Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
General (2019–2020)
2/10
"The war belongs to the past, let's all together turn towards the future."
29 January 2020
Those were the words of General Ante Gotovina when he arrived back in Croatia, having been freed by the Hague Tribunal, when the previous verdict was found to be completely unfounded on appeal. He remains a divisive figure in a way, with the final sentence creating resentment among most of the Serbian populace, who still consider him to be a war criminal, but also a feeling of redemption among the Croatian populace, which nearly universally considers him to be innocent.

Gotovina heeded his own words. He refused to be involved in politics, seemingly happiest away from the spotlight. However, a certain part of Croatian society, Croatian politicians, some other spheres, simply refuse to - as the war of independence is the thing that they gain their legitimacy and importance from and it gives them excuses (flimsy but sufficient for a certain segment of the populace) for their misdeeds and corruption in the present. Now, several generations who were born after the war, never having experienced it directly, they are having children of their own... Facing only with second-hand info, they "have" to be brainwashed, certain figures need to be glorified (Franjo Tudjman, in particular is being rehashed as being a much more positive character than he actually was in the media), whitewash has to be performed. And because of that, this atrocity was forced to happen, without the main character's input. As a state project even, with the state, numerous state companies, counties, even some poor ones sponsoring the movie / series. And who would be "best" to do such a movie than Antun Vrdoljak, ever the court film director, be it the Communist Party's or the Croatian Democratic Union's, now in his late 80's, for his last project.

That's the background. Now... onto the series itself. And the first episode, depicting Gotovina's early life, on an idyllic quaint Dalmatian island, but wanting to escape Yugoslavia. As a Croat, as a Dalmatian, I was always appalled how post-independence directors and actors, somehow frequently making movies on islands, treated the Chakavian language/dialect spoken there, even the distinct Dalmatian Shtokavian vernacular - not even bothering to make characters sound ANYTHING like anything that's spoken in those areas. Vinko Bresan is a frequent offender, but the first episode of General is an insane extreme. As if there were no actors from those areas, continental actors were used who either wouldn't or couldn't do their job properly. So we have the "young Gotovina" and his best friend, whom he grew up with, sounding like people from two different parts of Croatia, neither of which is within a few hundred kilometers from the place they are supposed to be from. Extremely unprofessional, annoying and good enough only for the least demanding of watchers... which is apparently the target audience. And almost every "Dalmatian" character is like that, bar a few exceptions (the late Robert Budak who at least tried and did fairly fine, for example). And they aren't the only caricature - just the biggest one. If that was the biggest problem in the movie, jarring though it was, the series wouldn't be scored this low. However, it is, with good reason.

From the first to the last episode, the cringe is eternal. Melodramatic, pathetic, without a single break in nearly every scene. Gotovina is repeatedly and repeatedly, ad nauseam depicted as being saintly in his religiousness, pure of thought - Vrdoljak making a point of establishing that he's also definitely not gay, not even knowing what that is for some reason, not knowing what "cocaine" in a now famous scene.Every "non glorious" detail of Gotovina's life is omitted entirely - always the moral vertical, never failing as a soldier/leader, always an inspiration, blaming himself for the failures of others. It also tries to incorporate his womanizing (maybe even adultery as he's reminiscing about his wife and daughter in one scene and then making out with a journalist in the other) as a highly positive trait, failing miserably, as in love scenes, the writing is particularly awkward.

Oooh yeah, the writing, the wooden "classic theater" acting of a good percentage of the cast only makes the childish, sloppy, unrealistic writing / dialogues surreal in their melodrama. It frequently ventures into "so bad it's hillarious" territory - which is what kept a lot of viewers going. Croatia's answer to The Room - though I'm fairly sure that Tommy Wiseau would be able to improve on most of this. It tries to tug on (Croatian) heartstrings and either fails miserably in the start or ruins any fledgling warmth/pride/whatever it aims at by going, well. It cannot help shoot itself in the foot. All the time.

You see, Vrdoljak is extremely sloppy in his old age - not even bothering with continuity, fixing plot holes, well, details. So you have the completely fictional "Banat German" officer / Gotovina's mentor who is only there for Vrdoljak to bemoan the oh so "non-understandable" communists' treatment of Volksdeutsche post WW2, somehow speaking modern Serbian. He is played by Rene Bitorajac - whose name, despite being a famous actor in Croatia is misspelled in the 15th second of the first episode (!!). Bitorajac is the same age as Visnjic - and is supposed to play a character who's supposed to be nearly 30 years Gotovina's senior. No attempts are made to convey that though. You have the modern Gucci bag which is the property of Zulu, played by Navojec, roughly 70kg (150ish pounds) heavier than the person he's supposed to portray - so yes, you have a fat spec-ops soldier... You have a taxi driver "not taking Serbian dinars" - at the time when Yugoslav dinars were very much still the currency in Croatia. A slew of other details. The goofs list here can be filled up easily, if someone decides to take up that monumental task.

