DaViD´82

Tell your sons who are thirsty for Ninjago that this one has almost nothing to do with the series, precisely nothing. By telling them in advance they won´t be disappointed that their favorite character only flashes in the movie (in our case, the fiery Kai). Although the original is an undisguised copy-cat of Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers, but it´s a decent copy-cat that has a diverse team, where everyone is equally important. The film is only about Lloyd (the green one). Which is the same as if the full-length Turtles were just about Leonardo, and on top of that he wouldn't have his swords, nor he would fight with his traditional opponents, and he would only solve a family issues. And it's done in the same crazy style and with the same themes as in the previous two LEGO® movies. This time it's even worse because it doesn't work as a whole, the script was not a strong point even in Story / Batman, but here it´s completely absent. However, it still has such a frantic pace and so many ideas, jokes and allusions (the film makers will not forget about the traditional headline montage of Jackie's failed escapade) that you simply can't become bored. Not even if you are unwillingly escorting your unwanted hostage to the movie theater.

An overnight odyssey from nowhere to nowhere, with a way too slow course of events and the behavior of characters that is simply stupid even if we take into account that the movie takes place in a world of a pothead bottom of society, where you hardly come across anyone who is enlightened by intelligence. There´s no doubt about it. But the Safdie brothers don't give you any slightest space to realize it. From the very beginning, they grab your neck by a raw forward racing straightforward pace, that I have never seen, which goes hand in hand with the absorbing hypnotic atmosphere and performance of Pattinson, which will engage your full attention. But… But in the middle of the movie it hits the brake (which is justified), but then it never hits the pedal again. Also because the focus of the movie partly switches to another new character. And so suddenly, sadly, we have enough time to get over the captivating ecstasy of the first half and realize the problems I mentioned at the beginning, which will start to annoy you. And they will annoy you a lot. Despite all this, you can still enjoy it. That´s for sure. Pattinson is still brilliant, a few scenes have the magic of the first half, and the synthetic rumbling soundtrack from Oneohtrix Point Never wouldn't make you bored even in a movie twice that long. But you inevitably realize that you are watching a once in a decade opportunity which was simply wasted, even though the movie has the potential and at the beginning it seemed that it could have become a movie of a decade.

In his first sequel, Vaughn had a unique opportunity to play with the "rules" and vices of the sequel, just as he had in the past with fairy-tale, comic, and bond rules. But instead of addressing them, he made fun of them and took advantage of them, so he is slightly defeated by "sequel illness". The result is a film suffering from all the maladies of the sequel, namely more of everything, bigger, longer, more grandiose, more populated, crazier, more excessive and ... And as a result less entertaining (not to be confused with not entertaining). Mainly because the concept did not level up, the length is unjustified, the joke with Elton is repeated until it becomes annoying, Julianne is excellent, but detached from all interaction with others. It is too excessive this time to work as an (almost) regular Bond movie (which the first movie managed to balance), the original characters do not develop at all, there are no emotions except for "Merlin´s singing" sequence and most of the new characters are caricatures without any hint of personality. Does that mean that Vaughn lost his driving force, his ideas and made a pointless average movie? No, it doesn´t. He's a way too good director to do that, and the cast which clearly enjoys it helps him a lot, but the movie is very close to the above-mentioned.

Vikings meet Monty Python and The Holy Grail slightly but highly-visibly influenced by the Black sw.. I mean, Blackadder in the character of Orm. And surprisingly, the problem is not that it wouldn't be funny, but rather that it's often a bit long, especially in the first half. And it won´t make you laugh all the time. After all, it won´t make you laugh too much at all, it is not trying to be funny at all costs, the situation comic or visual gags are completely absent. The movie itself, it is actually pretty good, serious (ehm, ehm) historical series (with absurd characters and dialogs though) about a difficult Nordic life accompanied by magnificent music, which flows calmly at its own pace and two or three times per episode (or in the case of fourth and sixth parts all the time) intrigues you with a scene or dialogs, which have the potential to become legendary and to be place in the hall of fame of absurd humor. So, it´s above average with occasional flashes of utter genius. This can´t be said about the second season, which learned from the mistakes of the first one, addresses every single shortcoming, so it can match, without any exaggeration, the best episodes / series of the Blackadder. Partly because the film makers put in great efforts. This is simply the best possible dry absurd British humor that takes itself very seriously. This kind of humor is rarely seen even in Britain. But this one is only in Norwegian way and in the form of a continuous story. I can't think of better praise. The third season is a step back. Literally. The story line directly precedes the first season. So what at first seemed to be a stylish prologue lasts all season. The first ten minutes are gripping, basically it could make the whole episode, but not the season. It´s just forced padding with occasional flashes of crazy laughter. But just a few, though. PS: Although the series is being created in both Norwegian and English versions at the same time, the Norwegian version seems to fit the actors more in terms of speaking, so you will get the feeling that the comedy timing is better. However, some plays on words in the English version are simply refined, so even this version is worth watching. | S1: 4/5 | S2: 5/5 | S3: 3/5

