DaViD´82

Technology is a good servant, but a bad master that will steal your soul, ok? It gives the impression that Pfister is a senile old man (while he’s so young) who would "ban all those internets!". And he decided to share this attitude with the world through this would-be “techno"-thriller where the attitude to everyday technologies is like that your great-great grand-father would have if you went back in time and tried to explain to him what the Internet, cloud computing, uploading/downloading is. This is all very unintentionally funny, little seen method, but this is paradoxically the most minor problem that Transcendence suffers from. Much worse it that in the second half, Pfister gains a thirst for pontification and so he starts preaching about the state of society, the world, the contents of your fridge, the heavens... Simply anything that happened to occur to him or bug him during filming. The only thing is that he’s really dumb in what he says and how he says it. If onto this “quasi-Malick-like" concept, you graft scenes like IT guys cum FBI agents jumping out of a tunnel in the middle of the desert, armed to the teeth to do a bit of ratatatat in the direction of some nano-zombies while spouting wisdom such as “don’t go near them or they will infect you with a virus and upload your mind to their cloud" (meant of course absolutely seriously), then there remains nothing else to do but shake your head in disbelief or beat the table with it or else just make cruel fun out of the creators. And that is the only level where Pfister’s debut works outstandingly well.

If you have a (very) young body at home (it really isn’t for girls) who can’t keep his eyes off cars, trucks, cement mixers, cranes and bulldozers, then you could do much worse in the field of series intended for the very young than with Bob the Builder who offers cute and clearly differentiated “this one does this and this one does that" vehicles to toddlers aged 18 months and up and for three-year-olds there is a little moral instruction which, unlike in similar programs for this age group, isn’t presented quite so stupidly. In this country, the series is spoiled by affected, infantile dubbing; it’s unwatchable. While the original is all-round fine in all respects.

A mildly grotesque Ladybug: A journey There and Back Again that would have made Sekor=s and Tolkien's hearts sing. And if you still have at least a glimmer of your childish self that could appreciate the whirlwind of naughtily instructive playful imagination, you will be no different.

A guilty pleasure of one generation; this time in animated form, but it is incredible to remember today what a huge event the movie version was at the time. Today it remains just a decidedly “wtf" picture with cult, unintentionally ridiculous choreography of the action scenes where the actors couldn’t move much inside their costumes and so just wave their arms and legs about and their opponents try to collide with their kicks and punches. And not always successfully, because in their costumes they couldn’t see a thing either. This is still entertaining almost a quarter of a century after it was filmed.

A series half-way between Scandinavian style and the overseas “precinct" approach to the genre. From the first of the above it borrows solving just one case per season and concentration on all of the concerned characters (the suspects, the investigators, the defense, the accused, the relatives and so on) as much as on the crime storyline. And from the second, it borrows the way in which the personal dramas are addressed; you will recognize the approach capturing the daily routine of one particular police station à la The Shield or NYPD Blue. And it’s not a bad attempt or just a makeweight because “the American viewpoint" succeeds in curing some of the maladies (and creating new ones) of the Scandinavian crime movie. Mainly the overcomplicated plot; here it doesn’t follow the cannon “every two episodes a new suspect appears". (hi thereThe Killing) and not even “bad guy whose plans miraculously work out exactly as he had planned.“ (hi there The Bridge). The case is quite down-to-earth and in many ways true to life. Which is also a disadvantage because it makes it standard and predictable and so you’ll probably see through the “who, how, why and how to convict them" much earlier than the authors had wished (like right at the beginning). In their defense, it must be said that the outcome is not what is most important, but it is the journey leading to it. But that unfortunately starts with a tragic pilot dowsed in clichés, emotional blackmail and dullness. The next two episodes are much better, but it’s not till the second half of the series that it matures into adulthood. The authors can thank mainly Cromwell and also Felton, without whose interpretation of the “American dream come true" which contains something dark, calculating and disturbing, it would have collapsed before it had a chance to get going. In the end it’s a solid crime movie true to its genre, but nothing more.

He's a sarcastically honest selfish guy with antisocial behavior at all times (read: a likable bastard like Hank Moody or Bernard Black), she's a crazy imp who doesn't know what she wants and is up for anything wicked. They're made for each other, but others can hardly get along with them in everyday life. Simply friends with benefits on a common path to a (perhaps someday) functional relationship. A sitcom (more like Britcom in many ways) that isn’t forced and is tremendously enjoyable in its irreverent approach to the material. For example, the fact that it is able to make “jokes" about sex during sex scenes without slipping into crude or cheap phrases. However, despite the alternative approach, it is still at its core mainly and above all a relationships show. Just really pithy and with a nice punch to it. The second season is longer and less balanced, but in addition to significantly weaker episodes, it also offers memorable ones, which are (so far) the best in the series. | S1: 4/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 3/5 |

The most sophisticated spy picture of all time. But beneath all the distant sleekness, it is seething. By focusing on "irrelevant" details, Alfredson is able to create a complex storyline that in other films would require long minutes of dialog and an explanatory voice-over monolog. Here, a stubborn silence is maintained, and only rarely a cursory sentence is uttered, seemingly about nothing. And that's the biggest positive (and for many, the biggest negative). If you're on the same page with the film, in the silent scenes where the two Englishmen look at each other over a cup of tea, you'll be on the edge of your seat, covered in sweat, because "you know he knows that him over there knows" and there's no need for it to be mentioned through dialog. If you don’t catch this movie train or if leaves without you then you'll have long minutes waiting for you, watching two Englishmen looking at each other with cups of tea in their hands, and you’ll get nothing out of it. The borderline is thin, but it separates one of the most powerful experiences of recent years from one of the most boring experiences of recent years. So, it is hardly a film for everyone, but at least because of the unusually confident and stylish “70s" directing, it’s worth seeing. Also because it is a prime example of how to adapt a complex and extensive book; it is not a slavish copy nor a mere illustration, but a real adaptation fully transformed into cinematic language.

The opening two thirds, riding on a wave of the intimate heist genre with a pick-and-mix band of villains, are excellent, self ridiculing and, in the current deluge of “let’s save our city/world/space/existence" DC/Marvel cartoons, refreshing. However at the very end, the hitherto absent Batman for some reason takes the reins and suddenly this turns into a standard “let’s save the innocent by doing a lot of pow, pow, bam". But when the action begins (and it isn’t bad at all), else is forgotten; and so that opening two thirds simply fade into nothing. In any case, it is nicely maturely uncompromising (within the bounds of a mainstream superheroes cartoon) and, for fans of the DC movie and comic universe and Rocksteady games, full of references and tributes.

This is no Dirty Dozen, but it trying very hard to be like the Dirty Dozen. But instead of finding its own way toward achieving that, he it merely copies its elusive role model blow by blow. And although it is worse than its prototype in every respect, this is still an entertaining, unrealistic wartime action movie which is considerably better than the official sequels to the Dozen.

Equally original and ingenious as it is unpolished, languishing in its aimless weirdness and with an unusually annoying voice-over that goes on and on, while not saying anything at all. You wouldn’t hear so much meaningless prattle even drinking coffee at a two-day Mills and Boon fans convention. Does the previous sentence seem senselessly convoluted, trying to be funny while saying nothing at all? If so, welcome to the world of Mike Hodges’ Pulp. Only Michael Caine holds it back from toppling over the edge of endurability.