DaViD´82

Good Polish pigeons return and in terms of alcoholism they mean the same as in terms of addiction at that time, i.e. Requiem for a Dream... A very strong coffee, which not everyone can handle (not even remotely), to the extent that I had to get some alcohol to get over that intrusive (but not cheap!) naturalistic raw morass of the complete loss of basic human dignity. And the consequent, precisely executed fragmented “post bukowski" form, when it doesn't matter "what, when or who" and the only thing that matters is "Gdzie jest kurwa moja flaszka?" PS: That Więckiewicz was extremely drunk all the time and experienced delirium. And no one can talk me out of it. He did pretend being drunk, he really was.

Hamlet (there is everything; mother whisperer Gertrude/Gemma, uncle-poisoner Claudius/Clay, Ophelia/Tara, Hamlet/Jax himself and the talking ghost in the form of Dad's diary and all the people/gang around (perhaps only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are absent) incorporated into the world and the business plan of the criminal biker "like Hells Angels" gang? Why not, especially when by doing so, the FX station is making a substitute for their already finished The Shield (still the roughest and, after all, the best crime movie ever) in the form of a harsh crime movie with tough guys, with the only difference that it is captured from the other side of the barricade. So far, on paper it looks good and pure. If they combine it with the wars of the Irish-Mexican-Nazi gangs, carefree motorcycle "live free" ignoring everything lifestyle, outsmarting official authorities or problems with arms smuggling, it looks damn good. The problem, however, is that it often really only looks good but it should have been good more often. The reason is the absurdly over-the-top macho roughness and cheap effort to shock at all costs. While in other series similar patterns of character behavior can be understood, but not necessarily approved, they cannot even be understood here. The characters do what the screenwriter want them to do, i.e. be harsh, shocking, and raw no matter what the situation they are in or what is really going on. Mostly you don't believe that the character would behave like that. You will think they are just pretending. And it's not just about those bikers, but about everyone; typically a female agent from the first series. She is so rough in a way that says nothing about the character and is such not because the circumstances would make her so, but purely because, according to the writers, this is the way how a rough woman behaves in the world of rough men. Simply put, you can watch but it gives you nothing. However, the cast is excellent and they do their best to portray shallow characters. Is often seen that the concept itself is good and stimulating and that if it had been better grasped, it could have been exactly what it is trying to be. Of course, there are also moments when it is exactly what it is trying to be. But when it soon starts pretending again, you will be disappointed. S1 3/5: (under) The average essence of all the above problems, which is partially made up for by an excellent trio of final episodes. These episodes give us some hope that it would not be a waste of time in the future. However, the first season is rather a waste of time.

What came first; eggs, chicken or rooster? School through play or in other words an introduction to the world of time paradoxes in illustrative practice, in which the creators do not make the viewer feel like an idiot and very soon leave the game to present a big point, because they know that you know anyway; after all... You have seen the name, right? The only problem is that the whole smartly well-thought and described "circle paradox" (or Novik's principle of self-consistency, if you want) denies itself (!mild spoilers follow!) by those stupid newspaper clippings. Because if in the past, there will be newspaper articles from the future that never happened, then all the unchanging predestination of the above paradoxes in the personal line is kind of upside down, right?

Rather lacking as an "existential" noir crime drama, but as a captivating and hypnotically atmospheric depiction of the genius loci of a Chinese mining province frozen to the bone and covered in snow, it is unique and even brilliant.

It's a pity that it's not completed in a same way that it was started (even despite over-the-top starting point). But everything in the first half, despite the theme, that is not melodramatic, credibly anchored in reality and naturalistic from the department "although I (do not) approve this or that decision, I fully understand why the character decided to act like that and how the character came to this decision", is spoiled by the second half where the characters often become rather puppets, which are led through the unnatural and forced film-making decisions that are so lame that it is almost unbearable. After all, the environment for the final decision will start to be prepared at the last minute and not during the entire footage. And none of this would necessarily be such a problem (after all, it's still impressively presented and brilliantly performed; and it's not just about tired out Marion), if these aspects weren't completely contradicting everything that had been successfully developing so far.