In recent years, combining family drama and crime film has several representatives that are highly valued in modern quality TV (yes, of course led by Breaking Bad or Sopranos) and it is not surprising, as combining complex characters with a dramatic crime story line offers emotional engagement, strong ambivalent characters and their Sofia choices. And Sneaky Pete has all the prerequisites for all of the above. It´s backed by well-experienced makers of Justified, a phenomenal cast and on top of that a stimulating heist theme. But… But the result is a decent movie for several evenings (except for the horrible pilot, which seems to be something other than what, fortunately, the series from the second episode turns out to be), but it hardly aspires to become top league of this kind of series. And that perhaps every tv station and streaming service has at least one of these in its portfolio. The problem is mainly with the script, which works with many interesting topics, also offers well-constructed conflicts (although logical lapses need to be excused by the fact that the whole series takes place in one week), but the characters are too dull for this kind of movie. I´m not saying they are not interesting, but they work well mainly due to the cast and not because of the way they are written and developed. However, when Cranston plays the main "bad guy" in his early sinister Heisenberg mode, the family is represented by Margo Martindale, who can act both as a good grandma and uncompromising mafia mother of the regiment inspiring respect like no other character actress and Ribisi, who is a type of actor that embodies. a bit slimy (yet charismatic) self-centered, inconspicuous, self-seeking cheat, who, however, manipulates you exactly where he wants you, it is less annoying than one would expect. So does it reach its potential? Not even remotely. Is there room for improvement? Immense. Is it a series where the quality of the second heist half of the series saves the inconsistency of the first? Absolutely. It's good? It is, providing you don't expect anything more than a decent relaxing genre movie. It's definitely good, but not excellent. | S1: 4/5 |

It manages to capture the fitting atmosphere of a dusty summer boy's adventure on a small pitch behind the house. But the movie is ruined by unreasonable length (especially the sequence with escapades around getting the ball clearly called for a striking cut sequence and not for more than fifteen minutes of footage), unbalanced performances of children (the central trio did good job, but the rest of them are just a make weight) and with the horribly written unbearably intrusive voiceover of the narrator (the director himself), who is also completely useless, because everything you hear, the child viewer (let alone adult) knows, sees or derives. It wouldn't have been any better if little Scotty had told the story, but at least it would have made sense. The result is a movie that today can only stand the test if watched by children's eyes or while wearing tight-fitting nostalgic glasses (if you got to it at the right age) and not on its own.

More sophisticated movie than one would expect from the purely second-rate shallow controversial teaser of "Goro the white dog is killing Afroamericans. Fuller's great victory is that it works on both intended levels. In the first half of the genre, from "her point of view" it is a traditionally built disturbing thriller of old-fashioned style, which is in many respects a better adaptation of King's Cuja than the film Cujo itself and fully satisfies the slowly built atmosphere, long shoots, exposed gob here and there, chilling growl and ingeniously saddened Morricone background music. In the second metaphorical half "from his point of view", it is a multi-layered allegory of racism and xenophobia, which is more complex, disturbing and impressive than many "kind of serious" films addressing the same subject. The icing on the cake is the relativizing ending, which gets deep under your skin.

A series that is struggling to decide what it really wants to be. It would like to be a serious, complicated dramatic series on corporate law à la Damages. But it would also like to be about the charismatic alcohol wreckage that does not take herself so seriously that faces trauma and middle age crisis à la Californication (or now more like BoJack Horseman) and her family and relationship escapades in LA. In addition, a bit of sitcom,i.e. "lawyer and his whores are doing business on the fly" and to make matters worse, it would also like to reflect on something "social" through an insight into the private arms industry. And last but not least, it wants to be a series with a Bond style burnt überbad villain, who is watching the whole city through the cameras from the seclusion of his cave, pulls the strings, being arrogant to everyone, is burnt and has his own flunkies. Combining Damages with Californication on a paper is not a bad idea at all, but no matter how well the two lines work here, they work well only independently and not together as part of one whole. The legal one is like from a fairy tale, because a similar case would never have taken place within days/weeks and, of course, it would not be even miles away from the courtroom, but it does the job. That´s for sure. Dimension with bad corporations and Dr. No does not work at all. It´s a pure guilty pleasure. But ... It´s great to watch, the theme song is magnificent, every episode is fast-paced, weak moments are overshadowed by the duo Thornton / Arianda, strong culminating unrealistic (out of) court sequences full of personal resentment and vendetta. You won´t become bored by watching Billy Bob getting drunk, don´t giving a damn about everyone around him and using legal jargon at the same time. In other words, the movie would only benefited from a greater script unity and in that case it would be really entertaining. But only providing that you have already finished watching all those twenty other law series. | S1: 3/5 |

