gudaulin

Rules of Lies is a far from perfect film, but I can include it in the category of interesting and sympathetic films. Several minor shortcomings can be pointed out, mainly in the script, especially the somewhat fabricated story that three individuals connected by the past and a crime in a distant country meet in a small closed community. However, this fabrication is common in classic famous detective stories by British authors. The logic of the behavior of the main adversaries occasionally falters, especially the main villain played by Jiří Langmajer. Also, some of the actors in supporting roles are not entirely convincing, and I don't entirely believe in their drug-addicted past and the torment of abstinence. On the other hand, I consider Rules of Lies to be one of the best attempts at a Czech genre film, surpassing, for example, the genre-related film Angel Exit or the weak Coal Tower. These mentioned shortcomings can be attributed to the inexperience of Robert Sedláček - considering that this is his debut, it is a strong and clever film that relies on a series of impressive dialogues between the main characters in the form of therapists and their patients. In addition, Jiří Langmajer's impressive performance stands out, as he does not play a demonic underworld character, but rather a small ordinary scumbag who manipulates his surroundings for his own benefit, being both selfish and cowardly at the same time. This creature is believable, as he is simply a realistic antagonist that you may encounter in real life. Overall impression: 75%.

A disturbing, intelligent thriller with a provocative theme and an even more provocative climax, which pits law and justice against each other, i.e., the criminal code and morality. It even explores the boundaries of ethical behavior by relativizing the concepts of good and evil. Its characters are not black and white and are also exposed to extreme situations that require truly fundamental and difficult decisions. The clever script has several significant twists in the perspective of the characters and their actions, and the film can be watched not only as a brilliant detective story but also as an excellent psychological drama. Moreover, the film is brilliantly cast and professionally directed and acted. I have absolutely no problem giving it five stars. Overall impression: 95%.

Critiques of high society and the conflict between plebeians and the aristocracy are common film subjects, and honestly, Griffin Dunne's film does not provide anything fundamentally new and is not a top film. The most interesting aspect of it is the subject matter, but the first half is drawn out and lacks any compelling dramatic storyline, sometimes desperately so. It is more like a series of scenes about how the wealthy are bored, and entertained, and how they use those down below as their toys. The second half does bring the necessary conflict and can be emotionally gripping at times, but even here, the script mostly stays on the surface and does not present a systematic critique of what is seen. Evil comes from a psychopathic individual, not from the principles of wealth and social differences. On one hand, it is excessively predictable in the conclusion - the villain must be portrayed as an unacceptable creature, on the other hand, it rounds off the edges of the social conflict, and the conforming ending is rather socially naive. The first few minutes gave hope for a dark satire that cuts to the core... Overall impression: 55%.

Polemics about the controversy of Antichrist passed me by at the time, but the first information about the film reassured me that it goes beyond what interests me, so I decided to avoid it. However, a few days ago I received a DVD of the film as a gift, and as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't have a problem with Lars von Trier, just like the majority of creators, but at the same time, I have no problem mercilessly sending my favorite director or actor to fiery hell if their film doesn't resonate with me. I became fond of Trier when I watched his cult series, The Kingdom, and I highly appreciated the content of his "theatrical" films. But some time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the fundamental characteristic of Trier's work is the manipulation of the viewer and facts, which he adjusts according to his artistic visions. Furthermore, the problem with him is that since the time he drunkenly devised Dogme 95, he has become a fashionable director in the true sense of the word, satisfying the intellectual snobs' ideas of true art in film and becoming a pampered celebrity of the festival audience. Unfortunately, this has become an integral part of his personality and his filmography. He caters to his snobs with plenty of things, from supposedly encrypted messages through provocative and genre films promising titles to the necessary reference to Tarkovsky in the end credits. The trouble is that there is an absolute antithesis in the ideological foundations between his film Antichrist and Tarkovsky's work, not to mention that Tarkovsky could afford to ignore the viewers because a film industry did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the decisive factor for filming and permission to distribute the film were not the reactions of the audience or the intentions of the producers, but the approval process, where it was necessary to overcome several officials at the relevant ministry. Tarkovsky could therefore subjugate everything to his artistic expression and his artistic ideals. Lars creates his films under real capitalism and calculates both with the controversial content of his films and with the scandals that his outspoken mouth and behavior regularly provoke. He knows very well that one or two failures are enough to tarnish his star status. Antichrist should not be a highly reviewed film on FilmBooster with over five thousand ratings simply because it is not a film that corresponds to the mass taste of film viewers in any way. It is a film that caters to the festival and club audience, so we see a lot of three or four-star reviews and comments like "I didn't know what to make of it, but it's a wonderful piece of work..." rather speak of user conformity than the real qualities of Antichrist. The genre identification with horror is confusing; it is more of a surrealist dramatic-mysterious game on the subject of the decay of a partnership. Unfortunately, it is pretentious, tiresome, and unbridled. Of course, Trier hasn't forgotten his filmmaking skills, and one can revel in the camera or other elements of film language, but they should also form a cohesive film. Antichrist is simply an unengaging film that wants to provoke with its controversial content and violent or pornographic scenes. Typically, I would give such films at least one star for craftsmanship, but in this case, I am happy to make an exception, which can be seen as a counterweight to the many uncritical users. I was startled once and disgusted three times, but the majority of my feelings fell into the category of disinterest, and this film is simply one of those that amuse me with the comments of many fans and how many meanings one can find when you are looking for them. I did not find in this film much of a story, good dialogue, interesting characters, and catharsis because the final third of the film is utterly unnecessary. Yet the prologue seemed so interesting... Overall impression: 5%.

