gudaulin

Farhadi's first Oscar win helped him understand the recipe for global success with festival audiences. In his subsequent project, he tries to follow the same path but has no luck. A Separation set the bar very high. The Salesman is like a tea bag that you just pulled out of a cup and you don't want to throw it away. So you put it in another cup convinced that it will do its job again, color the water, and give it a tea-like taste. Only this time, the tea will be a little weaker. I won't denigrate The Salesman, it certainly has its merits, but while A Separation worked almost flawlessly from a dramatic standpoint and I wouldn't cut even a minute out of it, with The Salesman I would not hesitate to grab scissors and remove 20 minutes. The storyline could do without intertwining with the theatrical scene, although for me personally, the Iranian adaptation of a typically American play was quite interesting. Equally interesting is to observe that even an internationally acclaimed Oscar-winning director does not dare to break free from the constraints imposed by the official ideology. According to him, Iranian women don't take off their headscarves even at home, and they might even wear them in the shower... In the end, I give the film 4 stars, with the fourth one being frail, just a hair's breadth away from being absent, whereas in the case of Toni Erdmann, it stands out. Toni Erdmann, by the way, deserved much more recognition from the American academics, but that's just how things go in the film world. Overall impression: 70%.

Blue Velvet feels like a relatively normal film in David Lynch's filmography. At this point, the director had not yet escaped into hallucinogenic alternative worlds, and he had not yet fully expressed that the plot is actually not important at all - what matters are the exciting moments, the entertaining details, and the fascination with the shocking and strange. However, Lynch was already refining his impressive style based on the contrast of good and evil, normality and perversion. Beneath the facade of an exemplary disciplined and polished small-town society, symbolized by the idealistic friend Sandy, the main character Jeffrey discovers an underworld controlled by psychopathic Frank. In this dark world, rules based on violence and vulgarity apply, social relationships are based on manipulation, and sexuality has a pathological dimension. Among the film's merits, I include the presence of the extraordinary Isabella Rossellini and, above all, the young Laura Dern, whom Lynch actually discovered and helped establish. I also appreciate that the director still holds back and does not get tangled up in eccentric experiments. The visual symbolism he uses here is still simple and easily decipherable. Overall impression: 90%.

If the story in this film remotely reminds you of something, then your memory is not deceiving you. The screenwriters borrowed the idea from the famous film The Apartment by Billy Wilder and modified it to suit a significant star of the 90s, Michael J. Fox. Some comments suggest that the film is underappreciated. However, the comparison with Wilder's film proves exactly where this film falls behind. I am intentionally not saying that it fails because director Sonnenfeld clearly did not have Wilder's ambitions. He wanted to create an entertaining and undemanding morsel, and he succeeded in essence, while Wilder made an intelligent and satirical comedy that mocks the American way of life. The social-critical dimension of the film is quite significant. It is essentially a morality tale on the topic of human moral integrity that is corrupted by the system. Regaining self-respect in The Apartment comes at the high cost of losing one's career. All of this is missing in For Love or Money; it is a bustling spectacle devoid of any depth and heading toward a Hollywood happy ending. Where Wilder offers two top-notch actors in the lead roles, Sonnenfeld can only offer Michael Fox and a group of average supporters around him. Gabrielle Anwar is just an ornament with a charming face. Thanks to Fox's talent, it deserves three stars, but seriously considering revisiting For Love or Money doesn't make sense. Overall impression: 55%.

1864 is a project that I approached with confidence. Danish television production rightly has a good reputation, churning out one international success after another, and in addition, considering the size of the country, it is capable of carrying out ambitious large-scale productions. The subject offered a journey into understanding historical events, the significance of which had so far escaped me. I like similar topics, as history has been my hobby since high school. The series is well-cast and full of familiar faces and it has an appropriate set design - so why only two stars? It is because I feel that something is wrong with the scriptwriting. At the end of the first two episodes, I found myself staring at the screen with a blank look and unable to remember what had just happened. Yet, the series offers many powerful themes. It is the story of a confident country that fell victim to self-delusion of exceptionalism and nationalist fervor, and in the end, it cost them dearly. However, if you can't connect with the characters in the series, if you can't appreciate the effort of the script to connect events from the second half of the 19th century with the present, and if you prefer fantasy elements, then you will simply not get into the series. In the end, I only appreciated the well-directed war scenes. There were quite a few of them, including truly massive ones, but the journey to get there was long and exhausting. Overall impression: 45%.

