Introduction

1001 movies you must see before you die. Must I? Let's see.

My name is Dagmar and I am from Czech Republic. I have a bachelor's degree in screenwriting. I study movies. I watch movies. I write about movies. I kind of mention movies a lot. I even cross stitch things I like in movies. My views on cinema could be described as peculiar. My views on the "1001 movies" list as complicated. It happens a lot that I get the feeling it wasn't that necessary to see some particular movies. Sometimes I'm really grateful I saw them. And there are also times when I don't watch any new movies for six months straight. And they keep adding new movies every damn year so I might have to never die to watch them all.

What's the score right now?
606/1245 - That's 639 left to see.
I started this experiment on July 3rd 2009 and the latest update was made on April 19th 2023.

You can find the full list here.

Friday, 31 March 2017

Duck Soup (1933)

USA
directed by: Leo McCarey
written by: Bert Kalmar, Harry Ruby, Arthur Sheekman, Nat Perrin
starring: The Four Marx Brothers, Margaret Dumont, Raquel Torres, Louis Calhern
comment: 31st March, 2017

I think someone or something is keeping the source of amusement in this film as a secret from me. Some gags are comprehensible and functional, some feel a bit cheap to me and some are on their way to upset me - but what if I simply just don't get them? My auxiliary chart is set up this way: if it reminds me of Buster Keaton, it's surreal humour, if it resembles Chaplin, it's humanistic humour, and Harold Lloyd stands for family fun. And I have no idea where on my chart should I pin these brothers.

I feel like I don't understand the basis of their anarchy, if anarchies can even have bases. What is their starting point and where to they aim? Do they have moral high ground? Are they being political or are they just manufacturing fun? For example, Chaplin's The Great Dictator answers all my questions, whereas Duck Soup leaves my analytical little brain confused. Are they Monty Pythons of their time or are they more like predecessors of Sacha Baron Cohen? Did the viewer at the time of film's release understand their hidden intentions or there weren't any and I'm not supposed to wonder about these things? My oh my.

And by the way: Why are all the women wearing only tiny dressing gowns, visible bras and dresses with maximum cleavage showing? Because, you know, the men are only ever showing off their knees. And nobody gropes them in silence. Less underwear, more horseshoes, please.

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Arrival (2016)

USA
directed by: Denis Villeneuve
written by: Eric Heisserer + Ted Chiang (story)
starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker
seen: 28th March, 2017

Well, all right, the one main twist is rather good and I appreciate it. But I am not capable of perceiving Amy Adams as a positive heroine. Jeremy Renner is completely unutilized. And the same goes for the potential of this story. I would wish for the screenplay/tempo/message to be much more resolute, stark, definite, adamant. And put together with entirely different music, dear god. Away with all the shots of Louise waking up from her "dreams". I would maybe allow them to keep the very first waking up, but why do they continue to rehash the scheme without adding anything new?

I sometimes have trouble differentiating between commenting on what I saw and what I wish I would saw. In this case, I saw a series of meaningless, trendily aestheticized shots without justification. Not a single relationship shown on screen seemed believable. And here I am being negative again, so I guess I'll just stop and move on towards films that make me happy.