This is one of those films for nostalgics who feel obliged to give a higher number of stars than would correspond to their subjective feeling about the film. It's simply a classic. The famous book by Zola, the famous director Renoir, and the legendary Jean Gabin in the lead role. However, I won't deny that I was bored while watching and even dozed off several times. So yes, the film certainly has a lot to offer to admirers of film classics, those who diligently visit film clubs to fill in the gaps in their quest to map out world cinema. It will definitely please those who are professionally involved in cinema, as well as film critics who can extensively praise the work of the camera and other film professions, but as a viewer, the film simply did not captivate me. Nowadays, we have a different film pace, movies are more civil without pathos and theatrical poses in actors' performances, and perhaps the source material and genre are to blame from my perspective. Overall impression: 45%.

David Thewlis wanted to make his own unique film and tried very, very hard. It shows in his acting performance and the entire film, but the result is uncertain due to the screenplay that oscillates between several genres and ultimately fulfills neither of them. It is neither a comedy nor a drama, and stylistically it keeps fluctuating back and forth, just like the characters and situations that are not utilized as the audience would imagine. In the end, it comes closest to a melodrama, dealing with coping with the loss of a life partner and mother. At the beginning, however, it seems like a poetic clown show, then a sarcastic satire in the style of the successful film The Full Monty about declining television competitions. The final result is somewhere between 2 and 3 stars, although in this case, it's quite a shame. Overall impression: 45%.

Each subsequent continuation of a commercially successful blockbuster usually means that its creators wanted to surpass the previous film by increasing the budget, adding more bombastic action, more special, more of everything, and yet occasionally a film comes along that surpasses its predecessor. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is no exception to this rule. It is a case of screenwriting orgies, where the screenwriters literally went of their way to fit as many "shocking" twists, betrayals of the main characters, and lightning-fast changes in the situation into one film. As a result, the script does not work, and even though it is a comedy, at times it reeks of self-parody. But there is still the bombastic set design with plenty of successful digital tricks, relatively decent action, mutual teasing, and lots of small jokes, which allows me to give it three stars. It is a typical popcorn movie, where it is better not to think much and just perceive the visuals and movement on the screen. Overall impression: 50%.

An American independent film based largely on dialogues between two municipal service employees. One of them is shortly before retirement, with a lot of life experience, mature, but also somewhat worn out by life. The other, portrayed convincingly by Liev Schreiber, has had a few ups and downs in life, including a prison stay, a feeling of frustration with his current life, and an honest effort to change it, but also an explosive temperament that constantly leads him into conflicts. His older colleague represents an anchor point for him, and a masculine friendship develops between them in a short time. It's a small, unassuming film, without big gestures, action, or turning points, but still emotionally impactful. The characters evolve through seemingly small conflicts and incidents. Overall impression: 75%.

In Russia, Michalkov's big film met with passionate resistance and the critics eagerly feasted on it, which undoubtedly is largely related to his position and political views. It is undeniable that Burnt by the Sun 2 represents, to a certain extent, a forced continuation of the original film, which is a very compact work culminating in the death of all the main characters, thus practically prohibiting any further continuation. When one character miraculously comes back to life, it is a pleasant surprise, but in this case, it resembles certain biblical scenes. Michalkov simply wanted to make a war epic and used the popularity of his Oscar-winning film, even at the cost of violating his previous artistic work. It is also true that Burnt by the Sun 2 is far from reaching the artistic level of the first film or film 12. The screenplay is too fragmented, with constant shifts in time and numerous characters that are not always adequately utilized. On the one hand, it is seasoned with Hollywood clichés - those miraculous last-minute escapes or instant divine retribution for the villain's immoral act, while on the other, it reflects most of Michalkov's filmography over the past twenty years, with his political views saturated with Russian nationalism and "Slavophile" sentiments that blend Orthodoxy with communism in the name of building a strong state and defending the nation. The film can also be criticized for some smaller script shortcomings, but Michalkov still demonstrates that he is a great director of the present, primarily because he has a sufficiently large budget to present a series of grand war scenes with massive comparisons and a convincing depiction of the apocalypse in the summer months of 1941. No other Russian filmmakers dare to present aerial bombings with period technology or a mass assault of German tanks and infantry on the position of a criminal unit. Overall impression: 45%.

American audiences may have little interest in European or world cinema, but American studios closely follow what can be monetized and eagerly produce remakes of successful films, particularly French ones. Typically, these versions are far from as good as the originals, but American audiences appreciate the presence of familiar faces and American English. Naturally, Godard had something completely different in mind than his American counterpart. The label "crime" is quite misleading, as is the presence of the gallery members on screen, because the director was making a psychological drama focused on the character of his protagonists, not on action. In the American version, the basic story and its characters remained intact, but it became a common product of mass culture, a mediocre affair with a hint of romance that has almost nothing in common with the intellectual depth of its source. If you enjoyed the original Godard film, don't bother watching the remake, and the same applies in reverse. Both films have completely different audiences. Of course, there are also differences in the actors' approaches; Belmondo's crook represented a completely different type of character than his later likable adventurers, and Gere lacks his charisma and acting range. Overall impression: 40%.