he middle part of Lumet's free trilogy (Serpico, toto and Q&A) about fighting against corruption in the police. This time freely based on career of Robert Leuci, a well-known corrupt cop and squealer, who once ruined the entire New York anti-drug department and made a career at old age as an author of decent harsh crimes books and as a professional film consultant. The film adaptation of "his" life story is, thanks to this, an rather slow, detailed and realistic view of the drama, kind of "traitor of the loved ones". Despite the fact that it starts out as a stylish dirty crime story, this line ends (too) soon for logical reasons. It becomes a personal drama and in the end a procedural film of years of bureaucratic machine with convictions and interrogations. Thus, even though there are legitimate objections to how the whole story is built, I can´t deny that it works. And works perfectly. But there is another fundamental problem, namely Treat Williams in the lead role. e is suitable for a certain type of role, but a complex role of once macho, who ruled the whole districts and who was really good at making the right friends with mafia, junkies, drug dealers, prostitutes, colleagues, his boss etc. and being torn apart from the inside, self-pity rat who everyone look down to, including the loved ones, former and current colleague, mafia and most of all he doesn´t respect himself. He´s just not a good fit for this kind of role. Which is even more obvious because everyone else in the movie is absolutely excellent. What makes it even worse is the fact that the script offers him every ten minutes really grateful, “Oscar aspiring scene", when he is to "run amok and collapse in Al-Pacino style", moralize and scold everyone. And this is exactly where he completely fails. It´s not entirely embarrassing or ridiculous, but the fact that this actor whose job was to perform such a nice role let every one overshadow him, clearly required a lot of (I don´t mean is as a compliment) effort. However, it doesn´t change the fact that this movie is amazingly shot and that it provides a fascinating insight into the averted side of the fight against drugs.

Much better 80s, true, Amblin movie than a horror movie, which is a problem, because it was supposed to be both Amblin and regular horror movie (by the way the music addresses this distinctive dual dynamics perfectly), but it is more of a dark fairy tale for adults than a combination of " Gonnies versus Freddy Krueger". It might have been the intention to show a noticeable possible shift in stylization between the children's and adult part. In any case, it looks largely like a feature-length Stranger Things. Which is quite paradoxical considering that they are based on It and Stand by me. The movie not afraid to address the tricky passages of the original, and yet it faithfully captures the original central atmosphere of a party (great cast) of overlooked children on the threshold of puberty united by the common fight against primary evil unseen by adults. Rather than on horror, the movie is based on the ubiquitous disturbing atmosphere, where behind every other corner there may (and may not) hide the embodiment of your innermost fears or, worse, nemesis in the form of bullying youth. In this regard, I have no objections. The problem comes up when Pennywise plays with its prey and this (un) fortunately happens quite often. Although Skarsgård is absolutely excellent (however Mendelsohn that was considered for this role would have been even better), and especially what he does with his voice or his "dead" squinting eye are ingeniously disturbing details, but apart from the prologue, we never see him in a scene where he would slow down and tried to get out of one of the Suckers´ mind in other way than through the scaring everyone. Either is after them to the fullest "ouch" in a geronimo way or he's not on stage. Nothing in between, there is no creeping gradually graded fear of the unknown. All the scenes of materialized nightmares are intense and some even damn impressive and memorable, but they are not even spooky, let alone terrifying. They are simply action attractions in daylight. Everything is terribly fast, that the only thing that remains in the footage is directly related to the fears of one of the Suckers. And nothing more. The move doesn´t beat about the bush, no scene within their families, nothing with adults, no sleepless nights because of experienced trauma, just a few references to kingversum nada. It's fully stripped. Although it´s a nice watch, but you can´t shake the feeling of missed opportunity of something more than "only" the best king movie in recent years. That´s for sure. Seems the movie requires some clothes too.