DaViD´82

It has its undeniable drawbacks (aptly described by many here), but it is also one of the better updates of the original (a neglected short story within the canon that gave rise to one of the greatest detective clichés). This time, it doesn't look like it's unnaturally incorporated into the action, but on the contrary, the whining padding (which works only thanks to the central acting duo) is built around it. The "(non) Sherrinford" conclusion is being heralded from the very beginning of the series. In this, unfortunately, it´s too easy to see Moffat and Gatiss through.

Most people have heard of Hamlet, even if they haven't seen it, because it sounds quite boring. So, what's it about? Well, I have seen it and it's about four hours long. Educational, explosive, deadly seriously funny, and in fact the most loving tribute to Shakespeare's legacy, which, for obvious reasons, brought them a lot.

A series safely riding the waves of a light dwarf above average, play it safe when none of the episodes is a letdown, but only one is memorable (as in the previous row, it is the third one). It thus makes us think of the golden age with something other than the prevailing nostalgia like the rest.

I completely and intentionally avoided having any hair for two decades. Not because it's a musical or maybe because of "display of long-haired guys" but because I once suffered watching a classic version. Which is basically a 90s, TV Nova pell-mell variety show where every single excellent but poorly arranged song was followed by at least two terrible ones (and of course poorly arranged too), moreover, the song was so obviously intrusively agitating that perhaps even the hippies would get annoyed. I never wanted to see it again, not even from Forman, though it kept bothering me "what the hell made him do this". After all, if I finally dared to watched. I would say that no other film proves Forman's greatness like this one. To be able make such a nonsense to have at least some meaning and as a result unexpectedly impressive story (you can read the original course of the plot on wikipedia), to focus only on (with one exception) performances, moreover not significantly stylized in terms of music, to change the order of songs, their singers and, in fact, almost everything, it is simply a proof that he could perhaps even transform Olmer's post-revolutionary works "into timeless classics".

It´s way too much for a musical, or perhaps it´s the other way around. Hard to say. In the first third, it is also a regular musical, where one well-directed musical scene in one shot alternates with another. But then the singing fades away and what remains is (and visually pleasingly beautiful) tribute to the technicolor era of Hollywood and classical jazz. Although still in the form of a music / dance film, but not a musical in the true sense. Or, conversely, there are too many songs and the opening third should also have done without them like most of the rest of the footage. But it should definitely have been fifteen or twenty minutes shorter. However, what saves the movie is the "we always have our beloved Paris" bittersweet ending. During this one, I would be willing to ignore every drawback.

I hope that once (Western) civilization falls, future historians will get a picture of the origin and meaning of Christmas throughout the ages based on Charlie, Philomena and McClane.

A conflicting mix of two completely incompatible approaches, coldly procedural movie with a Greengrass patina and biased "trade unionist" black and white in terms of characters. There are only two types of characters: hard-working good guys/heads of families, the only dirt on their character is grease (but it must be acknowledged that the Wahlberg / Russell duo manages this mode with honor) and viciously villainous white-collar management, which knows nothing and doesn't understand anything, casting menacing glances, counting every penny and making money from working rabble. Thanks to this polarization, it finds easy, unrealistic "who is to blame" solutions, which shamefully dulls the procedural line, which is otherwise presented excellently and credibly in itself, and is the film's strongest point. The final disaster (not catastrophic) third is appropriately impressive and properly explosive, but so frantically edited, when one shot follows the other even before the first ended, that this lack of clarity (probably intentional) almost make the viewer dull. On the whole, rather disappointing, from such a major event as the disaster at Deepwater. It would definitely have been possible to make more out of it than just a just a decent movie covering at the same time two different genres.

Silence before the storm being built step by step. But in the final, there is no even a thunder. No thunder, but no even lighting. That's basically enough anyway; especially when it nicely except for a few minutes, follows serious (in the Moffato-Gatissian sense) mode at the expense of the comedy (one would almost be afraid that it will be a Shercom and mime sitcom). It's on riding the "Bond" wave. However, both key levels are to some extent problematic. The crime line gets fragmented in a promising way into six directions (and plays with the Six Napoleons in the spirit of the opening series) to result in a point clear from the prologue, and no matter how the personal line is crucial, by being entirely from Sherlock's point of view and purely about it, so Watson, who is sadly lags behind, doesn't get enough space (and let's admit that Holmes without Watson in the book, is just not that good, let alone here). Because of this, the closing doesn't have the right driving force the creators intended. However, it has the potential for interesting lines for the rest of the series. Definitely the weakest episode so far, but not downright weak or futile, though perhaps too much on the verge of Mrs. Hudson with "Norbury".

I don't know what's sadder: the fact that this is the weakest (but not weak) Christmas special in many years, or the fact that it's still almost enough to be the comic-book film of the year. By far the best part is the prologue, it's the pure essence of the Doctor.

I have a somewhat ambivalent feeling about it. On the one hand, it's admirably slow, when you really feel all those past years (it definitely looks much longer than it really is, but in a good way), on the other hand, it only takes those key moments from the original without the padding around that it acts as an outline of melodramatic bitter clichés full of Sophia's choices to be used in a Mexican soap opera, so you simply won´t stop laughing. Not to mention the ending that looks like from another movie/genre. Why it works so well in the end is how it´s directed, the genius loci of the dreary locations (who else than their master Arkapaw) and, above all, emotionally tense melodrama subdued by performances.