gudaulin

I call this category of festival films "Rohypnol" for their fascinating ability to reliably put you to sleep after just a few seconds. Imagine the sea waves, pebbles on the beach, and calming sounds, and the disaster is complete. I would like to mention many other things I saw in the movie, but unfortunately, I don't remember anything else. Overall impression: 5% - and don't ask me what it's for.

I definitely don't claim that this is a bad movie, but the expectations were too high in this case, and during the final scene, I was thinking, is this really the end? Is there nothing else coming? Are you telling me this film won at a category A festival and is considered by film fans and critics alike as the European film event of the year? The thing is, this film somehow deceives in its substance and offers substitute emotions, or rather, in my opinion, it fails precisely in what it is most adored for, i.e., a statement about a certain country and political system. Many reviews enthusiastically admire its amazing authenticity, but how many of those viewers experienced communist Romania first-hand? I haven't been there, but from the testimonies of eyewitnesses, I know that even ten years after the revolution, some places in the countryside had no electricity, many remote areas are today economically worse off than during Ceausescu's regime, and the mountainous regions are depopulating. Comparing the former Romania to Czechoslovakia is misguided, as the situation there was disproportionately worse and, above all, systemically different. The abortion that is at the core of Mungiu's film, is presented as purely a technical problem. Those girls, just like the other film characters, are not victims of the system, but part of it. Polish films of moral unrest were able to address moral conflict issues in the behavior of their characters during the deep communism of the 70s and 80s, whereas here, a college student undergoes an abortion of a fetus that is merely an obstacle to her career. We learn very little about the system itself, and it is necessary to realize that abortions were also prohibited in a number of European countries in the recent past, and a similar film could be made in present-day Poland, in a democratic system. Since 1993, abortion there has been limited to the absolute minimum of possibilities. That pre-revolutionary Romania was an inhospitable and freedom-restricted place to live in is quite evident in some places, but that is just a secondary motive. If the main problem for Romanian college students in dormitories was obtaining a certain brand of Western cigarettes, then those girls really didn't have a bad life. In short, it is watchable but, from my perspective, also an overrated film with an unclear concept. Overall impression: 60%.

Berlin has fallen, the leader of the German nation has passed into eternity, and the surrender of the German armed forces was expected with each passing day. No one is rushing into battle anymore because who would want to die just before the end of the war? Actually, only the clean-up remains. However, a group of German soldiers who have gathered on the shores of the Baltic Sea do not want to surrender to the Red Army. They are not enticed by the prospect of infamous Siberian labor camps and forced work. They are considering escaping by boat to Denmark, where British captivity offers a considerably more favorable future. The Soviet captain does not press them. He, too, lives with the prospect of an imminent ceasefire and does not want to risk a clash against tenfold superiority. Moreover, he has enough worries of his own. His group has settled in an orphanage, and a German boy would like to experience the battle firsthand and gain some military fame. 4 Days in May is an intimate war film that focuses not so much on the grand epic picture of battle and war machinery, but rather on the personal dramas of people who must cope with the loss of a familiar world, new responsibilities, and above all, the question of whether and for what they should die for at the very end of the war. It is an inconspicuous film at first glance, but it is emotionally impactful, and it has left a mark on me. Overall impression: 90%.

I was expecting a pleasant spectacle, excited by the previous films of the cycle about the fate of Antoine Doinel. However, I was shocked by the concentrated depression that fell on me while watching the introductory part of the pentalogy. While the subsequent films have a slightly ironic mocking style, the first part of the series is actually a harsh psychological drama about the difficult childhood of a boy who was born as an unwanted child to a selfish mother who prioritizes her own goals and sees her son as an obstacle. Little Doinel feels limited not only at home but also in an authoritarian school, and on top of that, puberty affects him, so he cannot avoid issues that have fateful consequences. Just like in Truffaut's other films, autobiographical elements also appear here, and in addition to his own adventures during adolescence, he draws inspiration from the fate of his classmate Robert Lachenaye. What is essential is that Truffaut never pushes too hard and although his film is oppressive, it is also strongly realistic, never needing to resort to any scripted gimmicks or cheap emotional blackmail. It quietly heads toward its goal, but the small tricks and lies of the boy with a fertile imagination gradually accumulate and evoke harsh reactions from an intolerant environment, so the film inevitability moves toward a dark ending. For me, it is an exceptionally powerful emotional work that I give a 100% rating. The best film by Truffaut, and made at a very young age.

Fahrenheit 451 is nothing more or less than a dignified adaptation of Ray Bradbury's famous novel. I remember that, for example, Mel Gibson toyed with the idea of a remake repeatedly, and he certainly was not alone. You can sprinkle in a few million dollars, and add a series of special effects, but without a fundamental revision of the original text, there is nothing to be done with this work. I have no problem with Truffaut; in fact, I would say that his traditionally cooler and detached film style fits the story perfectly. However, I do have an issue with the literary source. I find Bradbury's depiction of totalitarianism unconvincing and the rebellion against the system naive. Bradbury created his work at a time when television gained a dominant position in the field of information distribution, and light television entertainment quickly overwhelmed the naively conceived idea of "elevating" the masses through television broadcasts of operas and educational documentaries. Bradbury seemed to think that higher culture would succumb to the battle against superficial pop culture, and the demise of culture would lead to the establishment of a totalitarian system. However, this allegory has several flaws. Books are not a stronghold of higher culture; they are merely a medium that can have various content and quality, just like a film or a television program. Except for the insane experiment of the Khmer Rouge, who took away much more from the people and essentially everything, no one ever thought of destroying books. Instead, they usually succeeded in taming books, often with great success. Bradbury would be shocked by the millions of copies of prominent authors' works and propagandistic writings in many dictatorships. The survival and success of a regime are not so much related to the size of libraries and cultural subsidies, but rather to the (in)ability to satisfy and entertain the population through consumption. The dictatorships in Eastern Europe certainly did not fall because Vaclav Havel's plays were not allowed or Marta Kubišová could not sing; they fell because the population hungry for consumption exchanged them for full shops following the example of Western Europe. The authoritarian system in China successfully survives even with censorship simply because China's economy is booming, and the extremely anti-cultural and intolerant religious system in Saudi Arabia, well-fed by oil, speaks for itself. Truffaut cannot be denied a good hand in choosing the main characters (perhaps I imagined the wife to be more insipid), the impressiveness of some scenes (the internal struggle of the informer), and above all, the atmosphere (the red fire truck ominously racing through the streets). Nevertheless, in the world of cinema today, I can find much more interesting and chilling dystopias. Overall impression: 60%.

