gudaulin

The Terminal reminds me of a sweet and heavily praised lemonade in enticing packaging, which someone opens and leaves on the table for a week. It's simply too calculated and not very functional. Of course, Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones continue to be among the most likable actors of their generation, Spielberg knows his craft, and the film maintains a certain level throughout. It's predictable to the point of misery, except for the final resolution, which makes me wonder why Hanks actually endured that crazy stay at the airport. If I had been considering three stars until then, at that point I was definitively convinced to give it a lower rating. The resolution is, diplomatically speaking, naïve, but it leaves me with a far more expressive phrase on my lips. The overall impression is influenced by an inappropriately chosen level of stylization and exaggeration. The relationship between reality and the absurdity of what is seen simply jars. Furthermore, the slogging message of family values and human solidarity gradually pushes Spielberg to the very brink of kitsch. Perhaps the weakest creation that I have had the opportunity to see from his workshop... Overall impression: 45%.

An excellently written drama that raises very uncomfortable questions about morality, responsibility, guilt, and punishment. It is shortly after the Second World War and the Danish coast is infested with a huge number of mines. No one wants to risk the worst possible outcome while disposing of them, and the logical consequence is to call on prisoners of war. The soldier in charge of supervising the unit has no reason to be lenient towards the Germans - in fact, he wants to repay them for years of humiliation and suffering with interest. But at the end of the war, there were no experienced war veterans on the Jutland Peninsula, and the collapsing German Reich needed battle-ready men on critical sections of the front. To one soldier's surprise, he finds himself in charge of a group of young boys in military uniforms. His determination to humiliate and crush the prisoners begins to crack. The culprits of the war and the defeated side are clear, but how severe should the punishment be and who exactly should be guilty of paying it is no longer so clear. Land of Mine is a film that humanizes the enemy by showing their faces. It stands in opposition to the ancient eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality. At the same time, at the time when the story takes place, European countries were dealing with the problem of collaboration and minorities composed of members of defeated nations. Where passions could be tamed from the beginning and efforts for retaliation could be curbed, and where a stop to moral depravity was declared, they ultimately fared much better and resisted the allure of political radicalism. On the other hand, it is good to look at events and problems from all sides and to understand the motives of the supervisor, I would recommend watching films like The Pianist, Come and See, or Son of Saul. Overall impression: 95%.

Even a fleeting glance at George A. Romero's filmography suggests that he was a notorious B-movie director in the style of John Carpenter. However, Romero was more versatile and capable, at least from my perspective, of making a surprisingly decent piece of work that stirred up the horror genre. Romero was fascinated by the theme of zombies throughout his life, but they never seemed interesting to me, and for a long time I thought that a film about their world couldn't captivate me - until Zack Snyder came along and convinced me otherwise. He had much more drive and managed to give dynamism to the world of zombies, and his Dawn of the Dead is the only zombie film that I have ever given four stars. Even in his last foray into the world of the living dead, Romero couldn't surpass his limits, and the screenplay simply belongs to the category of dumb B-movies, where all the characters choose the dumbest path to achieve their goals and the situations are resolved in a "deus ex machina" style. I don't deny Romero's craftsmanship - after all, he had been in the industry for quite a long time, but a thrilling and clever spectacle is something completely different. Moreover, if there is something I truly dislike, it's when a film pretends to be something it's not. Romero tried to smuggle in social motifs and rebellion against the capitalist social order into his film, but regardless of the dysfunctionality of his world, he does it in a terribly superficial and actually ridiculous way. Overall impression: 40%.

"How many wells you got up there in Manhattan? Or Pittsburgh?" asks the disgusted inhabitant of a rural backwater to the business representative of a mining company who is urging the sale of land for the controversial method of gas extraction known as fracking. The problem lies in the fact that Promised Land is filmed through the lens of the residents of better neighborhoods in American cities, who do not have to deal with the problems of the less successful layers of American society and therefore do not have to accept painful compromises and capitulations. The tone of the film is openly influenced by the activist mindset of Matt Damon, which is particularly evident in the film's conclusion. Setting aside the attempt at an ethical message, what remains is a decently made, slightly above-average drama with an interesting screenwriting trick, but that alone does not secure a fourth star for the film. The film does not lack craftsmanship, but what it lacks a little is the courage to be more confrontational and darker. Overall impression: 60%.

The Oscars went to the right people. The Killing Fields is an extraordinary film (not only) in the contemporary context with excellent camera work, a strong story, and high-quality casting. It is not the fault of the creators that some people lack context. At that time, it was about fresh events when the genocide of the Khmer Rouge on their own nation shook public perception worldwide. With the passage of the decades, a political film has become a historical film. But that is an inevitable process. The story is not encrypted in any way, and to understand its background it is enough to read some basic information about Cambodia in the 1970s. The film depicts the meeting and developing friendship of an American reporter with his local guide during the height of the Indochina War. After the fall of the pro-American regime, foreign reporters leave the country, but the native interpreter gets caught up in the machinery of the ultra-left regime and survives only with great effort and a good dose of luck. The drama cannot overshadow the fact that it is directed by Western filmmakers and intended for a Western audience - a purely Cambodian approach to the material would be even more depressing, darker, and more hopeless. But certainly also more atmospheric. Even so, the shows us a number of extraordinary scenes of war chaos and the suffering of prisoners in reeducation camps and subjects of the regime. Joffé shoots in a documentary style, and you simply have to believe his depiction of the landscape exposed to horrors. Mike Oldfield's impressive sound design is also worth mentioning. Haing S. Ngor, an immigrant and non-actor, a doctor by profession, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as Dith Pran. It is certainly arguable that American bombardment of the landscape is responsible for the extreme brutality of the Khmer Rouge. However, significantly larger and more systematic bombings in Vietnam did not lead to the radicalization of the local regime. The repulsive nature of the Khmer Rouge regime is owed in part to the fact that their leaders drew inspiration from Maoism and Mao's Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Their profile also manifested through persecution by government authorities. Sihanouk was one of the typical oriental despots, and his secret police tortured and killed people on a whim. Overall impression: 90%.