Technically, it's dated - looks and feels like some 80's "telenovela", particularly the second episode. Special effects are used sparingly, making for some extremely short and entirely unconvincing fight scenes, and the music is cheesy and pathetic, in line with the rest of the movie. The worst thing? An enormous amount of taxpayers' money was spent on the movie/series. ENORMOUS. Actors were apparently hugely overpaid - which is good for them, as some likely needed that financial boost in the struggling Croatian scene, not that most of them deserved it looking at the acting here...

This dated propaganda series will only be non-ironically appreciated by the least demanding, least intelligent, least informed audience, politicians to whom they might be drawn and some army officials / characters from the war whose vanity it played to (through suck-up character cameos). Nobody else.

Vrdoljak, having filmed his last overpriced teenage fanfic, now belongs to the past, let's all together finally turn towards to the future.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zagrebulje (1970 TV Movie)
5/10
A cringey holiday special, nothing more, nothing less
2 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Well, there were certainly huge expectations when this episode was "found by chance in the national television archives - presented with much fanfare as the "forbidden" episode of Malo Misto which was hidden away for 48 years ever since it premiered, banned after it was screened for the first time because it criticized the authorities etc.

Well, it's not a proper episode by any means, it's a holiday special made fror the New Year's Eve program of TV Zagreb (now Croatia's national television, HRT), chronologically set some time randomly before the last episode, or not really, as there is some mild breaking of the fourth wall. In any case, it follows Dr. Luigi & Bepina as they travel to Zagreb, their train ride, their walk around Zagreb, a chance encounter with Roko & Andja, with Luigi reminiscing of his days in Zagreb as a young man, where he met and knew a ton of famous people.

Now, it works at times, the actors doing very much fine, but the script... OK, so much is written about the "criticism of the government etc.". First, it comes as a strangely ham-fisted remark by Bepina, lacking subtlety and cohesion with the rest of the dialogue (a remark how nothing's good in the country), continues with a legitimate critique of people who "don't do their work and get paid for it", with the others being more about Zagreb's symbols being removed/treated badly - them going from place to place saying how this has changed, how that has changed - making somewhat more sense. It's somewhat bold, perhaps, but can partly be boiled down to reminiscing on how times have changed. Though, honestly Smoje, a left-wing patriot and a level-headed, sensible man, had no qualms with criticizing/mocking the... needless and less sensible acts of the government - regardless of his political leanings - and he has done bolder than this.

The humor and the charm of the original series and their characters works at times, but the humor is often forced and not as inspired as before, with the main detractor being the fact that Luigi was turned into an all-out lecher, perpetually horny (as is Roko, though he gets far less screen time), perhaps, which just isn't cute or funny at any point, a running joke that wears its welcome out fast. The interplay between characters works at times, at others... less than in the original. And then everything devolves into barely-linked random and sub par musical numbers, a very much cringe-inducing can-can routine with Luigi in the middle and then it fizzles out. Luigi's namedropping of everyone famous who was in Zagreb during some vague period and talk on how he partied with them just doesn't work either, it's forced and adds further cringe. Bepina's "winning" more arguments here, shows some emancipation at times, but ultimately stays very much and fully the good old gullible, eternally loyal Bepina.

Interestingly, it's fully respectful of Zagreb's culture and history, a tribute to it of sorts coming from Dalmatia, not lampooning any aspect of it at all. The characters ARE after all guests. But still, it creates a sort of an unintended? "plebs from the province visiting the cultural metropolis" feeling at moments which I'm not sure works in a series like this, in fact, supporting negative stereotypes about Dalmatians in a way too (self-deprecating humor on one side, the other side not touched upon at all), but hey, guess it was playing to the public there...

I simply don't buy that it was banned because of Smoje's critique. It's simply put the worst thing Smoje and Marusic have done. By bounds and leaps. It just sucks, it takes beloved characters and makes them act unnaturally and unconvincingly in a bad way. It makes you warm inside (Luigi's mutterings for example), which is the goal of specials like this, then kills the feeling by bad writing (the comment that the script was "ispastrocan" in the opening credits is very much spot on.

