DaViD´82

I was expecting a visually striking duly filthy Gothic horror-styled chamber atmospheric depressive movie emphasized by Max Richter, which will seemingly be about nothing but under the surface you would feel a subliminal "Conrad" tension. And Hardy who is longing for revenge and plotting all the time will be growling from the very beginning till the end (and doesn't slip into a parody of himself), supported by British theatre star (especially by Jonathan Pryce, of course). Which is exactly what I got. The problem is that it has material for an excellent four-part miniseries and not for eight-hour monotonous episodes. Slow pace is not the main issue. The issue is that the creators completely fail to justify the length, but at the same time it cannot be said that you get bored. They still offer enough quality in each episode (apart from the above, there are several phenomenal scenes in each episode) to find a good reason to start another episode. The question is whether that is enough, especially when in the ending it gets exactly to the point that the viewer expects from the first episode.| S1: 3/5 |

An excellent family Spielberg horror that even children can watch. Well, I´m not completely sure. If I had watched this one at the age of six or seven, so I would have never been willing to sleep in my bed alone anymore. However, the film could have been much better if it had not been so intoxicated by the technical achievements and did not use effects only for effects´ sake, which today, however, inevitably seem ridiculous. What it lacks is timelessness and this disturbs the otherwise carefully constructed atmosphere. At the same time, when the creators are content with the murmur of television, the blue light behind the door, they sensitively know their parents about "Beast Behind the Curtain", a motionless clown toy by the crib (with an intruder poster in the background), Goldsmith's music. Practical effects or directly human remains, so it can be impressive even today. There is simply a certain contradiction in this, which is clearly seen in many aspects. This is most noticeable in the final half hour, when the regular final (Aťka Janoušková versus From beyond) and the closing take place. But instead of subtitles, the second part follows in the form of the second regular final, which, however, is made in a completely different mode. And both are excellent, although I much prefer the second one. The poltergeist should have been shorter, to rely less on "CGI" effects, and not to have such a noticeable discrepancy between Hooper's and Spielberg's visions. Even so (or because of that,) it is still a movie that you can easily find in every good ranking of the most important genre films. And there´s a clear reason for that.

It has its undeniable drawbacks (aptly described by many here), but it is also one of the better updates of the original (a neglected short story within the canon that gave rise to one of the greatest detective clichés). This time, it doesn't look like it's unnaturally incorporated into the action, but on the contrary, the whining padding (which works only thanks to the central acting duo) is built around it. The "(non) Sherrinford" conclusion is being heralded from the very beginning of the series. In this, unfortunately, it´s too easy to see Moffat and Gatiss through.

Most people have heard of Hamlet, even if they haven't seen it, because it sounds quite boring. So, what's it about? Well, I have seen it and it's about four hours long. Educational, explosive, deadly seriously funny, and in fact the most loving tribute to Shakespeare's legacy, which, for obvious reasons, brought them a lot.

A series safely riding the waves of a light dwarf above average, play it safe when none of the episodes is a letdown, but only one is memorable (as in the previous row, it is the third one). It thus makes us think of the golden age with something other than the prevailing nostalgia like the rest.

I completely and intentionally avoided having any hair for two decades. Not because it's a musical or maybe because of "display of long-haired guys" but because I once suffered watching a classic version. Which is basically a 90s, TV Nova pell-mell variety show where every single excellent but poorly arranged song was followed by at least two terrible ones (and of course poorly arranged too), moreover, the song was so obviously intrusively agitating that perhaps even the hippies would get annoyed. I never wanted to see it again, not even from Forman, though it kept bothering me "what the hell made him do this". After all, if I finally dared to watched. I would say that no other film proves Forman's greatness like this one. To be able make such a nonsense to have at least some meaning and as a result unexpectedly impressive story (you can read the original course of the plot on wikipedia), to focus only on (with one exception) performances, moreover not significantly stylized in terms of music, to change the order of songs, their singers and, in fact, almost everything, it is simply a proof that he could perhaps even transform Olmer's post-revolutionary works "into timeless classics".

It´s way too much for a musical, or perhaps it´s the other way around. Hard to say. In the first third, it is also a regular musical, where one well-directed musical scene in one shot alternates with another. But then the singing fades away and what remains is (and visually pleasingly beautiful) tribute to the technicolor era of Hollywood and classical jazz. Although still in the form of a music / dance film, but not a musical in the true sense. Or, conversely, there are too many songs and the opening third should also have done without them like most of the rest of the footage. But it should definitely have been fifteen or twenty minutes shorter. However, what saves the movie is the "we always have our beloved Paris" bittersweet ending. During this one, I would be willing to ignore every drawback.

I hope that once (Western) civilization falls, future historians will get a picture of the origin and meaning of Christmas throughout the ages based on Charlie, Philomena and McClane.

A conflicting mix of two completely incompatible approaches, coldly procedural movie with a Greengrass patina and biased "trade unionist" black and white in terms of characters. There are only two types of characters: hard-working good guys/heads of families, the only dirt on their character is grease (but it must be acknowledged that the Wahlberg / Russell duo manages this mode with honor) and viciously villainous white-collar management, which knows nothing and doesn't understand anything, casting menacing glances, counting every penny and making money from working rabble. Thanks to this polarization, it finds easy, unrealistic "who is to blame" solutions, which shamefully dulls the procedural line, which is otherwise presented excellently and credibly in itself, and is the film's strongest point. The final disaster (not catastrophic) third is appropriately impressive and properly explosive, but so frantically edited, when one shot follows the other even before the first ended, that this lack of clarity (probably intentional) almost make the viewer dull. On the whole, rather disappointing, from such a major event as the disaster at Deepwater. It would definitely have been possible to make more out of it than just a just a decent movie covering at the same time two different genres.

Silence before the storm being built step by step. But in the final, there is no even a thunder. No thunder, but no even lighting. That's basically enough anyway; especially when it nicely except for a few minutes, follows serious (in the Moffato-Gatissian sense) mode at the expense of the comedy (one would almost be afraid that it will be a Shercom and mime sitcom). It's on riding the "Bond" wave. However, both key levels are to some extent problematic. The crime line gets fragmented in a promising way into six directions (and plays with the Six Napoleons in the spirit of the opening series) to result in a point clear from the prologue, and no matter how the personal line is crucial, by being entirely from Sherlock's point of view and purely about it, so Watson, who is sadly lags behind, doesn't get enough space (and let's admit that Holmes without Watson in the book, is just not that good, let alone here). Because of this, the closing doesn't have the right driving force the creators intended. However, it has the potential for interesting lines for the rest of the series. Definitely the weakest episode so far, but not downright weak or futile, though perhaps too much on the verge of Mrs. Hudson with "Norbury".