Honestly, The Hitcher is as B-movie as they come. It doesn't bother with the psychology of the characters in the slightest. The logic of the actions of the individual characters is seriously flawed, and the timeline of events doesn't quite work either. This film is simply one of those that need to be taken as straightforward entertainment without much depth, without dwelling on it too much. However, it stands out from typical B-movie productions with its exceptional cast and outstanding performances, as Rutger Hauer feels right at home in these waters and truly knows what he's doing. Jennifer Jason Leigh is not just an ordinary ingénue but an excellent character actress, and it's easily noticeable on screen. And C. Thomas Howell delivers probably the best performance of his career, which had the potential to lead to greater success than eventually occurred. There is also the skillful direction that manages to surprise the audience despite some genre clichés. There is also some good atmosphere in several moments - the soaked Hauer getting into the car and the details of his face that immediately evoke emotions, or the view of a teddy bear followed by a grinning face - these are simply powerful movie moments that earn The Hitcher points. However, weaker moments follow, shooting down a helicopter with a pistol while driving fast can be overlooked with a smile, but the clichéd ending and the villain's disposal ultimately cost this film one star. Overall impression: 60%.

I have long lost any understanding of these types of productions, and the only adjective that comes to mind in connection with the film is "stupid." Even the timid hints of some atmosphere, which, however, fail due to the director's creative incapability and the demented script, are replaced with a completely linear massacre in the second half, which can only provoke aggression, but certainly not fear. In this film, nothing really makes sense, and it doesn't make sense to ponder too much about the logic of the plot. Overall impression: 10%. By the way, the attempt to graft some message about the danger of nuclear explosions and weapons of mass destruction onto this madness is completely out of place considering the quality of what is shown...

The three Oscars won accurately reflect the strengths of the film. The excellent production design that transports the viewer to England in the second half of the 19th century, convincing period costumes that evoke a sense of absolute authenticity, and the traditionally reliable camera are all typical pillars of Polanski's films. This director has been one of my favorites from the beginning and I'm used to him usually piquing my curiosity and guaranteeing my attention. That is, until now... Unfortunately, the nearly three-hour runtime is noticeable. In terms of drama, the film functions significantly worse, and I would attribute that to Thomas Hardy. The classic English author wrote novels for a different time, and I admit that although I managed to decipher Russian classics in my time, I could only read Hardy with a gun pressed to the back of my head. Turning it into a three-part miniseries would have been much more suitable for adapting a novel with only minimal strong emotional scenes. Nastassja Kinski is charming, innocent, romantic, appropriately naive, and simple-minded in the role of a Victorian girl. Tess and her chosen one are portrayed by Hardy as nothing more than helpless victims of Victorian prudish official morality (of course, there was also its other side, probably never so distinctly shown anywhere as the stark difference between publicly proclaimed restraint and taboos on sex and base reality. In London at the time the novel was published, one prostitute accounted for every seven men, and it was no different in other urban centers like Manchester or Liverpool). However, from Hardy, who had a tendency to idealize society and especially the countryside, nothing else can be expected. It has never happened to me before, with Polanski, that I would even momentarily consider giving a film of his only two stars, but I was unable to watch Tess in one sitting, which speaks for itself. The film fails to evoke stronger emotions and unfolds predictably, perhaps with the exception of the completely unnecessary violent death in the inn room, which, however, seems absurd in the context of the story. In his attempt to do the best job possible, Polanski somewhat fell into the trap of film academism, but so be it, I forgive him. Overall impression: 55%.

The world of secret services, complex conspiracies, masonic lodges, and organizations operating in a sphere that dislikes unwanted eyes. The world of secret couriers, agents, informants, executioners, and their victims. One mistake, one unfortunate case of mistaken identity, and a witness who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to have much fun. Instead of fear of torture or death, they face fear of the unknown and get entangled in a strange labyrinth of incomprehensible intrigues, peculiar relationships, and conspiracies. Lino Ventura, who is sparing in his expression, is convincing even in this somewhat atypical role. However, I have a problem with the screenplay, which, in my opinion, succumbs too much to purposeless enigmatic elements. Moreover, Deray as director is not the best choice for having an absurd dark Kafkaesque atmosphere. Overall impression: 65%.

A very decent above-average comedy for its time, which parodies the clichés of the detective stories of that era. It's one of those films from the Protectorate that still works today and presents a pleasant memory of movie stars of that era. The cast is truly excellent and the script is functional and funny. Overall impression: 70%.