DaViD´82

Beautifully shot and stylized, outstanding music and magnificently performed, bombastic and snobbish nothing. The worst thing is that the final unraveling scene (and it doesn't matter which of the two or three possible interpretations you chose) does not justify the would-be ingenious formal construction as a mindfuck. It rather fully shows that instead of three different story line layers, one main story line would be more than enough to achieve the same effect and convey the same message (for all three possible messages). However, introductory hardcore subtitles should be kept as they are the best and most subversive part of it.

Hynek! Vilém! Jarmi... Um, Clarksson!!! At the beginning, it is not a completely clean ride (no complaints about the prologue, though, the bombastic concert stage is annoying). The last season of Top Gear no longer reached the qualities of "golden seasons" (except for the specials, of course), so I actually welcomed that 3 commentators left to Amazon. I secretly hoped that it would provide new driving force and that they will play with that slavishly observed and binding unchanging format that had become Top Gear's biggest limitation over the years. Well, the result is that they haven't changed anything except the show/segment names. They really changed nothing. Some people will like it, while others not that much. I belong to the second group, because due to the fact it's almost identical, the biggest drawback of their last seasons at Top Gear hasn't disappeared. I feel only use inertia instead of bringing new ideas taking advantage of not yet lost glory and their cult of personality. We cannot say it's a parody of itself (except for the horrible "kind of Stig"), the three of them are still too much fun and have an insanely large budget and therefore limitless possibilities, but this is actually quite a daily routine for them. Funny and high quality, but already seen, when you know exactly what to expect from one of each of them (which is an even bigger problem when we admit that it has always been much more about them than about cars). There is no moment of surprise. However, the biggest disappointment comes paradoxically in the form of the technical side, as some hipster intellectual came with and idea of processing each sequence by different shitty "Instagram" filter. The result is a excessive nonsense without a unified concept not only as the whole but also in individual parts, because thanks to the cut-ins into cockpits (these are not processed by filters), it is so striking in a way that even striking amateur music on Youtube looks professional. Not to mention a show with a budget that would cover the state budget deficit of many smaller European countries. The result is the funniest and the most excessive routine by far. The question is whether that is enough. And this one (added years later) I will answer myself. Yes, it is. Already during the introductory season, it improves significantly (I mean really a lot). As if they said to each other, look, we don't have to do it just for the money, let's enjoy it. It's clear that they enjoyed it themselves and that, thanks to the Amazon super budget, they can do whatever they want and anywhere in the world (we should pay tribute to the invisible fourth one who is behind the scene, Andy Wilman). On top of that, the (un) novelties are beginning to be sidelined from the beginning and then they fade away (only in the second season it takes a step back in the form of the return of the celebrity segment, the tempo is ruined and it´s no that interesting anymore), only in the third season it gets back on track and gets rid of nonsense. It simply starts to be enjoyable and thanks to that viewers enjoy it too. Undoubtedly the best ever travel-adventure-car show for the real man being on a high wire with hosts constantly messing and competing with each other. Nothing more, nothing less; just #amazonshitcarshow.S1: 5/5 | S2: 5/5 | S3: 5/5 |

The pure essence of Cormack McCarthy, about which regular adaptations of his works can just dream about. Without exaggeration, the best film neo-western, watching which you will be astonished on how many levels it works, without any possible "but". It works smoothly as a genre movie, as a study of magnificently written (and without exception equally magnificently played) characters, as a hypnotic movie that raises emotions benefiting from Cave and endless Texas distances, as well as a camera that does them justice as a reflection of time and a social insight into the soul of the had-working Republican class, which has nothing, banks are bullying them and circumstances force them to take one credit after another and who get from one debt to another (no other film will show you in such an illustrative and nonviolent way why America chose Trump), as a textbook of minimalist dialogs "about something", even if seemingly "about nothing", like... Well, I could continue for hours and hours in the same way. For many years, I have not seen a movie that would so skillfully blur the line between pure genre pleasure and existential festival movie. For me, it's simply an instant classic, and not just within the "Peckinpah" genre.