It's more like the creators (and the television that aired it) were ashamed of it for being bad and wanted it to disappear because it's bad, and now it's being brought back partly for political reasons - to demonstrate "how everything was censored in Yugoslavia" - something beaten by the very fact that this was, indeed, aired. I'm somewhat glad I've seen it from a completist perspective, but, really, it should've stayed buried and forgotten.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
There's promise, ends up being closer to a disaster
1 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Before watching this, I'd encountered mixed reviews for the movie, from raves, through "meh, it's was OK", to "absolute sh*t". Now... my opinion in the end is somewhere between the last two categories, and I'll explain why shortly...

Someone mentions "authentic acting"... Oh really? Yeah, I guess it might pass as authentic to someone without ANY knowledge of the setting it's supposed to be in. Almost NONE of the actors make any attempt at sounding like any Croatian islander -> to someone from someone from another part of Croatia, to whom everyone in Dalmatia, despite its obvious linguistic variety and abundance of dialects, "sounds the same", yeah, it would be OK as it's a mishmash of whatever the actors think sounds Dalmatian, but to someone aware of how it's supposed to sound, it ends up being as "authentic" and "genuine" as someone suddenly doing a gangsta rap in the middle of a movie set in the Victorian period, only without the comic potential. Even if he did that so that it wouldn't sound like "any island in particular", it sounds like "no island ever, possibly, with a dash of the Tower of Babel, as no two sound alike".

It's a problem that has plagued the Croatian cinematography incessantly ever since, ironically, its independence, and Brešan, unfortunately IS one of the torchbearers of that notion, that echoes even today through abysmal trainwrecks like Larin Izbor... but that's a different story altogether.

Even after 16 years, Brešan seems unable to deviate from his "island + simple people + a "village idiot" (this time a "generic insane woman" and not a "generic dimwit", but it boils down to the same thing) + a comedy that grows into (or in this case, degenerates) a tragedy + "everything that's funny is revealed or hinted at in the trailer, so the true laughs are rare in between" with just a dash of "aftereffects of the war" formula, while still not understanding how the islands sound and function, viewing them from an almost colonialist perspective. Clichés are thrown around early on to establish an "atmosphere" and the main character, the likable Mikić is one the rare few whose acting might feel right or genuine, as he's not really supposed to be from the village, established to be an outsider of sorts...

There is some good humor in here, however, ranging from subtle background stuff, body humor, to almost obvious gags (that don't aaallways work) and it almost seems like he'd thrive in an all-out farce, and that makes the "tragedy" bits all the more banal. They feel tacked on, forced, thrown in with no grace, just to drive in a point.

The movie pokes fun and/or attacks a lot of aspects the Catholic church and clergy, in Croatia or in general, while not really religion itself, on many fronts, with varying success. One might not say the church itself, just the corruption inside it... Some stuff works, some doesn't... Some is subtle, some isn't. The hypocritical "enemies in public but friends / identical privately" aspect of (Croatian) politics is also mocked... The efficiency of the humor and its parody value varies from viewer to viewer I guess.

I just hope that Brešan tries to experiment for once and tries to put a movie in another setting. If he's trying to draw attention to the islands, and their problems, he's just doing it wrong, ignoring or not understanding their culture. Completely wrong. The sad thing is that most people won't notice. And who can blame them when they've only been served stuff like this.

This could've and should've been better.

PS. The geography of the place also makes no sense at first glance, at least if we assume that people can't walk over water. It just looks bad at times, with characters entering the scene from a direction they simply shouldn't come from. I could be wrong and I'll gladly edit this if it turns out that I'm mistaken.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Eh....
21 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK, first thing's first.

This doesn't have the budget of your average fantasy movie, so don't expect good effects or masks or settings all the time. They fit 2 books of material into 3 hours of film so a lot was cut - understandable and all things considered, well enough. Colour of Magic is not the most interesting / best written of his books to begin with - which doesn't diminish its importance in the grand scheme of things, but hey, it doesn't help anything. All that considered, it's well done and I can appreciate it.

But some things I can't get over.

For example... the cast. The fact that David Jason and Sean Astin are fans of the book, made me like them even more. But man... Rincewind ISN'T OLD. OR FAT. You don't go and change the appearance of the most recognizable character from a very well known series and change his appearance and back story drastically so that it would fit the actor playing him :/. Heck, even in the playback he's neither ginger nor looking like the marathon runner he is. I don't buy Twoflower as an American too... And the Librarian... one of the best characters of the novels is, despite everything shown extensively as a human, and an irritating, neurotic one to boot. And as an ape... he's downright creepy. There's one exception -> Cohen does look like himself, I'll give you that. There are more completely unnecessary discrepancies but I don't care to continue with naming them all.

