gudaulin

The film, although not without its flaws, was an extraordinary achievement in its time, as there was no place for this type of social criticism in the contemporary studio system, and light escapist themes clearly prevailed. The book is excellent, and even though the film did not fully utilize its potential, it fairly faithfully follows the literary plot and goes quite far in its social criticism. It is a significantly left-wing film that depicts both the hopeless situation of farmers and day laborers during the economic crisis and the growing solidarity and awareness of social responsibility. This is evident in the scene at a bistro, where everyone, starting with the owner and ending with the last tractor driver and waitress, supports the unemployed in some way. Overall impression: 90%.

In the 70s, a frequently aired film from the youth programs category, today, I think somewhat outdated, but still a likeable affair. At least the cast (if we ignore nostalgia) is worth watching once.

The screenwriter doesn't hesitate and immediately after introducing his protagonist, he lets her brutally carry out a murder in an explosion of emotions. This arouses the expectations of fans of explicit violence. However, shortly after, he switches direction and it becomes increasingly clear that we are watching a psychological drama, where the exploration of the dark corners of the human psyche will take place, evoking memories of what we want to safely bury deep in the subconscious. I associate Jessica Biel with a beautiful face, which predestines her for the role of aesthetic additions to the story. I have always considered her acting to be average at best, but here she has risen to her best performance yet and at least she does not embarrass the series. However, the main attraction is Bill Pullman in the role of the investigator. I have doubts that this method of erasing memories would work in practice, but it is nicely filmed and evokes the right emotions in the right places. Overall impression of the 1st season: 75%.

For the creation of The Sinner, viewers can thank Jessica Biel's desire to prove that she can handle more challenging character roles. However, those who are familiar with the previous seasons of the show know well that the key character and the reason for the continuation is the character of Detective Harry Ambrose. His ability to sense shadows where others have clarity, his empathy towards all involved parties, and above all, his drive to delve deep into understanding why things happened the way they did, make him a character capable of succeeding where teams of professionals with powerful institutions behind them fail. I consider the fourth season to be the most successful and mature. This is also due to the skillfully executed mysterious storyline, which has become somewhat of a trademark for The Sinner. However, the viewer must be prepared for a slower pace and a journey filled with sadness and human tragedies hidden behind the seemingly harmonious facade of the local community. Bill Pullman is brilliant as usual. Overall impression: 90%.

I would not dare label this film a comedy, because it oscillates between several genres and, in my opinion, it is more of a romantic drama. The film deals with the problem of how possible it is to bring together professionally, educationally, and temperamentally different people, not only in terms of love but also in terms of friendship and collegial partnerships. It tells the story of how superficial our first impressions can sometimes be, and how easily we can overlook the qualities of the people around us. It forces us to think and reassess our past conflicts and relationships. This clever film with a well-thought-out screenplay is not superficially flashy; it is a seemingly inconspicuous European production that gradually drew me into the story and truly captivated me. The cast is excellent, even though the actors are new to me, although Jean-Pierre Bacri is a big star in France. Overall impression: 80%.

Only a few films manage to become a battlefield in the fiercely fought cultural wars of the present. Not only that - they even become milestones that go against prevailing trends. Until the late 80s, censorship was promoted under the flag of religion and right-wing moralism - just ask members of the Monty Python group during the filming of Life of Brian. Then, under the guise of fighting sexism, racism, and xenophobia, the cultural left took over and it was clear that they were genuinely enjoying this campaign for shaping a new morality, and that they could restrict creative freedom just like the church once did. Cuties brought back the overshadowed conservatives, who flared up in indignation over the alleged pedophilic nature of the work and tried to achieve a ban on screening by pointing to the sexualization of innocent children's souls. Considering the amount of passion the film has aroused, it is surprisingly innocent and delicate, and its creation was evidently motivated in the opposite way - an attempt to warn against the sexualization of children. By the way, in this interpretation, that concern actually seems exaggerated to me. The advertising industry, pop music, or modeling represent a real threat and such beauty pageants for children are an exceptionally repulsive form of child exploitation, which should be uncovered and condemned by cinema. Mimicking provocative dance creations of pop dancers by a group of girls at the beginning of puberty seems more like a subject for a comedy rather than a critical drama to me. Nonetheless, the film does not deal with manipulation or sexual violence, and for me personally, its background was more interesting, depicting the life of an immigrant community and incidentally recording the gradual decay of French society, once united by nationalism and republican secularism. If I evaluate it purely for the cinematic aspect, considering it's a debut, it is a thoughtful, cleverly constructed, and skillfully crafted piece of work to which I give 4 stars. Overall impression: 85%.

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.

One film legend says that there was a fundamental difference in the approach to the world of cinema among the three most influential filmmakers of the 70s, namely Spielberg, Coppola, and Lucas. While Spielberg and Coppola literally lived for movies, exhaustively watched the performances of acclaimed film classics in film clubs, passionately discussed cinema with similarly affected individuals late into the night, and tried to push the world of film forward, Lucas was an enthusiastic reader of outdated comics, a viewer of 1950s TV space operas, and film theory was inherently foreign to him. However, he was able to capture the essence of popular culture and the transformation of the film audience from the 40s to the 70s, when the average age of cinema-goers continued to decrease. At the same time, due to sociological processes and the enrichment of society, there was a change in the perception of film. The infantilization fully manifested itself and the concept of a family film with a lower standard prevailed to be understood by a wider range of potential viewers. This is how Star Wars came into being, where a fairytale was wrapped in cosmic technology and the nonsense of the then-popular New Age movement. Lucas filmed it as visually and naively as possible, and precisely because of that, it had such a penetrating success. What succeeds attracts attention and the desire to imitate, and at a certain stage, when it becomes a cult, it is practically unquestionable and by itself carries the seal of quality regardless of its content. I saw the first three films of the famous series at an age when I found the motifs and execution, especially the "intellectual superstructure," laughable. Otherwise, the course of events is such that you see it for the first time at the age of 8-9, and then with an iron regularity, so you grow up with it and it has emotional and nostalgic value for you. Even if I grew up with it, I still would have most likely become a fan of the Star Trek series, which, despite its clichés, naivety, and the ideological basis that stems from multiculturalism, represents an honest work from the sci-fi genre. Star Wars only shares the space settings with the sci-fi genre. It is a fairytale fantasy that is neither clever nor innovative nor brilliantly directed. The later three episodes of the series are loaded with bombastic special effects, but they are more childish than anything, and they also lack the confident ironic detachment that emanates from every smirk of Han Solo. His portrayal by Harrison Ford somewhat resembles the much more pronounced ironic detachment of the Indiana Jones character. Personally, the entire series has nothing to offer me, and although there are understandably significant nuances between each film, what bothers me, such as the frenzied waving of lightsabers, the babbling about the Force, and the cute plush creatures as extraterrestrials, are typical of all the episodes. Therefore, this commentary applies to all parts of the Star Wars series. Overall impression: 20% for the set design.