gudaulin

A film with undeniably interesting subject matter and great potential, which ultimately fell short of its creator's ambitious goals. I couldn't decipher exactly what Hal Hartley's intention was, as the film oscillates between several genres and fails to fulfill any of them. However, I assume the director wanted to create a dark satire on the twisted state of the modern world, an existential drama about an eternal being, and an unfulfilled love story between two completely different characters. The problem is that all these ingredients fail to blend well together, so whenever Helen Mirren appears on screen, it becomes comical, whenever the monster appears, it becomes a dark drama, and the unfortunate Sarah Polley switches between not-so-much sexual and emotional positions, even to the grotesque and, above all, untrustworthy manner. Hartley is undoubtedly a talented contemporary director and screenwriter, but he lacks discipline and perhaps the oversight of a producer. You cannot deny that the film has atmosphere, especially in the first part, when the peculiar inhabitants of a remote village and the monster surrounded by the inhospitable Icelandic nature excel. However, as soon as the plot moves back to civilization, the film falls back into mediocrity. Overall impression: 55%.

There are topics and ways of processing a subject that suit you in your teenage years, and then there are topics whose human dimension you fully understand only when you are older. This film about how a French middle-class family copes with the departure of one of the household members is initially seemingly about the relationship between two siblings, but with each passing minute, it becomes apparent that it's actually about the relationship between a daughter and her parents. This intimate drama about the lack of courage to communicate the inevitable doesn't have an elaborately polished screenplay, but it has a strongly emotive theme and a solid cast led by the well-known Mélanie Laurent. This inconspicuous film got under my skin, and as a parent, I can empathize with the positions of everyone involved. Overall impression: 75%.

I can't say that I am completely dissatisfied with this. The film offers solid acting and scenes literally filled with tension and anticipation of hidden threats. However, the above only applies to individual scenes. They can maintain within themselves a remarkable atmosphere, but that does not apply to the film as a whole. It is somewhat scattered and unfinished. It's as if the director and cameraman lacked a bit of cinematic sense. Throughout the film, it creates the impression of great expectations that it cannot or does not want to satisfy. The most interesting aspect is the camera wandering through the winding Venetian alleys, arcades, and corridors, but from a plot point of view and in terms of the ending, it is unsatisfying. Overall impression: 55%.

I might be a heretic for it, but I will not join the large fan club of this film. I have, let's say, a reserved relationship towards Adam McKay's work, we don't understand each other, and Don't Look Up is unfortunately no exception. In my eyes, satire should be smart and sophisticated above all. However, this film is kneaded from the same material that it wants to make fun of. It is a pop culture comedy for viewers who are satisfied with little effort in character development, who want to have things served nicely, and, above all, who want to reinforce their view of the world. The film has such a strong cast that I was almost certain I would give it at least three stars, but in the last third, it really annoyed me. If there are comments comparing Don't Look Up to Wag the Dog, with the claim that Don't Look Up is superior, I see it the other way around. Wag the Dog defeats McKay's film not by one or two horse lengths, but at least by a whole stadium. Overall impression: 45%.

The film deserves 2 stars for its subject matter. The case is fascinating, and I would like to read a book by an investigative journalist on the topic or at least a comprehensive and well-researched article. Your satisfaction with the film depends on how satisfied you are with the story the film tells and how much attention you pay to the artistic form. Coninx's film wants to be a hybrid of a political thriller and a crime story, but both genres have their own needs, and unfortunately, the director does not meet them. I do not find any added value in his work as a filmmaker. As for aesthetics, film style, and storytelling, none of it has anything to offer me. Moreover, I did not like the casting either, and in some cases, it was downright irritating. Well, someone had to disturb all the one-sided praise. My overall impression is only 40%, and I would prefer to avoid Coninx's work in the future.

Honest filmmaking and a dignified tribute to the book it is based on. The film Valmont, directed by Miloš Forman, is very similar, with Frears being stronger in some aspects, while Forman emerges victorious in others. However, I slightly prefer Valmont because, in my opinion, Glenn Close did not fit well into the role of the scheming Marquise. I simply didn't believe in her as the fateful femme fatale who can bewitch men. On the other hand, Annette Bening perfectly embodied that role. Overall impression: 80%. Frears also succeeded in casting John Malkovich. Since then, I can't imagine him playing anything other than a cunning seducer, even if he were to portray an honorable priest.

The movie, contrary to many enthusiastic comments, didn't have as strong of an impact on me as I expected. As a detective story, it was somewhat straightforward, and the different cultural backgrounds also seemed disturbing to me. However, from the perspective of portraying cultural differences, especially collective perception, Heaven and Hell, along with Kurosawa's classic advantages - excellent camera work and editing, is a decent above-average film. Compared to Kurosawa's medieval films, I was pleasantly surprised by the civilian acting of his actors. Overall impression: 65%.

A poster-like Paris, photogenic destinies, color print film... This is a typical festival film that tries to sell the atmosphere of Paris, movie stars, and calculated emotions. But Paris should evoke a dreamy and captivating mood, not a sense of noble boredom. The film just barely earns 3 stars, solely due to the presence of sympathetic Juliette Binoche and Fabrice Luchini and a few successful scenes. Otherwise, it reminded me of cheap ice cream with lots of artificial coloring and inferior sweeteners. Overall impression: 50%.

In the film, there is a scene where the main character sleeps with a seduced woman, and after a passionate night, they get up and continue with their distant behavior and address each other formally. Similarly cold and distant is the entire film, which could have been much more engaging and passionate. Of course, the theme of losing a child and seeking revenge for the committed act works, but it didn't captivate me, and I can imagine seeing a completely different version of the story. These characters are too forcefully polarized. The culprit is too much of a textbook monster, and a somewhat different psychology and more complicated decision-making would only benefit this film. Overall impression: 60%.

Claude Lelouch's film Long Live Life reminds me in many ways of David Lynch's best films and his famous games with the audience and with film genres. Lelouch provocatively mixes elements of disaster films, exploits the psychosis of fear of nuclear weapons, plays with the motif of an alien civilization influencing our lives, quickly transitioning from sci-fi to an espionage drama, and throughout it all, actually tells a love story of two married couples, where reality mixes with the imaginations of everyone involved and the confused viewer is left doubting the true identities of the characters. At the beginning of the film, Lelouch says through one of the characters: "There are filmmakers who tell stories, like Spielberg, there are filmmakers like Fellini who have completely abandoned the story, and there are those who experiment with ways of telling stories." That is exactly what Lelouch aims to do in his work. It's not about who his characters really are. What's important is that through them and their emotions, he can entertain and provoke the viewer. Overall impression: 90%.