. The final part only differs in that it has a larger scope - instead of focusing on one sensitive point in history and specific events, we witness the transformations of the country's social atmosphere through the lives of one person and his loved ones. The main protagonist organizes resistance against the occupiers, intimately experiences the comfort of a German concentration camp, and after the war, the sensitivity of political engagement during the Stalinist era and Tito's cult of personality. For its time, it is a rather open testimony - at least compared to the rest of the socialist camp. If you want to capture a quarter of a century in the history of such a complicated country, you cannot avoid some simplification and flattening of certain characters that deserve more space. However, I have no problem giving it four stars and an 80% satisfaction rate. From a single scene where two Ustasha members return from hunting Jews, one realizes the horror of genocide and the reason why the modern history of the Yugoslav territory is soaked in blood.

My partner was surprised after the final credits at how I could be so cynical and give only two stars to a movie full of beautiful, likable, and positive people who love each other. Well, I can. Juliette Binoche is indeed an actress, about whom I wrote some time ago, that she could instantly be a candidate for Miss Sympathy Universe, and Steve Carell belongs among the most versatile American comedians with a wide range of acting and a cultivated manner of speech. However, Dan in Real Life is a typical representative of a sterile and undemanding spectacle - a mixture of romance and an appropriate dose of family values. It is simply too shallow, generic, and not of this world. Overall impression: 40%.

The antihero is an exemplary virtuous husband, a partner so non-conflicting, reliable, and loyal that his wife has the impression that he has something in common with the number one on a ten euro banknote... which also carries a zero throughout its life. The feeling of boredom of a secure bourgeois lady tempts her to spice up her life with a love affair. However, the feeling of humiliation from the revealed infidelity also means the limit at which the dark corners of the partner's mind are exposed, and the racially serious husband transforms into a cold-blooded avenger on the hunt. The film doesn't belong so much to the crime genre, as it has too simple a plot line and plays its cards too openly from the beginning. Instead, it is much more a psychological drama, a cool and distant study of a man who took a shortcut and bet everything on one card. Chabrol, besides his traditionally refined sense of detail, is also helped by the casting. Stéphane Audran is perfectly cast and for the role of a closed emotionally starved man, the director could not have chosen anyone better than Michel Bouquet. Overall impression: 80%.

The unequal sexual and emotional relationship between an aging man and a significantly younger partner is one of the most common motifs that appear in artistic reflections of human relationships. Buñuel looks at his desire-obsessed foolish man with understanding (after all, he was 77 years old at the time of filming and was older than his protagonist), but at the same time, as is typical in his work, with an undisguised ironic detachment. One manipulative and temperamental hysteric with a hypocritical mother can really set the fire under Don Juan in his later years. Buñuel also mocks traditional bourgeois values and relationship rules that have survived out of inertia from long past times. He used his favorite actor Fernando Rey and the charms of the young Carole Bouquet, creating an entertaining game about the fact that not everything is attainable and not everything is worth striving for. Overall impression: 90%.

Have you ever tried taking a microscope and observing the swarming of microorganisms on a glass slide? Altman does just that and examines the human species in a specific situation and era on the surface of an extravagant estate during a wedding ceremony, which is meant to unite two snobbish family clans. With undisguised irony, he reveals the mutual connections, relationships, and motivations. Altman's films are often plotless, and his characters do not strive for the viewer's favor or emotional engagement. A Wedding is a satire based on dialogue, which together provides not only information about two families and social relations in wealthy households but also about the relationship of contemporary morality in the 1970s USA. For me, it is one of Altman's most interesting films, even though it may not be for everyone due to its lack of plot and slow pace. Overall impression: 90%.

Paranoia is just an alternative state of mind: this sentence applies to the thinking of the main character without exception. She exchanges peaceful functioning as a doctor in a respected hospital for inventing conspiracy theories and dabbling in the craft of private detectives. However, she soon becomes convinced of the truth of another maxim: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. I am usually distrustful of conspiracy theories and outright dismissive of those who present me with stories of this kind. But I must admit one thing - the film is made at a high level of craftsmanship, with a sense of atmosphere and careful dosing of tension. It is probably the imaginary peak of thematically related productions. Overall impression: 75%.

Czech writer and traveler Iva Pekárková describes in her book "Šest miliard Amerik" an experiment undertaken by journalists some years ago that tried to prove that the people in American society had become indifferent toward each other. They placed a crying 7-year-old girl on a bench in a park and filmed from a hiding place to see what would happen. Dozens of people passed by the little girl, but instead of addressing her or raising the alarm, they continued on their way and, if possible, walked as far around her as they could. After a long time, a stranger approached the child. Pekárková further explains that except for the worst neighborhoods, it is practically impossible to find children playing in nature or on the streets. For decades, the US has been plagued by hysteria regarding perverts and pedophiles, who have nothing better to do than abuse, rape, and murder innocent children. From a young age, children must live in safe bubbles consisting of a house with a yard and a car that can potentially take them to another safe bubble. Children are persuaded that any stranger only wants to harm them, and if anyone approaches them, they should call for help. Most adults would not dare to help a child in trouble for fear of being accused of attempting to harm them. Although the number of criminal cases in the area has been decreasing for many years, the hysteria wave is only increasing. It is unthinkable to enter a playground without one's child, and it is extremely dangerous to take photos on the street or in a park where children could also be present because anyone can accuse you of pedophilia, and such accusations are taken very seriously and are difficult to shake off. Lynchings are not uncommon occurrences either when there is a misunderstanding. We live in a world with fluctuating values, and in movies and series, we sometimes even root for successful criminals, including serial killers. Resisting those who harm children is one of the last areas where people can agree, so the do-gooders have taken the cause and are willing to be the first in line to start throwing stones. This campaign, with all its negatives, has also spread to Western Europe, where it is currently fashionable to search for anything in the biographies of famous personalities and especially politicians that would suggest anything other than a strongly condemning attitude towards pedophiles and other sexual deviations. The film Hard Candy perfectly rides the wave of this hysteria. Although explicitly immoral, the most detestable thing about it is that it presents itself as a defender of the weak as if it were morally superior. It is a strange construct where an 18-year-old girl, who also looks 18, plays a 14-year-old girl with the mindset of an adult woman. I have a daughter who is currently the age of the protagonist, and what the screenwriter is trying to put on my plate is, pardon my language, nonsense. Pedophiles behave and think differently than Slade imagines, and how Wilson acts... Moreover, and above all, only a significant minority of pedophiles engage in abuse. The rest satisfy themselves with their fantasies, which they often transform into artistic forms. For example, Lewis Carroll was most likely a pedophile. The only positive aspect of the film is the performance of the two main characters. For Elliot Page, it was her ticket to the world of cinema, which she used to the fullest. Unfortunately, due to the negative feelings it evoked in me, the film itself will not receive more than 25% from me.