To sum it up, David Jason as Rincewind, despite being a great actor that I respect a lot, kills the movie for me. And it's NOT his acting's fault (even if I've seen better performances from him and feel like he was overacting in some ways), it's just the way he looks. I can't imagine Rincewind like that. It's just not him.

And the humor, OK, so that's subjective, but I've found that the "old" one works only occasionally in here and the newly added stuff is groan or face-palm inducing in all situations bar one (Death's last comment of the movie got a smile from me). Some things look really shoddy too, but I'll "blame" that on the budget and not take it against the movie.

Strange that Pratchett would allow some these... but who knows. CoM (more) and LF (less) ARE apart in some ways from the canon he created later on to begin with. It might be OK if you look at it in that way.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well shot remake with a nice soundtrack. Yet...
29 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I might not be the most unbiased reviewer here. I met with the series not by reading the book but by stumbling onto the Swedish original movie when it came out, liking it, but being disappointed by the sequels. Moreover, I've only gotten to reading (and finishing) the book the day before and the day when I watched the movie. So the memory might be too fresh not to cause interference with the movie itself. I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of a remake to begin with. The concept is just unnecessary. Catering to "people" who are too lazy to read subtitles. So yeah, the industry does seem to actually make an effort recently. At least with high-profile stuff like this one. The cast is impressive and it's directed by Fincher. Hey! Fincher! The soundtrack is by Ross and Reznor too! I'll put it bluntly. It was dumbed-down where it shouldn't have been, diluted and rehashed in places where it wasn't necessary. Some of the characters are more simplified and hey! Why not rehabilitate the Nazi bad guy and make him just misunderstood. And then repeat Larssons's biggest gaffe, the mislead (and here I'm restraining myself from expletives) mentioning of "arms trade with the Ustaše" from the 90s. For the misinformed, NO SUCH THING EXISTED IN THE WAR IN EX-YUGOSLAVIA. Except in Serbian propaganda of course. Larsson should've known better, being what he was (his usage of that term is therefore even more baffling), and, in the end, should one expect from filmmakers to review his writing? It IS, in the end, a pretty heavy insult. Yeah, it's well shot, yeah, they actually set it in Sweden, with some people actually getting the pronunciation names, surnames and places right, some neat touches like papers in Swedish, etc. The soundtrack rocks, effort has been made. And yet... it didn't win me over and I actually felt that the viewers are being patronized at times ("ooh magical hacking" for example), not something I care for. My memory might be playing tricks but the most memorable scene of the Swedish movie - Lisbeth's revenge, seemed completely dumbed-down for me. And what the hell? Did they make that sadist show something that seemed like remorse before he was tasered? Why? Why was pretty much every bad guy in the movie made more, well, human? Product placement? Sure, the book itself had plenty of that actually, intentionally or not. Not the stuff that ended up in the movie like Coke and McDonalds but hey, what was to be expected? As I said, I'm hardly unbiased, but I did watch it hoping that my suspicions and fears would turn out to be unfounded. They weren't. However, I find myself unable to judge how someone who's not familiar with the series, both in book and movie form, Sweden and some of the references would like it.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Why did we bother with this...
1 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So ummm, OK, I went to see this expecting a low budget trash firm, worth a couple of laughs at its expense, maybe along with it too. And that it delivered.

That doesn't change the fact that it's most of the time simply too insultingly dumb to be fun.

So there you have Baldwin probably trying to play Till Lindemann playing a constipated yet muscular/trigger happy university professor. You have Bulgarians trying to play Italian and the least convincing Italian turns out to really be Italian. Whoa.

Trying to list everything that's, erm, idiotic? about the movie would take all day. Let's just list some (another spoiler alert). Baldwin's character needing assurance if the guy he saw ripped in half survived or not. Mafia guys just multiplying in thin air (mitosis?). Police chasing armed villains running unarmed through the same corridor over and over again (the villains & Baldwin do the same, mind you). Baldwin losing a leg apparently and then growing it back (miraculous recoveries galore!). Sharks growing too big to escape the channels (WTF) yet small enough to fit into spaces for which people think are too small for them to pass. Reusing of scenes and props in general to a painful extent. Etc. etc. etc.

The random "shark attack" scenes are crap, but really funny crap, so ludicrously unbelievable that they are actually enjoyable and the best part of the movie.