Each of us is intimately familiar with this situation: the smaller the expectations, the greater the enthusiasm for an otherwise average film. And vice versa - the greater the expectations, the more bitter the disappointment, even though objective reality is somewhere in the middle. I seriously expected very little from this movie, or rather "nothing." After watching it, I initially intended to give it four stars with excitement, but then I pondered it and erased a star. Rob Schneider is slightly less awkward than usual, but he still overacts and Sandler also recalls his worst acting several times (most notably in the scene where he cries on the boat, reminiscing about lost love). Nevertheless, despite all of this, it is still the best Sandler comedy with surprisingly civil performances from both main characters and a funny storyline. Overall impression: a decent 65%.

I'll admit, I rarely watch romantic movies anymore because, in that stereotypical whirlpool, there are only very few titles worth watching. The vast majority of those genre pieces are made as if following a template and differ only slightly in doses of naivety and, when it comes to teenage matters, even in the level of tastelessness. (500) Days of Summer really stands out from this flood because it has honest craftsmanship and a few decent ideas as well as pleasant casting. But from my perspective, it's by no means a cult film. It was allegedly a huge hit at the Sundance Festival, but any major studio could have easily financed this Webb film. In fact, it is purely a mainstream affair. If stars were given for the best mainstream romance of the year, (500) Days of Summer would probably win hands down, but that's not how it works for me. It differs from the usual productions mainly by the fact that the screenwriter admitted that not every romantic love ends in marriage, but if they want to sell me these discoveries, they should turn to someone else with such banalities. After two days, I can only remember very little from the film. It's pleasant enough for one viewing, but nothing more. Overall impression: 60%.

The screenplay is unfinished. Although it is well-acted, it feels like a fragment of a feature film rather than a standalone functioning short film. The female element is also unnecessary in a script like this... Overall impression: 50%.

After watching the film, I was reminded of a lecture by a well-known science popularizer who admitted that the motive for the creation of his latest book was not a passion for its subject, but a grant that he happened to receive and that it would not be wise to refuse. I had a similar feeling of "motivation" when it came to most of the participating directors here. It wasn't a dream project that pushed them to the limits of their creative powers, and it wasn't even a commercial thing for which they would risk their reputation with the producer. Most of them approached it like a school exercise, and sometimes I even felt like it was out of obligation. In any case, directorial qualities prevailed over screenwriting - sometimes there was palpable helplessness in that area (Kusturica's alcohol-soaked visit to the film festival). Most film fans will probably choose their own favorite story, but as a whole, 7 Days in Havana, in my opinion, doesn't hold up. It was clear from the beginning that the individual contributions would have different styles and poetics, but I must admit that I didn't expect to feel like I was on a roller coaster or riding a carnival ride when comparing the quality of the stories. Overall impression: 45%.

When the movie In Bruges appeared in movie theaters some time ago, it was a rare case where film critics agreed with film fans on the extraordinary qualities of the work and gave birth to a film where the entertaining component of the film, in the form of a darkly humorous gangster story with charismatic underworld characters, functions in close symbiosis with the dramatic existential plane, which elevates this film to the realm of film art. The director's name became known as a concept and his ego obviously strengthened because Seven Psychopaths is an ambitious work at first glance, exuding confidence and expectation of success. However, unlike In Bruges, only the first plane works here - the plane of the crazy crime story with bizarre motivations of the (anti)heroes, incredibly cool characters, and black humor based on violence. Seven Psychopaths rides the wave that was initiated in the 90s by the phenomenal success of Pulp Fiction. In fact, Martin McDonagh has made a film that is more Tarantino-like than Tarantino himself. In Bruges, he placed his characters in a real environment and endowed them with logical motivations, whereas here it is a seemingly artificial screenwriting construct that creaks and grinds wherever you look. Of course, if all the characters represent exemplary psychopaths, you can excuse all the script acrobatics and missteps by saying that nothing else can be expected from a gang of psychopaths. But I'm not satisfied with this trick. Games with genre rules were demonstrated at a much more cultivated level by Altman in his film The Player, so I have no reason to rate it higher than 2 stars. I try to perceive this film exclusively as a comedy because, in the positions of the other two genres of crime and drama, it inevitably fails. Martin McDonagh did not resist attempting a scene with philosophical insight, but considering the overall character of the film, it appears rather alien and lacks catharsis - see the culmination of the life journey of the Vietnamese killer. Overall impression: 45%. However, if you enjoy witty lines, people getting shot in the head, and overacting actors having a good time, you will not be disappointed and you can rate it much higher.