gudaulin

Mike Hodges' film is interesting. An atypically shot and realistic gangster film, with the support of the star Michael Caine, should have the potential to become a cult film, thanks to its bloody revenge story. However, it is emotionally cold and distant in its execution, reminiscent of Michael Haneke's later work, and that may be why some people use the term "boring" in their reviews. At the same time, I am somewhat bothered by unfinished or improbable details, such as the gun our anti-hero takes to the busy city to carry out his revenge. Parading around with it in broad daylight on busy streets is not exactly logical, although you could say it's effective. An American remake was made based on the motifs of this classic British film, with Sylvester Stallone in the lead role, but it didn't come close to the qualities of its original for understandable reasons. Today's fans of popcorn movies may be put off by the somewhat unusual editing and longer scenes, but for me, it gains in attractiveness as a film that stands out from the crowd. Overall impression: 65%.

Crime comedies that try to score points with lots of cool characters, a likable protagonist, and a plot with a surprising climax at the end, are produced by studios every year, and given that fact, this Australian film doesn't stand out much. It is certainly not so bad as to give cause for any fundamental criticism, but perhaps the only character with charisma is the likable fraudster played by Timothy Spall, known from the Harry Potter series. Many other actors or their characters are far from perfect, and the film also struggles to balance between crime and comedy. Compared to legends in the respective genre, such as The Sting, this film only looks on from a great distance. Overall impression: 55%.

The shell is there, but where is the ghost? Ghost in the Shell is a narrative action-packed summer blockbuster intended for an audience with the mentality of a 14-year-old boy raised on video games. However, its cyberpunk appearance does not hide the cyberpunk philosophy. The title invokes the idea of a great conspiracy, a mystery that will be surprisingly revealed in the end. But the plot is trivial and predictable. Furthermore - and I really don't like this - the creators try to evoke the feeling of something smarter, with a philosophical overlay. Fortunately for Sanders' film, both Matrix sequels, which are probably the most glaring example of this flaw, were two levels stupider than Ghost in the Shell. Even the visuals didn't impress me as much as the creative team intended. It is overdone and not darkly depressing enough, as befits cyberpunk. The action is too frenzied, simply tailored to the generation of computer kids. It will receive two stars from me only just barely, and they are mostly for Scarlett. Overall impression: 35%.

Sorry, Scarlett, but you also failed to bring the American remake to even a slightly competitive level compared to the original Japanese version. I wrote about the remake lacking the cyberpunk soul, and Mamoru Oshii was able to give the film both a cyberpunk appearance and philosophy. There are only a handful of films that can present the cyberpunk world with honor, and Ghost in the Shell holds an honorable place among them. I have no problem with giving it four stars, I just don't want to give it the fifth one because I always had a little problem with the artistic interpretation of manga. Overall impression: 85%.

The essential part of today's horror productions represents, objectively speaking, worse craftsmanship than what Irvin put into his film, but what can you do when B-movie and C-movie productions offer different attractions? Ghost Story was an average genre film in its time, but from my perspective, it has hopelessly become outdated and worn-out today. It's one of those movies where, after an hour, you look at your watch and realize that barely 20 minutes have passed. Not even a solid cast can pull the viewer out of boredom and dullness. The story is hopelessly mediocre and it's far too long. Overall impression: 40%.

Undoubtedly the weakest of John Carpenter's films that I've had the chance to see. Frankly, I don't understand how the director of The Thing or In the Mouth of Madness could have been involved in this creation at all... That one star is basically for his previous merits. The acting performances are, to put it diplomatically, uneven, the direction uninspired, but the crown jewel of it all is the screenplay, for which the author should probably roast in hell. Similar botched films are occasionally saved by grand production design, but that's not the case here either. So, all in all: a complete waste of time. Overall impression: 20%.

I didn't understand what was happening on the screen during the first 30 minutes, and in the next 30 minutes, I consoled myself with the hope that it was a parody of action blockbusters, and only after about an hour did I come to the conclusion that it is truly stupid and it won't get any better. Of course, I didn't expect any intellectual masterpiece from Sommers, but this time his action-packed digital mess reached its peak when the director completely gave up on any logic, story, or movie characters. It's like whistles, explosions, crashes, and bangs, you just have to ignore the comic speech bubbles. Occasionally, a sentence or a shout comes into it, which usually doesn't make much sense in the context of the image. It's an incredibly childish film, but it can't be considered a fairy tale, as it's more like a movie according to the imagination of a 9-year-old boy who peeks over his parents' shoulders in the evening while they watch an action movie for adults. At the same time, it's a full-length advertisement for an unnamed toy manufacturer that ruins the budgets of children's parents around the world. There are other men in plastic suits, flying machines from the next century, cutting-edge technology, and beautiful women, but it's incredibly stupid, even though it's filmed at such a frenetic pace that you sometimes realize the stupidity later. Basically, any rating is possible, but I'm annoyed by the gigantic budget that could have been used to make twenty other films that would make sense. If I were ten, I would give it 4 stars, at twelve, 3, at fourteen, 2, at sixteen, 1, and after the age of 18, I would have to doubt my sanity if I didn't send this nonsense where it belongs. Overall impression: 10% for the special effects.

From the point of view of the quality of the script or direction, it is essentially an average television film, however, its protagonist is a famous supermodel, a woman with a scandalous way of life and so-called celebrity. So, the viewer can enjoy the glamour of the modeling world, beautiful girls, and last but not least, Angelina Jolie in the leading role. Not that she's such a great actress, but she really fits the role of a glamorous, slightly twisted beauty. Overall impression: 60%.

A film I have seen before that I just watched again, and it made me happy. It is a very solid crime comedy full of black humor, ironic exaggeration, and decent dialogue. Additionally, it is very well cast, as Marcello Mastroianni is an excellent character actor with charisma and Ornella Muti shined on the screen in the 70s thanks to her charm. She is not a great actress, but in her case, it is enough to simply be in the film and the male part of the audience melts. When it comes to classic beauty, I would probably prefer Catherine Deneuve, but when it comes to sensuality, those deep eyes of Ornella Muti reliably win. The film has a functional screenplay and well-written characters. It works both as a detective story and as a comedy, and it also has an interesting point. Overall impression: 75%.

A sympathetic short that mocks the diametrically different civilizational attitudes of a French farmer in the remote countryside and a Parisian who may excel in computers and mobile phones, but appears as a revelation in the countryside. The farmer's life in a globalized world exposed to competition from agricultural products of the third world is difficult, so the farmer decides he could start crossbreeding those strange creatures from the city with chickens and export the products. It is, of course, a comically sarcastic exaggeration - actually, a filmed anecdote. Overall impression: 90%.