DaViD´82

Undoubtedly an original theme and adaptation, but here and there Cahill commits punishable missteps (led by the final "pedophile" ten minutes "I need to close the past, so come with me to my room to collect strawberries, my ex love". Are they sure it could not be eighteen years later and instead of eight?), but they have nothing to do with whether it is on a (rational) scientific/spiritual level, because in both of them it is interesting, though not always well presented to the viewer.

Unprecedentedly impressive "Spanish-Louisiana" genius loci of a place in the middle of nowhere that goes hand in hand with a disturbing atmosphere in a thriller about a pair of distrustful detectives in a dark "Fincher crime movie" that is as much about the brutal murder of young girls as the about two of them, their demons and the time just after the Frank regime. Visually refined (shot from above of endless falling rain drops!), well performed and also, unfortunately, the closer to the end, the more the course and sound become somewhat genre-wise and already seen countless times elsewhere, although not necessarily always of such quality.

Big topic are "seeming randomly" addressed in an intimate and subtle way (these big topics overlap not only through character of Wanda with what we shall address in the Czech republic) with an unprecedentedly refined, coldly reserved visual side. And this visual side is surprisingly the biggest stumbling block, because each shot is so magnificently composed that the image steals the show. And it's never good. In other words, surprisingly, despite the rich and high-quality content, "the form overshadows the content" to a larger extent.

Mann is undoubtedly capable of more than only making a "sophisticated B-movie". But it's still more entertaining and disproportionately better shot than most of the other movies in this genre. It is a slowly developing thriller in a trademark Mann's neon hypnosis style, where computers replace guns and command lines bullets. And to its detriment, the movie is largely ruined by the final scene with "two person on the run longing for revenge" that immediately turns it into overplayed mediocre genre movie that has nothing to offer and is completely predictable.

Korean narrative history eastern Inglourious Basterds meet Robin Hood and following in many ways the rules of Chanbar samurajár and spaghetti westerns. And when they're already in the middle of borrowing/copying, they're not afraid to apply even undisguised "leone-gosha-morricone-corbucci" stylization in a Tarantino way. Which is quite a risk that only a few can handle, because to be inspired by the best and not being a damn good director is like playing with matches in a heap of hay in a form that the audience may laugh at the result. However, Jong-bin Yoon is aware of this, and so all of the above does not stand in his way. He goes his own way, especially in the second half, when on the one hand he increases the pace, he goes into details in a good way and he goes mad. However, even the slower and character-oriented first half is there for a particular reason. Thanks to it (not only), the movie works well during the ending scene in terms of emotions.

Popcorn's historical adventurous farce with expensive setting, which is ruined by childish humor and even more annoying over-stylized CGI action sequences that have no pace thanks to the overuse of the wannabe slow down scenes, in other words, they become a painful parody of themselves during the initial fencing in the rain.

Packed with energy (a real risk of leg cramps caused by nonstop stamping to the rhythm). Drummer Full Metal Jacket following the rhythm of the first Rocky movie which, however, often (and above all unnecessarily) scores its own goal by too obvious intensified emotional calculation in the behavior of (intentionally) not nice characters/plot twists. And so the same question can be applied to Whiplash, which the creators themselves indirectly ask the viewer during the footage: Was/is it worth it?

The "pattern" of see-have-fun-forget is applied to a silly fairytale fantasy (with the identical twin of Timothy Olyphant!), which is not taken seriously and is not in any way ashamed nor it apologizes for what it is. An unambitious bullshit with all genre transgressions and clichés. But once in a while it is fun, that is true.

“I give zero fucks about anything, yet I have a strong opinion on everything, even topics I'm not informed on." First thing which comes to my mind is to write that it is Sex in the City (because a comedy drama from the life of four gentle women in New York under the auspices of HBO) for the younger generation, but it would not be fair to this self-proclaimed generational statement, let alone apt. The two series couldn't be more different in terms of style, humor, target and focus. Sex and the City was an unwanted parody of itself (and therefore an excellent guilty pleasure, that is true) about the age of the "pretend we're in our thirties" and not very bright city cows on high heels and their search for guys/clothes/cocktails and… And nothing more. The neurotic Hannah aka Lena, very much and sometimes to her detriment wannabe Woody Allen in a female version. Dunham has definitely a lot to say about this generation of privileged white people "who do not know what else to do", adolescence, self-search, independence, relationships and life as such and is not afraid to say it very openly, hard, to the point, self-ironically, vulgarly and uses strange sexual aspects and practices. The only question is whether what he says (and especially how he says it; whether through his alter ego or his words that are told by life characters) is something you want to hear in the first place. And this is the polarizing point, because for the fact if you like it or not depends on if you can (not) handle the very unique speech of Lena Dunham. It will either get on your nerves (and through it even the whole series, because he is behind the typewriter, behind the camera and in front of it) or not. And in none of those cases it is not surprising, but if nothing else, it's a grateful target for apt sketches | S1: 3/5 | S2: 3/5 | S3: 5/5 | S4: 5/5 | S5: 4/5 | S6: 4/5 |

The Great American Novel about adult problems in the form of an advanced series that does so many things so well that the few things it doesn't do so well is even more striking. First of all, it is very much the same at the beginning (each of the introductory three episodes alone is great, but together they are so the same that they are almost indistinguishable and, as a result, repetitive) and then the "rashamon" approach of an unreliable narrator, who plays the major role along with the characters. In principle, they work with in a very sophisticated way that is well thought out into the smallest details and it is clear, but sometimes even cheap. One thing is that everyone always sees themselves better than others see them and that they remember events differently, color something, adjust it, forget it or hide it, but here the views are often so primarily different (even with regard to the possibility that they both deliberately lie in all their essentials to divert attention) because they are too openly pushed into the viewer's face. Paradoxically, the lines of these two are more interesting when they are not together and the constant "contradictions" of their versions do not distract. And then the biggest snag is bizarre decision to make a live advertisement for the glamor of the redhead and the girl with the sexiest British accent named Ruth Wilson brunette with a mediocre American dialect, grrr... But otherwise, it's an extraordinarily well-played narratively playful dark intimate relationship movie that is unmatched when fully focused purely on characters and dialogs. On the contrary, it does not go that smoothly as it tries to develop a "clever" plot. In any case, it has a charge and an idea, and even in the current tsunami of quality series, it will not be lost. | S1: 4/5 |