Dunno why I'm giving this a 2. Really don't know. Visually, musically, story-wise, it's abysmal.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Buza (1988 TV Movie)
8/10
Way better than expected.
22 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Filmed around 1988/1989, this movie manages to do what many movies in the decades that followed - paint a more or less genuine portrait of a Dalmatian town (Split in this case) as it once was. The mentality of certain types of people to which the main characters belong is spot on, a bit of a caricature, but genuine, as anyone who lived there can verify, with all their positive and negative sides.

Apart from Buža touches, if lightly (far from a full out attack) and far from centrally, upon subjects that only a few years later would become taboo in some aspects(pedophiles inside the catholic church for example), as the church grew nearly untouchable in free Croatia, especially since it was made for TV Zagreb, which, after becoming the Croatian national television had and still has a policy of censorship.

What raises this movie further are the persistent and painful failures (and, frankly, an overall lack of care) of the movies that followed in the nineties at mimicking (or even at trying to mimic), say, the dialects of the parts of Dalmatia the movies were set (imagine a group of actors playing genuine Scotsmen while speaking with Irish, Cockney, Geordie and Jamaican accents a dialogue made Scottish by adding clichés and written by someone who has no real idea how Scottish sounds in reality, without all of that being an intentional joke? That's pretty much the Croatian cinema of the 90's in a nutshell and it still hasn't improved all that much). Even high profile, "good" movies suffered from that (Maršal, Kako je počeo rat na mom otoku etc. etc.).

Not that I should be writing this on a site laughably unwilling and unable to comprehend even the difference between, say, the Croatian and Serbian language systems.

It's a simple feel-good movie, hardly enlightening, far from hilarious as a comedy (though some things do inspire chuckles), but more "daring" than many that followed, with some genuinely good acting from Vidović and Guberina. A window into a world that dies more and more in a town whose own culture has been almost assassinated nowadays. And I'm proud more than ever to have met the late director of it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Going Postal (2010)
6/10
Probably deserved better
19 April 2011
So one of better recent Terry Pratchett books get converted into a miniseries/3 hours movie? As a huge Pratchett fan I should be thrilled... or should I? I'll try to keep it short. Basically, they did a more or less good job of making a random Victorianoid adventure movie with light fantasy elements. They failed at making a Discworld movie.

Ankh Morpork simply isn't Ankh Morpork. Not just for the lack of dwarfs and trolls. It misses nearly all the elements that make it special. It could be nearly anywhere.

Acting was generally good, with some really good performances to lift everything to a higher level, and casting was generally good as well. There are exceptions to both though.

The costumes? Unsure on the golems, but the vampire and the banshee are just silly.

Too many liberties have been taken with the script, Pratchett's legendary humour is rarely well replicated. The movie even gets slightly shoddy at some times (obvious unpolished cuts).

I'm sure that the budget wasn't brilliant and the movie has its' own merits - it's highly approachable by those who don't know anything about Discworld. But for a fan, it'll be a disappointment on more than one level.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Somewhat shoddy but actually interesting in a way.
21 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The movie isn't as bad as I thought it would be after first 10 minutes or so. There are English dialogues (translated shortly afterwards by a Russian narrator which makes it hard to follow) and most Russian dialogues actually have English subtitles. It can be watched but it can be frustrating, especially in the needlessly chaotic beginning (actually makes more sense "all hell breaks loose"). The movie does well to describe a situation where a bunch of military prisoners (hardly anyone much over 20) takes over a muddy, dark underground prison facility, completely surrounded by hostiles, with no way out, abandoned by their own, unable to trust anyone outside, and torn from the inside by severe differences in character. It's hardly a stunner but does its job well despite several annoyances and some illogical bits. Much better than the "Escape From Afghanistan" dubbed reissue I reckon.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enthiran (2010)
4/10
A look from someone unfamiliar with the local culture...
21 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Unnecessary random silly music numbers that stretch the movie to an arduous three hours. Childish, unfunny and, generally, dumb humor (you do get some laughs, but mostly at the movie and unintentional, like when that girl gets run over... (yeah, quality black humor right there, call me evil or something)). Plenty of other issues that I'll just blame cultural differences for instead of calling the movie plain dumb. Acting from absolutely horrendous to passable. Groan-inducing references to other movies. So what's good? Well, huge respect to the choreographer(s). The movie was generally well shot. The action scenes, while sometimes completely silly (the regenerating men in the train fight), can sometimes look good, be thrilling, and they are generally fun and well executed, better than in a lot of Western movies. They, like the effects, can go from brilliant to what-the-f**k in seconds though. A fruit of much effort, it fails miserably for trying to do and be too many things at the same time, and by doing those things badly. Plucked out of it's context, it fails even more. I don't regret watching it though, it was an interesting experience.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed