gudaulin

The subject is not bad at all, as it's based on a truly original idea, but in my opinion, it is too directed and played for effect. The same can be said about the screenplay. For the film to work in my eyes, it would have to abandon the traditional Hollywood thriller framework and have a much higher-quality cast. Like this, it is a stylish but pretentious game, where logic suffers in some moments. Overall impression: 45%.

Casandra's Dream is not a typical crime or detective story, it is rather a psychological drama about two ambitious young people, a businessman in the family, and a person who hinders their family's happiness. Above all, it is a film about dealing with one's guilt, a unique variation of Crime and Punishment. During this period, Woody Allen moved away from his old neurotic comedies and continued in the line set by the drama Match Point. It is not as strong as his previous film with a crime plot, but as a psychodrama about morality, it works well and Woody Allen maintains a high standard of work. Additionally, and this is once again confirmed in this case, he works with an elite cast. Both actors in the main roles give their best performance and consider their participation in Woody Allen's project an honor. Overall impression: 75%.

I approached the 10 Items or Less with caution, as A Series of Unfortunate Events from the same director didn't work for me. However, I was pleasantly surprised, as it is a likable indie film or at least an independent-looking film. It is a movie about a rather ordinary supermarket somewhere in the suburbs and a tired cashier who, by a twist of fate, meets a retiring actor who used to be a sought-after star in his field. This chance encounter turns into a day-long trip filled with conversations about life dreams, goals, and values. Both of them part ways enriched by a positive experience. In its minimalism, it is inventive and tasteful. Overall impression: 80%.

I don't appreciate Barbra Streisand either as an actress or as a singer, and she doesn't impress me as a woman, although during the filming of Funny Girl, she had a certain kind of charm that couldn't be denied. Her exaggerated acting and temperament, on which Funny Girl relies, simply don't suit me. Nevertheless, I can't deny her talent and I won't give her less than 3 stars. Overall impression: 55%.

A film with a unique theme and decent execution, and I decided to generously accept and didn't have a major problem with it the somewhat far-fetched story about how a middle-class couple, under the threat of foreclosure on their house, veered off course and decided to solve their financial situation through bank robberies. It's not exactly a typical Scandinavian film, partly because one of the main roles is played by a boy from Colombia, and it's also not a typical family conflict, but I enjoyed it well enough and thanks to the acting of the cast and capable direction, I consumed the film without any difficulties. Overall impression: 60%.

Pierre Richard is a much better actor than a director and screenwriter, but when he sticks to what made him famous as an actor, namely the role of a sympathetic troublemaker who faces the adversity and the will of those around him, the film really holds together and works perfectly. However, in the second half, the screenplay runs out of steam and the film not only loses its pace but also its effectiveness. From a truly great start, the quality of the film goes downhill continuously, and I would only give one star to the final ten minutes. Three stars and a 55% overall impression are ultimately a reasonable compromise.

As a film about the danger of neo-fascism and racial violence shown in schools as part of education, American History X would work almost flawlessly, but as a drama with artistic ambitions and also with such high ratings from fans, this film is not convincing for me. The problem is not in the actors, because Norton and Furlong belong to the very best that American cinema can count on in this age category, the problem is simply in the unconvincing screenplay that steers the story too much toward a family melodrama, where a school assignment or a fabricated prison story is enough to turn toward the right path, which really doesn't feel authentic. It is not even a film incidentally mapping a very interesting scene of American far-right heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalism, and it is not even a film about the skinhead movement. The film is based on the acting talent of Edward Norton, who underwent an incredible physical transformation and suddenly became an uncompromising guy with a well-built physique and a hateful grin on his face, who can execute members of a black gang in one of the two truly intense scenes. Overall impression: 65%.

That organized crime played a significant role in the building of American society, not only during Prohibition, is widely known, and the intertwining of American political elites at the local level with the underworld could be the basis for epic TV series that would grab the attention of crowds while still staying true to reality. Scorsese could have undoubtedly directed a magnificent story without using exaggerated elements like in the case of Gangs of New York. Even the opening scene of the battle between two clans looks like something out of a dark medieval fantasy, full of characters who seem to have just stepped out of a sadomasochistic roleplay session. It's all shot for effect, with brutal violence and exaggeration that would be more fitting for a comic book. What works perfectly is the scene that truly breathes a romanticized, yet still somewhat accurate, history of America's most famous metropolis. The cast, led by Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis, is also solid. However, from a director of Martin Scorsese's caliber, I expected something more than a costume drama with a B-movie theme based on these non-existent underworld rituals and their glorification. The reality was much more down-to-earth. Overall impression: 60%.

The story itself about the punishment of greed and injustice is compelling, but a simple anecdote that would be enough for a 20-minute TV miniature is stretched out here to the runtime of a feature film, and naturally, with outdated music and the pace of the First Republic era. Despite the decent cast and funny point, I can't give more. Overall impression: 45%.

I have seen Bondarchuk's classic from the 60s, but it has been so many years that I don't remember those films apart from the outstanding - mostly war - scenes, so I cannot make a comparison between the two versions. However, I think that by television standards, it is a dignified project that does not disgrace its famous literary source, and the actors also suit their roles. Especially Clémence Poésy as the passionate young aristocrat is truly likable. What doesn't sit well with me, though, is Tolstoy himself, who already seemed somewhat nationalist to me when I read that novel once, and his resolution of the characters' fates sometimes - actually quite often - corresponds to his religious and conservative political sentiment. He is like the Solzhenitsyn of the 19th century. Overall impression: 60%.