DaViD´82

The concept of Cimrman's Záskok (ten golden rules of non-acting, Hamlet without Hamlet, etc...you know, what I mean) in a British interpretation and played out ad absurdum. And even further. I mean much further. It is extremely funny without exception, packed with one-liners and with some gimmicks. And so, in the “Tennessee Williams" episode, the set designers didn’t understand that 90 degrees is related to weather, not the position of the set, and in another episode they mix up the scale, enter the set during dramatic scenes, etc. On top of that, you have actors with top comedy timing (and stunt training) who play amateur actors with a really straight face; they forget the script, do not understand the allusions, look at the audience, exaggerate their accents... Well, above all this there is another level, when in every episode there is a deliberately failed and misunderstood adaptation of the traditional drama genre; southern drama, gothic horror, Christmas story, “Austen story", court drama or war/spy drama. Some are damn good, while others are just good. Some jokes are repeated across performances, but thanks to the running time, you will fortunately not become bored by them. However, there are several parts in each episode when you won’t stop laughing. Even the worst episode is still a fast-paced, above-average comedy. But there is also the third “judicial" episode and... And I'm really wondering if I've ever seen a funnier half-hour containing that many running gags. It is so incredibly good that it can be put on the pedestal of the “funniest performance" next to the Czech stage play Záskok. And that means a lot.

#MeToo goes to (synthwave) eighties space. It works as long as the duo of directors relies purely on (non-)Carpi and the visuals. It often even has unprecedented drive. Like in first movie. However, with the swelling of the running time comes the effort to frame it in a sci-fi concept from a genuine 1980s VHS B-movie, including (non-)action, (non-)dialogue, (non-)acting by (non-)actors, etc. And when handling these aspects, the Ickermans are completely clueless and unintentionally ridiculous.

A fine, Nineties-style Bruckheimer-esque flick with all of the strengths and weaknesses that we haven’t seen for a long time. Furthermore, it's a sequel that is, within limits, not likably not over the top (except for the scene with the armed sidecar). With its style and scale, the duo of music-video directors definitely come closer to the first movie than to the crazy second one. If there had not been pointless filler and the slow paced middle sequences resulting from it and rather slow action, there wouldn't be much to fault them for apart from trying to copy early Bay (albeit successfully). But the most important thing is that, surprisingly, this is not the worst movie of the trilogy. Taking into account that the main roles are played by two 50-year-old actors (one is fat and the other is past his prime) after almost two decades, that is encouraging as well as surprising.

This is (almost) the Way. Mandalorian is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get. It can be the most luxurious praline from the best chocolate master or completely interchangeable “meh" chocolate candy from Lidl supermarket to the horrible Polish “fake" chocolate delicacy from a Vietnamese grocery. It's all a little bit weird after all. The basic premise “of the dirty adult spaghetti western in the world of Star Wars and without all those Skywalkers, lightsabers, etc." is excellent and stimulating. But it is just a premise and the execution, let’s put it this way, never actually takes place, i.e. as a result there are hardly a few properties and it is neither sufficiently developed nor fully family. It's an attempt to make a concept of the modern Doctor Who, but it's not finished. Then there is the construction of the whole series, which is obsolete. By a few decades. At a time when even soap operas (not to mention quality TV and genres) are mass produced and are based on characters and their development, Disney came up with a flag series whose only connecting storyline is the Star Wars universe; and, of course, Göransson's phenomenal soundtrack. The duo of central characters consists of a guy without a face and any progress that anyone can play (who knows if Pascal was ever on the set for some episodes and didn't just say a few sentences over the phone) and a stuffed animal whose only role is to sell as much merchandising as possible. He is cute for the first ten second but after that he becomes annoying and overused and he can even compete with Jar Jar Binks in this department. Yes, it's outdated, I understand, it looks more like a Hercules / Xena with a blockbuster budget, rather than the 21st century movie, the authors often think “a obliging fan service will do the job", it looks unfinished. In the final, the biggest shortcoming is the already mentioned imbalance; I don't understand what kind of playwright / approver can agree with something as horrible as the fourth or fifth episodes and at the same time something as captivating as the final one, which is exactly what it wanted to be like (and should have!) all the time and not just in one or two episodes. It looks like someone came up with a good idea for an adult (non) Star Wars, described the beginning and the end, Disney said “ok", but it’s too dirty add some more cuteness and some more killings of outcasts, then they hired a bunch of directors and screenwriters to fill the padding between the opening and the ending, but they didn't say to them anything about the concept and unfortunately no one checked the result “because it’s Star Wars, man, just randomly put it together and it will work". And it must be said that yes, it is the Star Wars setting supported by considerable (I really mean it) production values, impressive large-format action, incredibly good music that is original and excellent even without the movie and not just considering Williams, and three successful episodes evoking the hope that, with a more secure grasp with a clearer and better communicated vision, it could exploit the immense potential in the next series, which, despite the contradictory introductory series Mandalorian undeniably has. Although its potential needs to be awaken... In that final episode, the full potential was seen clearly, we just need more of it. | S1: 3/5 |