It's not entirely bad in any way, but it could have been so much better if it had decided whether it wants to be an uncompromising dirty (anti) war display of the horrors and nonsense of war and fighting, tank addiction aimed at tens of millions of World of Tanks players or a stylized action movie in a style "we are outnumbered, ikh mnogo", which is something between 300 and Soviet propaganda war movies of the fifties. And to make matters worse, Tarantino's fifteen-minute scene divides it right in the middle, which looks like a removed scene from the Inglourious Basterds. And in each of those styles, it works more or less well here, but together it doesn't do the job as a whole. Not at all.

The first half is unique and non-traditional in terms of genre. The 15-minute silent scene that is perfectly escalated and that makes you feel the tension between the characters that shows a robbery/concert. While the second part already generally standard (however bold for its time in its homosexual subtext), lengthy, treading the water and the only thing that justifies its existence is the final ending.

As a film fighting against apartheid it is somewhat naive. But in fact it's nothing more than a stage set (however, forcibly incorporated wherever possible) for a Hitchcock-like thriller that adheres to all the rules and clichés of the genre. So, we have a man from the crowd who has no idea what is going on and who is played by everyone. And on this level it still works much better, mainly due to the fact that it can be exciting (unfortunately rather in the first half). The dynamics of "I do not trust you, but I need you" of the Caine/Poitier duo has zest and the main villain has proper charisma and respect, without resorting to the obvious "villainous" actions. As a result, it is a decent but rightly forgotten genre movie which is not about the usual motivation of innocence/revenge/money but about ideals.

Make (queer) love, not war, so says Mr. Bowie. During most of the footage, the theme of mutual respect (love?) of men on the other sides of barricades, bars and cultural environments is captured in a non-tradition way in an interesting movie. However, if you call something interesting, it is in a way hypocrisy, as you operate in "unexplored land" between clearly defined concepts of good and bad. And this film is exactly like that; therefore interesting rather than good or bad and it is in many respects overwhelmed by impropriety (a prisoner of war camp in the 1940s tinged by an 80's synth soundtrack playing Japanese rhythms evoking the Czech song "Special flight Prague-Tokyo" or the cast of David Bowie, who doesn't even try to be Celliers and Bowie as you only know him. He just has a messy hair here, indicating that he is torn apart inside, or if you let a Japanese speak Japanese in "shogun-like" way, which is impressive, but if you let the same Japanese speak the same thing and the same diction in English, your ears will hurt, all the prisoners are so neat and tidy, etc.). However, the biggest problem (apart from the length) is the already famous scene of "setting accounts" in front of the camp, when it is clear what the creators were about and how it should have worked on paper, but they did not manage to make it work. Not even remotely. I told you from the very beginning that it is an interesting film.

Are you one of those who wished Chris Nolan’s movies were not so (seemingly) free of emotions? Well, you know what they say ... Be careful what you wish for, it could come true. Because more than anything else, Interstellar acts as Nolan's sincere response to the above complaint. It's just an effort that is more wanted and forcibly pushed than naturally arising from the story and the characters. At the same time, for a long time (which, given the footage, really means for a very long time), nicely rational (and it is evident where this systematic analogy to Kubrick's 2001 comes from), but it turns into a variation on the Frequency viewed by Spielberg family perspective. However, if, after all, you really want to look for an analogy, then it clearly call for the Contact that also ruined its rational level at the end, although not as literal as Interstellar (what is strange is that on the one hand it is so cheaply literal and yet you can read between the lines, how and what was achieved for humanity during the ending scene). You either get over it or not. I did mainly thanks to the fact that the very first dialog of the daughter in the whole film will clearly determine where from and what point will follow. However, if nothing else, the once-in-a-lifetime audiovisual impression (especially in IMAX) of a pioneering journey into the unknown, which is breathtaking all the time, if not in terms of emotions than at least in terms of what the movie shows. In addition, it is one of the few orthodox big-budget science fiction, where during most of the footage the science, not the fiction is being emphasized, as we can typically see. And that means a lot, if on top of that it is quite likely that you will enjoy it even in terms of emotions.