Many people expected that Oliver Stone and George Bush would settle things without scruples and that a political pamphlet would emerge rather than a biographical drama. For the American left, Bush's victory was a slap in the face. After all, let's admit seriously that it was on the edge of legitimacy and tested American institutions and society to the utmost. Strangely enough, Stone approached the material with the utmost seriousness and wanted to make a dignified drama. But, alas, screenwriter Stanley Weiser unfortunately didn't excel and the result was also marked by the fact that Bush Jr. simply wasn't a charismatic personality. Instead, he was in the right place at the right time, with his advisors from public relations doing the work for him. The only thing that stands out in the film is Josh Brolin's great performance in the lead role. That is clearly a five-star affair. Everything else is forgettable and, within Stone's filmography, this piece belongs to the least remarkable films. Overall impression: 45%.

After the famous film Platoon, Stone returned to Vietnam to capitalize on his personal experiences with the Vietnam War. This time, he attempted to capture the war conflict through the eyes of civilians - a young girl from the countryside whose family is threatened by pressure from both sides. Loyalty is demanded by both the government and the Viet Cong and in the interest of victory, they can act absolutely ruthlessly. Despite his left-wing beliefs, Stone looks at the Viet Cong without illusions and shows the raw reality of war from the perspective of those who have nowhere to retreat and how to defend themselves. The Vietnamese part is great and the director is on familiar ground here, using the exotic beauty of Vietnamese nature and the unique charm of the main protagonist played by Hiep Thi Le. The love romance she experiences with the American officer is also great, surely thanks to Tommy Lee Jones' charisma. The melodramatic elements, which I am usually sensitive to, did not bother me at all this time. The problem is that the film does not end with the failure of the American intervention, and Stone lets his heroes travel to America. However, the two parts of the film do not understand each other at all. The American part occupies a significantly smaller portion, and it is rushed, terse, and emotionally unconvincing. While the same protagonist is at the center of Stone's attention, it suddenly turns into a feminist manifesto, conflicting with the previous war drama in some ways. Nevertheless, I'll give it 4 stars and a 75% overall impression because 2/3 of the film is a five-star affair.

Wolf Hall describes events that are among the most well-known and frequently depicted in the history of medieval Europe, both in popular culture and in literary works. The reign of Henry VIII and his romantic affairs were, after all, a challenge even for Shakespeare himself. Wolf Hall offers a different perspective, as the creators of the series view the events at the royal court through the lens of one of the most interesting figures in English history - Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell, who was considered insignificant by the powerful feudal lords due to his humble origin, gradually rose to the top of the power ladder thanks to his extraordinary abilities, strong nerves, and political instincts. The casting of the main character greatly contributes to the series. Mark Rylance's portrayal of Cromwell is compelling and exudes authority and Rylance's minimalist acting style is perfectly suited for the role. Perhaps the best characterization of his Cromwell can be found in two brief dialogues: "What will you do now, Moore?" - "Write a lot and also pray." - "I recommend writing less and praying considerably more." And the second: "You are a capable man, Cromwell. It's a shame you're a Lutheran." - "Come now, I am a banker, after all." The series does not distort history and proves that great stories do not necessarily need to be twisted and embellished to fit the imaginations of Hollywood screenwriters. The production design is also a strong point, as it is definitely not a cheap production with poor visuals. Overall impression: 90%.