The Witcher has several major problems, namely the appalling CGI (no matter how much the series relies on it), through the lame setting and costumes, a bunch of amateur actors playing supporting characters, unjustifiably different concepts of several key characters (mostly Yen, but at least she is an interestingly grasped character, despite being different) and, above all, a significant deviation from the key Slavic stylization of The Witcher towards the generic Western concept of fantasy. Which goes even more against the grain, because in terms of storyline the adaptation follows the original source material (short stories) more than you would have expected. But the essence is there. That’s for sure. This is not a new Game of Thrones. It is much closer to The Last Kingdom  than to anything else. Yes, it's basically a fantasy series in B-movie style. But to be honest, the original stories are too. So as long as it has no ambition to play big political games (in which Sapkowski also fails), to have a perfect setting, etc., but it's all about Gossiper, Marigold, Ciri and especially the grumbling Geralt in the woods, swamps, pubs and brothels spouting a lot of one-liners, then it *is* The Witcher. Even because Cavill clearly enjoys playing Geralt, from the veiled, cynical one-liner through the intimate conversations with Gossipers / Marigold to the action sequences. These sequences, by the way, have excellent fight-scene choreography (although unrealistic, but even more impressive but because of that). Thus, although a lot does not work here or is clearly on the edge, the series is essentially solid in terms of genre. And that counts. | S1: 3/5 |

A captivatingly enchanting tactile elegy that is hooked in the heart in a way that does stay in your mind for a long time, if at all. It is difficult to say whether I more admire the self-confidence with which Clapin is not afraid to be original or the self-confidence of the execution and portrayal of such difficult-to-grasp feelings as melancholy, nostalgia, desolation, hope, loss and love. And to add another compliment, Levy's congenially hypnotic soundtrack should be mentioned, and then also... No, that would take too long. This is simply one of the movies of the decade. And no, there is nothing missing in the previous sentence; I really mean it.

All unhappy marriages are similar ... Baumbach has always had a weakness for overusing “Allen-esque" features; from New York to neurotic characters to a whirlwind of words filling 110 percent of the running time. But in the end, it has always been more about those too excessive emotions and solving deeply-rooted problems through paper-rustling nonstop dialogue than it was about the characters. Which is not the case this time, because the central married couple are “lifelike". Yes, Baumbach keeps Driver at the level of “continue playing Sackler in Girls" and Johansson as Woody himself styled her a decade ago, but that doesn't really matter, because they're both completely accurate and do a very good job of handling tense scenes full of big emotions in the form of a “devastating spiral" in the sense of "now we're not even pretending to resolve anything or arguing to release tension; we're just trying to hurt each other by saying stuff that we don't really want to say and can't take back", as well as quiet moments of mutual understanding and respect. The whole movie is about the two lead actors' performances. There are no weak moments, as their acting remains outstanding throughout the film. Their performances are confident. In addition, Baumbach has become an experienced screenwriter and director. His previous films would give the one-dimensional supporting “relief" characters, who bring a pinch of humor and farce (mother, sister, lawyers), a much greater role, which would have ruined everything in this film. The only moments when Marriage Story stumbles is when it sometimes comes across as “a documentary record of the end of the official and personal level of a long-term relationship". As a result, Marriage Story is a chronicle of the purgatory called divorce. And that in itself is so telling that there is no need to say anything else.

A reserved pure bureaucratic procedure “names-dates-facts-dates-names", which recapitulates some six years of way to detailed work. Nowhere is there even a hint of anything personal, as all dialogues, dilemmas and actions of everyone revolve only around the compilation, promotion, political (non) acceptance, (non) acceptance and (mis) recognition of the results of the central analysis, whose conclusions test and sharpen the sharpest edges of the law and transform them into information / responsibility / the boundaries of democracy / political power / understandable pragmatism, etc. I said already it is a pure procedural movie. And a damn good one. Thy only problem is that Burns is a little bit lost in terms to what extent of details the movie should go into. So, at one point he literally investigates how much sugar XY put in his coffee at a specific meeting, while after that he describes the course of few months/years in just one sentence. And this is true until the moment when the report of about seven thousand pages is written, and a more tangible and fun phase of “this must / must not be published" both in terms of direction and script will start.

Everything you ever wanted to know about Antarctica and autism (but were afraid to ask) or in other words, “an autistic Wonder Years for the 21st century". And no, even though it may seem like a cheap attempt at something “like Sheldon" at first, Atypical is about something else and it is different. Few series are able to balance so well on the thin edge of drama, comedy, sentiment and unobtrusive lessons, while not veering towards moralizing, intrusiveness or something similarly low. Everyone makes mistakes, we get to like everyone, especially the central sibling duo. The only significant complaint is that some of the supporting characters are far too one-dimensional sitcom types (although most of them are funny characters, that’s true), which do not always fit the Gardner's otherwise purely bittersweet family storyline. And then there is a diversion towards sitcom style in the third season. Yes, it's an obsolete “nothing-against-nothing" series like something out of the nineties. And no, that doesn't matter, because in the category of “series for the whole family", this is one of the best to come out recently. | S1: 4/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 3/5 |

On the one hand, what I find disappointing is that the highly stimulating material of Vidocq’s life (furthermore, backed up by such a great cast, director and production design) is reduced to a mere dime-a-dozen adventure that lacks logic. On the other hand, we can be pleased that it is nevertheless a fine, uncompromising movie in which emotions are well portrayed. In fact, it inevitably seems like a successful adaptation of one of Xavier Dorison's albums. Whether that is a positive or a negative, however, is a completely different question. In my opinion, it is positive and not an insignificant one.