gudaulin

Costa Gavras or Oliver Stone effectively and indiscreetly criticized capitalism, in the style of the ruthless and unscrupulous businessmen that they go after. On the other hand, Margin Call is an intimate and factual film, with more of a television appearance, taking place in the environment of several rooms of a wealthy brokerage company. Its management must deal with unfavorable news from an analyst, who was the first to reveal that the years-long stock market party is coming to an end. The managers must quickly find a way out of the hopeless situation, and it is quite clear that they will do anything to shift the losses onto someone else. The human aspect of dealing with the loss of previous certainties and fear of responsibility for failure is just as interesting as the social-critical aspect (the shocking level of managerial salaries and bonuses, and the cynical pragmatism of those willing to sell "valuable" securities with zero value). The film goes back to the very beginning of the economic crisis in 2008 and shows the last hours before the mass selloff and panic on the stock market. Margin Call does not present a new theme, but it works with it in a civil, convincing, and effective way. Overall impression: 90%.

I have never really understood the enthusiasm that film critics and reviewers have for Věra Chytilová. I could never relate to her work and to some extent, her social views, activism, and feminism annoy me. I did a little recap of her and I would only be willing to give four stars to two of her films, with The Jester and the Queen being basically just a film adaptation of a play where Chytilová's personal contribution is not significant. Calamity is one of those films that leaves me indifferent. The screenplay is oddly fragmented, and the characters are mostly just figurines that Chytilová uses for some lines or pseudo-joke. The dialogues are downright forced. Thinking about it, even two stars are quite generous for the emotions that Chytilová prepared for me. Perhaps the biggest contribution is simply the presence of some prominent faces from Czechoslovak cinema of the 70s. Bolek Polívka is undoubtedly a very talented actor and comedian, but it is generally true that he needs stronger direction, and Chytilová couldn't quite handle him here. Overall impression: 40%.

Years later, I returned to Shallow Grave with high expectations, wondering if two decades since its creation have influenced its qualities in any fatal way. It happens to me all too often that repeated viewings result in disappointment. Granted, Shallow Grave lost one star from me, but it is still decent entertainment, and as Boyle's debut film, it holds up without problems. Three friends who have yet to face any fateful test in life and a suitcase full of dirty money. What could go wrong? It is clear that Boyle still lacked valuable experience and was only beginning to flourish with his masterpiece, Trainspotting. Occasionally, there are rough edges and unused potential in this film, but it is equally evident that one of the most talented British filmmakers of his generation had made his mark back then. Similarly, it is clear that among the trio of actors that Boyle gave a chance, Ewan McGregor had the greatest potential. Even in 1994, it was evident that he was headed for international success. Overall impression: 60%.

Maigret and the St. Fiacre Case perfectly fulfills the idea of films for old-timers and moreover, even though it is about a French detective, it also fulfills the idea of the classic British detective school in the style of Agatha Christie. The brilliant detective invites the suspects to one table and in the confrontational finale infallibly exposes the evildoer. This is exactly what doesn't appeal to me, and I prefer the modern crime genre. Jean Gabin is more naturally charismatic rather than fitting into the character of Maigret, and I dare to sacrilegiously claim that in the modern series of adaptations of Georges Simenon, I very much prefer Bruno Cremer as Maigret. Overall impression: 60% for the demonstration of the French film school of the 1950s.

A typical product of the American studio system. In order for me to enjoy something like this, I would have to be about 25 years younger. In this film, everything is just on the surface. Joon has a mental illness, and it is as if there are problems and crises that are understandably resolved in the best possible way. The characters always find the right emotionally impactful words in those right moments and it's simply a pleasant romantic fairytale with the fragile protagonist, Johnny Depp. It is too shallow and overly sweet for me, but I also don't consider it bad. It is a pleasant relaxing film that definitely does no harm. Overall impression: 55%.

The Master is in the category of movies that I am not sure how to handle. On one hand, one must acknowledge that it has a refined form, its director clearly knows what he is doing, and has talent and vision, and yet the film belongs to the category of intellectual pieces where the thought processes of the creators are difficult for a mere mortal to decipher. I don't know how to grasp The Master, I don't quite understand what Anderson wants to convey to me, and I simply don't know what the poet wants to say. The film features two top American actors, some of the best of their generation, both of whom, by the way, had or have complex characters and both are able to embody ambiguity in their roles. The film would be enriched if I knew where it was heading and what it was actually about. Is it about friendship? Definitely not. Is it about the dark demons lurking in the minds of many people? A little bit. Is it about the manipulation of the human psyche? Partially, but definitely not as much as one would expect from a film that clearly refers to the beginnings of Scientology and its founder. One would expect that the latter would be much more present, as the material provided all the prerequisites for it. Here, Anderson somehow gets lost in his images and scenes. The film, especially in the second half, becomes boring despite all its positives and does not fully utilize its potential. My 3 stars are mostly for P. S. Hoffman and for Joaquin Phoenix, from whom one can truly feel fear in certain scenes. In a short amount of time, he portrayed two completely different characters, referring to his performance in the movie Her. Overall impression: 55%.

You don't need to search for anything sophisticated behind the low rating given to Miranda. It is true that the sitcom humor this time felt somewhat forced and sweaty, but what matters is the impression that Miranda made on me. I could only bear to watch one episode, and since then, whenever I catch a glimpse of Miranda's physical shell and hear her unmistakable voice, a shiver runs down my spine and I switch to something else... Overall impression: 25%.

Some returns to the past should be avoided, so that one's sweet memories do not turn into dust and ashes. Sometimes the confrontation with reality is truly unpleasantly painful. I had the Pink Panther series fixed as a guarantee of pleasant entertainment and I gave titles that once made Peter Sellers a name in the film world a very high dose of stars. When I returned to this film years later, I have to say that I didn't feel any disappointment or even anger, which some contemporary films can evoke in me, but the feeling of good entertainment was not there. Inspector Clouseau is best characterized by the word 'tediousness'. Clouseau falls off the couch, out of the window, into the pool, and so on, and it could go on for a long time. Most gags, dare I say, the vast majority, are rather simplistic and infantile. The plot is simple, the acting performances nothing extraordinary, and Herbert Lom even overacts in my view. Yes, Sellers does what he is supposed to, but from my current perspective, his filmography was fundamentally different, whether it was Dr. Strangelove or Being There. It is very noticeable that this film was made in a different era, which still had problems with prudery and nudity, and many scenes exploited the lewdness that is understandably absent today. It is interesting that during the scene on the nudist beach, the cameraman and director managed to avoid practically all the sensitive parts of the human body at that time. That is perhaps the funniest thing I find in this film today. Overall impression: 40%.

This film is somewhere between 3 and 4 stars. I am leaning towards a higher rating because of the added value of the topic of immigration, which is very relevant today, saturated with hysteria and fear of the arrival of barbaric hordes. Ken Loach is well-versed in the field and his film has, I would say, a documentary dimension. It's a Free World... maps the issues of those who have no or only minimal rights and whose position allows them to do no more than take the dirtiest jobs that the inhabitants of wealthy Western Europe despise. Kierston Wareing didn't sit well with me, but ultimately her character is not meant to evoke sympathy, as her heroine is quite self-centered and inconsiderate in her pursuit of success. Overall impression: 70%.

Movies, just like people, age, and fortunately, The Valachi Papers does so gracefully. With some reflections on film history, I tend to feel a sense of bitterness and painful disappointment, but nothing similar happened here. Not everything runs as smoothly as it did when it was made, but the above-average casting saves a lot of the film. It is only evident what a difference there is between a true acting powerhouse, whom I consider Lino Ventura to be, and Charles Bronson, who, in my eyes, is simply a charismatic character actor who excels the most in the roles of silent killers with minimal facial expressions. Here, character acting is demanded from him, and sometimes Bronson falls short. The Valachi Papers certainly isn't among the best genre films of its decade, but it is still decent entertainment. Overall impression: 70%.