gudaulin

I'll put it plainly - the vast majority of so-called American teen comedies are crap: poorly cast, badly acted, vulgar, and desperately unimaginative, all following a tired formula. Objectively, this film is no gem either; it relies on familiar clichés, the characters' behavior is entirely predictable, and the resolution can be guessed within the first ten minutes. However, it does have a pleasant and effective cast (both leads demonstrate why they later became stars) and maintains a certain level of quality. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Overall impression: 45%.

Greenaway's film is one of those rare cases when, despite my undeniable stinginess, I would be willing to leave the movie theater after half an hour and forget the money because I saved a bit of my increasingly scarce time. The question is: is it possible to make a film that is supposed to deal with the dark sides of the human soul, sexuality, and the lives of wealthy people unrestricted by social conventions in an unbelievably boring way? Yes. Greenaway proves that with a little effort, it can be done. If I were a producer, I would rather burn the money in the fireplace than invest it in a similar spectacle. It is an immensely self-centered and difficult-to-digest film, primarily intended for the festival circuit audience, for the small circle of true intellectuals, and a considerably larger circle of those who think they are intellectuals so that they can eagerly debate the hidden meanings of the film after seeing it. At the beginning, one character asks another: "Do you think leading directors make their films to satisfy their sexual fantasies?" - the other replies: "I think most of them do." If Greenaway made this film to satisfy his sexual fantasies, then he is a very boring and eccentric patron. This film is neither provocative nor spicy, and in no way is it true to life, because I have encountered a fair number of bizarre characters, sociopaths, and nutcases, but I have never come across anything remotely similar to these film characters. Overall impression: 5%.

The attribute 8 MM deserves above all is EFFECTIVE. The story from the porn industry is appropriately brutal and repulsive in its subject matter, with a range of twisted characters from the gallery and the decadent environment of high society. The film is energetic and attractive due to the positive hero played decently by Nicolas Cage, complemented by a diligent improved sidekick, and several very skillfully crafted scenes. Overall, it has a depressing tone, which led to exceptionally great commercial success and acclaim from movie fans. It's not Joel Schumacher's best film, but it ranks among the better ones in its genre. Overall impression: 70%.

A glimpse into the lives of people involved in the showbiz scene in L.A. A pleasant and intelligent comedy about how you can't outrun aging, and you can't step into the same river twice. It's a mosaic of human destinies that, despite the multitude of motifs, works surprisingly well. Beverly D'Angelo is simply charming as the sexually "ravenous" millionaire. The film's aesthetics clearly set it apart from the usual productions of major American studios. Overall impression: 85%.

A stylishly polished spectacle, perhaps the most visually interesting piece by Tim Burton. The choice of props and sets, along with the makeup of the actors and the lighting of scenes, intentionally creates an almost theatrical atmosphere, paying homage to the classic horror films of the 1930s. Excellent performances by Johnny Depp, the devilishly repulsive Christopher Walken, and the sweetly fragile Christina Ricci. The charming jokes shamelessly belittle my beloved rational enlightenment and pay tribute to the world of myths and fairy tales. Overall impression: 95%.

Not as desperately childish and hopelessly naive as Buffy, which doesn't mean it's adult and mature. A world of demons, devils, and vampires set in the present and primarily intended for American teenagers. Overall impression: 35%.

Arlington Road is a conflicting film that is based on the highly traumatic events surrounding the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the mid-90s. It features a very decent cast and a typically Hollywood screenplay with several shocking revelations and plot twists. Herein lies the first hitch because the screenplay is somewhat overcomplicated. The initially very effective plot is, in fact, too dependent on the assumed actions of the victim, and a small hitch would be enough to foil the plan. Real conspiracies have simpler blueprints. The second problem lies in the core of the film - it speculatively assumes the existence of a deeply secretive and highly effective terrorist group that commits a horrifying attack. It is as if the film was made at the request of a police or secret service chief to increase their department's budget. It only creates psychosis, more surveillance cameras in the streets, greater powers in surveillance, and loss of privacy. The actual bombing in Oklahoma City was done by amateurs and succeeded due to the shameful underestimation of security measures and risks by far-right groups. Overall impression: 55%. The strongest scene of the film is the opening when a severely injured boy stumbles down an abandoned street...

This documentary was practically created as a tribute to the work of a group of documentarians who recorded nuclear weapons tests before their ban. Since it lacks that activist moralistic tone, the result is even more interesting because it is not possible to suspect the creators of trying to cheaply influence and scare us with militarism, and yet it is very effective in revealing the deformation of the psyches of scientists, soldiers, and all those involved in feverish armament and the development of weapons of mass destruction. You'll hear sentences like "They woke me up and said I would be filming right at the epicenter of the explosion, but not to worry because the detonation would happen 3.5 km above ground." "What protective measures will I have?" I asked. "None, of course." This will make you feel chilled and you'll perceive the madness of the entire era of statesmen and generals. Overall impression: 65%.

American Beauty became a huge hit when it came out in the United States, captivating both audiences and critics alike. It is considered by many to be the best American film of the 90s. Despite being Sam Mendes' first major film, it is surprisingly mature, skillfully crafted, and showcases his theater experience and talent for casting and directing actors. On the other hand, I never had the feeling that I was watching a great film. I got the impression that it was gliding on the surface, without going deep into the roots of behavior or showing the causes of events. Instead, it creates somewhat stereotypical caricatures instead of fully developed characters. It doesn't present any solutions, and all the characters behave conventionally, with their rebellion being completely harmless and stemming from morally debatable positions. Despite all this, it is still one of the significantly better films created in the 90s, and it is worth seeing. Overall impression: 80%.

The defense's challenge to the defendants: admit your guilt, and show remorse, and the judge will be lenient toward you, and you will receive a minimum sentence, about 40 years without parole. A different country, different customs, and different criminal code. Two Czech boys learned that when they received 50 years in prison. In Europe and the States, there are legends about the Thai justice system, but it cannot be said that draconian punishments can truly reduce crime and limit drug trafficking. Thanks to the testimony of one Czech prisoner, who was able to return home, we have a fairly good idea of how things work in Bangkok with foreign inmates. Both the girls in the film had it somewhat easier, like movie heroines, because the United States managed to negotiate special conditions for their convicted citizens - much to the outrage of other foreign prisoners. Although it is a solidly acted thriller, it is nowhere near the top rankings of its genre, as it lacks a quality direction and screenplay, and essentially represents only a better average. Jonathan Kaplan tries to spice up his film with uncertainty about the level of guilt of his characters, who naturally play the usual game of the accused and convicted, claiming a judicial error or conspiracy. However, only having one truly excellent scene at the end does not make it an exceptional drama. The most interesting aspect of Kaplan's film is probably the presence of then-emerging stars of the television screen and the silver screen, Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale. Overall impression: 65%.