How many American films can you recall that start with a scene in a factory and their protagonists are workers, ordinary employees earning a living with their hands? American cinema is swarming with stories of white-collar workers, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen, but it has been rather stingy in mapping the destinies of blue-collar workers. The Deer Hunter is considered one of the three most significant movies about the Vietnam War, but I always perceived it much more as one of the few films about poor white men, the current supporters of President Trump. I will probably be one of the handful of film viewers who are more interested in the first part of the film devoted to a group of friends from a foundry, how they enjoy themselves after work and celebrate the wedding of one of them. The war part actually represents only a small portion of the film, and on top of that, it is the least successful one. Including drafted soldiers from the same locality in one unit may have been a practice of the American army, but the capture of the group of friends and their joint escape already reeks of typical cinematic opportunism. I don't harbor any illusions that the Vietnamese treated their captives with kid gloves, they had no reason to, but it seems unlikely to me that they would eliminate Americans so wastefully - they represented too valuable a commodity and a propagandistic trump card. The motif of Russian roulette apparently belongs to Southeast Asia soaked with gambling, but it seems nonsensical from a psychological perspective that it would be embraced by a soldier who has just survived frontline deployment and hit rock bottom. I would understand addiction, a propensity for violence, or the inability to reintegrate into the community, but this? The motif of Russian roulette always seemed artificial and significantly disruptive to me, Nick's alienation could have been described in a more realistic way. Ultimately, what stuck with me the most from the movie were a few impressive scenes from Saigon just before the fall of the regime and the stellar cast. However, I can't say that I associate it with any exceptional viewing experience. It will also be a problem for the average viewer to deal with its length and pace, as 183 minutes is truly a big chunk. I don't perceive The Deer Hunter as a war film but rather as a drama about a generation of American men whose youth was shaped or deformed by the war in Vietnam. Overall impression: 60%.

Fans of comic book blockbusters can rest assured. My sole star does not mean that they would be in any way deprived of a hefty portion of special effects, action, and adventure of their favorite heroes, presented undoubtedly on a decent craftsmanship level. My rating is mainly related to the fact that adaptations of superhero comics are a genre that I have a decidedly negative relationship with. I consider myself a rational person and prefer the scientific method when exploring the surrounding world. Superhero comics have always repelled me with their close connection to the sphere of paranormal mysticism. The exceptional abilities of superheroes stem from religious beliefs and their world is based on the idea of ritual supernatural forces. Scientific discoveries and technology usually serve as mere props, and the X-Men superheroes are much closer to pagan gods than to characters from my favorite sci-fi genre. So Superman and X-Men have a particularly hard time with me. If they still want to impress me, they must come up with significantly deeper psychology than what is customary in typical blockbusters (unfortunately, the psychology of the characters in X-Men: First Class is very shallow), and with fully developed characters (in First Class, even such crucial decisions as choosing sides on the barricades seem like the actors just flipped a coin). The director must come up with ingeniously structured storytelling (compare the incredibly polished intro of Snyder's Watchmen with Vaughn's First Class, which reeks of popcorn from afar). I understand that exaggeration is essential in the genre, but even here, I appreciate moderation and, to the extent possible, prefer adherence to natural laws. The final nail in the coffin is Vaughn's ability to cater to the needs of entertainment-hungry teenagers. He simply knows what to make for teenagers, but in my case, it's precisely the opposite and I simply do not belong to his target audience. Overall impression: 25%.

From Fargo, movie fans most often remember the human body disappearing into a wood chipper and the distinctive faces of the exemplary psychopaths and criminals played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare. The number of corpses that line the story, as well as Fargo's typical dark humor, invite comparisons to Tarantino's films. However, the Coen brothers have a different film technique. Their humor is not obvious, but rather clever and inclined towards biting irony. The Coens toy with the crime genre, but unlike Tarantino, it is not done for its own sake. They break conventions not for cheap audience effect, but to explore the possibilities of genre evolution and to shape the atmosphere. Scenes of shocking brutality are combined with comedy resulting from the fact that the main characters are not charismatic, brilliant criminals, but rather nobodies. When an inexperienced, ambitious weakling with average intelligence hires two brutes with the intelligence of horses to execute a kidnapping, it is no wonder that events quickly spiral out of control and descend into a terrifying disaster. Originally, it was supposed to be a precise and cleverly planned operation in the delusional mind of its creator. However, due to a series of coincidences and, above all, the incompetence of the protagonists, it turns into a bloody farce. The Coens build the atmosphere using contrasts. Behind the facade of bourgeois suburban family life lies envy, greed, and chronic dissatisfaction. The snowy white landscapes of Minnesota become stained red with blood. By the way, the portrayal of their homeland did not sit well with the residents of Minnesota, and they made that very clear to the Coens. I'm not saying that Fargo is the best Coen brothers’ piece, I would unequivocally place No Country for Old Men higher, but still, I have an itch to give it five stars. Fargo simply has a lot going for it. Overall impression: 85%.