DaViD´82

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moment when the report of about seven thousand pages is written, and a more tangible and fun phase of “this must / must not be published" both in terms of direction and script will start.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.

If an amateur community-funded film succeeds with a screening outside the circle of its creators and their friends, then it is a success already. Drsný spasitel will withstand this baptism by fire. And it surprisingly avoids even unintentionally ridiculous moments, with the exception of a few. And some of the ridiculous moments that are present stem basically without exception from the horribly inappropriately used post-synchrons (it doesn't matter that they are amateur, but what matters is that they are sloppy; they don’t fit into the given environment in terms of sound, they don’t fit the characters, etc.) and in general from the uncertain vocal expressions of the majority of the participants. Everything looks rough, everyone looks like that and... And then they start talking. And it makes you smile unintentionally. However, the visuals, “junktown" costumes, music, animated inserts and similar features are not bad at all. Nor is the pacing. However, it holds together and enthusiasm can eliminate most of the understandable flaws. Apart from the aforementioned flaws, the only significant (but fundamental) complaint is that the creators extremely overuse elements of “we don't know how to show motivations or plot, or how to portray this or that, so we just let them read it from the script through an internal monologue or narrator". For a fan film, unlike in the case of a "real film" one would understand this here and there, but not to such an extent. And the monologues also depict things that could have been realized “inexpensively" through dialogue.

If you missed Rush, it's a pity that no one made a follow-up with a similar type of film. But you don't have to be sad anymore, because Ford v Ferrari is exactly the same petrol-scented racing “fairy tale made by men, for men". This time it’s about how a legend and one of the most iconic racing cars of all time was born. Mangold, whether on the track or behind the scenes, puts the pedal to the metal for two and a half hours, the races are pumped full of adrenaline, the characters are strong, the tension and the bets are tangible, the stylization of all participants including the racers, sponsors and bureaucracy is first rate, and everything is depicted with humor and drama. And in terms of craftsmanship, it couldn't have been any better. And the bunch of actors really enjoying the show is just the icing on the cake. The less academically biographical or historically precise, the more riveting and more stylish. And, above all, better.

The solitude, burden and uncompromising nature of being a ruler. On top of that, the father-son relationships on both sides of the channel torn apart. Undoubtedly, you will recognize Shakespeare's themes, dialogue, characters and speeches in many places. However, this is not a direct adaptation of his Henriad, though the movie was inspired by it. You won’t fail to notice it and that is intentional. In any case, The King is a fine historical film impressively shot in the mud and with excellent acting (especially the Edgerton-Harris-Chalamet trio). The more intimate, the better. And it is more than intimate.

Simple a reality TV concept connecting Dragon's Den (investors looking for a project) with Hell's Kitchen (a behind-the-scenes look at the management of a wannabe restaurant). The first season makes the mistake of having a repetitive format, there is a minor focus on the business side of the required investment (ROI, financial analysis, salaries, locations, rentals, etc.) and too much space for a (however nice) host at the expense of the restaurant owners and investors. Also, the concepts are confusing and conflict with each other, while some prospects are asking just for “a few pennies“ to move from a successful food truck to a brick-and-mortar restaurant and possibly launch a franchise, while others are after a “Michelin" restaurant. Both concepts require a completely different approach, different investors, different skills. The first series is supported mainly by the participants themselves. The second series kept only the basic idea, but otherwise changed almost everything: format, course, selection, stress tests, simply everything. Suddenly, it's one class better and more interesting, because in each episode, one fine-dining concept runs independently of another, where a chefs with experience from top restaurants mostly try to stand on their own feet, and one of them tries to move up from his food truck. The former can cook, but struggle with running a restaurant, the behind-the-scenes work beyond cooking and with numbers. The others generally already have experience with how it works with suppliers, the financial side, etc. But without exception, they are surprised that just taking the few meals from the food truck into the restaurant and raising the price of a burger is not enough, as they also have to rely on their team and have to make money from drinks, and that it is not possible to handle one order after another like in a food truck, etc. I could still imagine slightly more space for torturing them with numbers, but at the end of the day, everything comes down to the dreams and ambitions of the contenders rather than about peeking under the cover of the investor's side of things. Unfortunately, we need to do some research on Google to find out whether the investment deal was a success or not. The good thing is that you will know where to go on your next visit to London. | S1: 3/5 | S2: 4/5 |

The movie strives to be a “kind of sequel of The Big Short", but this time about offshore and shell companies. The movie wants to “exaggeratedly shine a light" on the serious background practices that are difficult to understand for financial laypeople and that only a few people have an insight into but that have affected each of us. But it does not have such vigor and drive, nor does it capture the profit-seeking sophistication and interconnection of the system, nor the implications for the lives of specific people. It has good moments and there are storylines where it almost works as it should. But where the model could captivate even an unfamiliar viewer, Soderbergh fumbles and gets bogged down. Which is strange, as he has undoubtedly addressed a more accessible and tangible topic. What's worse is that the caricatural Oldman/Banderas duo make faces all the time (without any exaggeration, they are in the annoying mode of the naughty devil and the water goblin from The Watermill Princess). As the narrators, they give the film a completely different level and atmosphere than the rest of the actors.

I know I’m supposed to say, if I had it to do over, I wouldn’t lie. But the truth is ... I would lie earlier. And better.  A true-crime series about how the system does not work (which has a significant impact on individual people) until the moment it finally starts working, better late than never (which has a significant impact on individual people). The biggest complaint about the series is that after a focused and disturbing introductory episode, it is split into two timelines about two different genres. While one line (about coming to terms) follows the original storyline, where one unfortunate decision starts a chain reaction of other unfortunate decisions, the other storyline is far too standard and procedural, which benefits mainly from the performance of Wever and her empathetic policewoman, which is in conflict with her type. However, the first storyline does not have the necessary space and omits the most interesting sequences of those three years. The latter, thanks to the standard course and compression, on the other hand, gives the impression of an ordinary series and also omits the most interesting part and at least also the epilogue involving “what the hell happened with the hard drive".

Detailed portrayal of characters in the form of a family drama that plays out over several decades in the context of the historical twists and turns in China. In terms of structure, it is the embodiment of “a great novel in film form". Although it lasts three hours, it feels like six, at least. But not in a bad way, because Wang can be so enthralling that at the end of the movie you do not feel “that you have seen something", but “that you have experienced something". And if you leave the cinema with such a feeling, then you will be fine with the film's many shortcomings. And there are quite a few of them; a strong emotional twist in the end, diluted to perhaps twenty-three endings, around half of the running time comprises way too many digressions before it gets back on track. It is not always consistent (paradoxically, the best scene of this intimate film is a speech give to a proletarian crowd, which seems to be from another movie by a different director). The editing is either terribly amateurish or a case of not everyone being able to keep up with the phenomenal central duo.