DaViD´82

Strangely built. In the first half, nothing at all happens. There are too many songs in every other scene and they seem unnatural and forced (just a regular musical with questionable quality of production) to finally start something in the second half (such as Hans Christian Andersen à la Disney) and suddenly the songs start disappearing until they disappear completely (final half an hour). Beautifully styled and thanks to the second half even more for boys than one would expect from a "princess fairy tale with way to many songs". Which, in any case, does not change the fact that it is undoubtedly more for the girls, and the role of the male characters, which are clearly in numbers here (perhaps except for Olaf and the reindeer), corresponds to this.

Better and much less useless than what I feared, but at the same time worse and more useless than what I hoped for.

Chris Kelly trying to be Alan Ball during the Six Feet Under. And he fails miserably. At the same time, it tries to fill all the Sundance boxes and something like "the ultimate Sundance indie festival with characters who have no traits but are only a bunch of eccentricities." And it's so terribly obvious and not at all honest. In fact, it is sometimes annoying in that calculation and at the same time incomplete in terms of the concept. So Kelly should kiss the feet of the duo Plemons/Shannon, who find in those characters even what they don't even have. Only thanks to them does it work at least to some extent.

More mature? Don't let it mess with you, it´s only dirtier and free of childish staff. It is true that the first hour is largely redundant and the movie would probably do without it. There is also no denying that describing characters as one-dimensional means adding one dimension to them. On the other hand, this has always been the case with Star Wars. You can recognize scenes that were shot several times and that's not good. And what they did to poor Cushing will make you turn in the grave for more than a decade. At the same time, however, the final half hour has unprecedented zest for this series, that it goes its own way and that Edwards works impressively with space and scale (at least in Imax, it works great in this respect). Yes, it's nothing more than intense disposable blockbuster. However, it is a pretty successful disposable blockbuster that does not try to be anything else which is nice, not in terms of events let alone in terms of not pop culture idol like other self-centered movies of this universe. PS: Although Giacchin's accompaniment is not as good quality or grateful/suitable for independent listening as Williams's, it is surprisingly better, as it does not draw attention to itself and, in fact, only serves the film.

We have to help each other in a Czechoslovakian way. Although I can't shake the feeling that it would work better on the stage, I don't regret the time invested. And I wouldn't regret even more if the Jarchovský/Hřebejk duo once had been backed by a clear storyline. It is not directed as a story from beginning to end, but there are rather individual separate "bachelor's" segments, where every twenty minutes are devoted to one family and then the focus is on another one, without ever returning to the previous ones. It is also a pity that the children are sidelined after a while. The reason why it works so well in spite of the above is that the situation and its solution from the point of view of individual families is played out interestingly, that what Jarchovský spoils in terms of plot, is made up with dialogs and the fact that the performances of unknown cast is amazing. In other words, that is the most sad is the opportunity of the final part was completely wasted.

The spiritual successor to the original MythBusters. The same narrators, the same production team, the same focus on popular science, the same cast, the same scheme and style... Well, just the same thing, but with a different name and under the auspices of Netflix.

Everything that is wrong about it is best proved by a long part in the middle of the performance (before the break), when during the sounds of Ryba music more than a dozen characters slowly roam the stage with candles in their hands, where they pretend to have a non-existent activity, and gradually step up to the apron to recite some completely empty phrases "like a Christmas touching memory of childhood" from the department "childhood and Christmas". Which is supposed to symbolize how Ryba´s work affects them. The teacher Ryba, performed by Lněnička, walks around them in a "serious manner" and he has nothing to do all the time, so he casts overwhelmingly understanding glances. All of this is topped by the character of Ryba´s father who briefly summarizes this torture (for sure the worst ever staging of theaters in Pardubice, complete waste of time) to the already mostly asleep audience. We must admit that the whole performance is not like that. But there are more such stating "great wisdom" scenes, or that mosaic of scenes from the undeniably interesting and contradictory life of Ryba built around them does not balance them. It is even more obvious when even these scenes are too (and unnecessarily) literal. What is over the edge is when the recording of the performance directed in a way that completely ignores the good old rule "if you direct the broadcast of the performance on a large stage, then, unlike a small stage, do not take focus on the details of actors", because it requires a different kind of acting and it looks amateur.

Facing the captivating depths of madness through the thunder in Ohio… Hard to say what to praise more. Whether an unprecedentedly magnificent tangible subliminal tension, Shannon's performance as a true family-based hard worker who realizes that he's almost certainly succumbing to schizophrenia, but "what if he doesn't". The result is the most disturbing, most realistic and, last but not least, by far the best film version of the biblical story of Noah. I have perhaps the only minor complaint related to the conclusion. This is a type of movie that can only end in two ways. And Nichols went the way of being more cinematic and stylish. However, I cannot shake the feeling that the latter would get even more under the skin and would be richer in terms of interpretation.

The more imperfect, the more urgent the movie is, which manages to get under your skin with its uncompromising rawness like few others. Together with Margin Call and Big Short, they form a free trilogy "Everything you ever wanted to know about the financial crisis, but were too afraid to ask." The former approaches events from the point of view of the chamber drama of one night in bank management, the approach of the second one is broad and based on economic perspective but in entertaining way and at the same time with a naturalistic "bottom-top" view of (future) Trump voters. Although it is clear who the creators are messing with, neither side is demonized (until the ending, but more on that later). It was a vicious circle, where the irresponsible people are to blame, people who naively (often for the sake of buying stupid things) pledged their houses in times of apparent prosperity, but financial institutions that lent irresponsibly beyond their / clients' possibilities having in mind only quick profit are to blame equally. One led to another and vice versa. So Shannon is not playing a black-and-white villain, but a pragmatic tempter (he will not strangle you, he will only offer you a noose and you will be able to strangle yourself), who did not hesitate to act. What spoils the movie to some extent is the already mentioned message of the whole movie. I mean, the final quarter hour, when the movie starts to moralize and denies everything before. Even in this engaged form about Sophia's choice the movie is good, that´s true, it just goes against the original message, which does not offer (and, after all, does not allow in principle) easy solutions. Shannon is excellent, Laura Dern is a makeweight and Garfield is much better than you would expect, although his character has so many layers that he doesn’t manage all of them equally good. So, in one role, he surprisingly proves that is a really good actor while with another role he is clearly struggling.

In the opening hour and a half, a lengthy pell-mell like a commedia dell'arte and a spy drama, where each of the many characters trying to play everyone. In order to turn it from a (graded) train journey to the final hour (abruptly, not gradually) into a serious and properly dense fateful resistance movie with everything, which tries (and with closing both eyes actually well) to be the "South Korean Black Book". From technical point of view, the camera and music the movie is simply top. In this regard, hardly anything else can be expected from director with Jee-woon Kim's reputation. The highlight of the "Tarantino scene" of settling account on the train and the party at the police embassy (which, of course, makes the ending of the Inglorious Bastards almost impossible to forget). As a result, an unnecessarily long movie, which was to some extent clearly spoiled by the South Korean trademark's mixing of incompatible genres. And as much as it contains many scenes that cannot be forgotten, the movie that centers about them, on the contrary, will be forgotten faster than would be appropriate.