Lethal Contact. In the past, many giants of the silver screen have tried to convey space, time, size, relativity or being that go beyond the perception through the movie: from Kubrick, Mallick or Zemeckis to Nolan. Sometimes more or less successfully and sometimes absolutely ridiculously. Villeneuve is one of them. Also more or less successfully. The movie tries to use a smart and refined construction (to the extent that it is more interesting in what topics it describes than in the story it tells), a tangible subliminal tension and, above all, an intimate melancholic personal line that would like to raise emotions. And this is exactly the problem to some extent, because in the end it is cold and depersonalized, despite all the efforts. Although stylistically cool and depersonalized, but with regard to what emotions it is trying to raise, there is a noticeable contradiction in that. And even if it's about something completely different, what is a big letdown is that the linguistic line faded away extremely fast. Especially when the original went much further in this respect (Fermat's principle, etc.). SPOILER-like PS: I'm quite surprised that the movie doesn't follow the tradition of Czech and foreign movies and doesn’t immediately reveal the plot by using rather dramatic title à la "Memories of the future" or something similar.

In some places, it seems like "we are following the time-proven quality TV plot at all costs", but this certainly does not mean that it would be to the detriment. The ambivalent character of the young pope as a real dark Catholic who believes in nothing but himself and who hides his own groping/searching in the guise of real dark Catholicism and a powerful uncompromising Old Testament God, whose love we are unworthy of. If you are into a Machiavellian scheming full of dialogs, where each sentence is ambiguous and where there is an unspoken tangible tension under seemingly friendly sentences about nothing, in which the sentence stated has the same weight as silence, then the Young Pope is definitely for you. Because the movie is excellent at that. Problematic so far are the occasional WTF sequences à la CGI kangaroo, which are… Simply WTF. Also, some characters a little bit insignificant, but the acting saves the situation, no doubt about it. You can immediately tell it’s a Sorrentino's distinctive style. Occasional insights into the every day routine of life "behind the monastery walls" are nicely civil. Symbolism is (mostly) not annoying. A seemingly apolitical pope with a clear agenda versus scheming of the cardinals magnificently satirical. Contemplation of existence and God full of points that are not cheap, dry apt humor, football Naples is present. The Pope is subversive as the exact opposite of the current progressive Pope. Great acting (Jude Law and Silvio Orlando as the icing on the cake), refined audiovisuals and, as expected, the story line is completely absent. This is about the characters, not the story and twists. It’s kind of a "thriller of inner faith". However, we cannot say the experience in unbalanced. There are really great sequences as well as the rather dull ones. And exactly this proves the best that the footage of ten episodes is not entirely justified. These are the (weak) strong points of The Young Pope in a nutshell.

A significantly different episode that seems to get to Black Mirror by mistake from The Twilight Zone. Which, of course, is not a bad thing, especially when it is such a good and emotionally strong episode and considering the fact that there has been no worthy successor of the Twilight Zone for quite a long time, but it simply does not fit in terms of the style, focus and even the message. I don't want Black Mirror to become just a platform for any "any short stories" after some time (not that this is the case with this episode). Nevertheless, a captivating mix of melancholy and optimism with a disturbing taste in the conclusion. The only drawback is the construction, which is a bit too predictable from the very beginning. In any case, it's probably no coincidence that it was Harris, the author of the episode Be Right Back that viewed the theme of death and departure from the perspective of half-empty glass, while here it’s rather from half-full perspective.

A sophisticated B-movie, which pretends to be serious but in fact it’s a movie about a guy who combines Will Hunting/Jason Bourne/John Nash/Frank Castle/Raymond Babbitt/John Wick. Simply put Chuck Norris doesn’t stand a change. So a mathematical autistic outstanding genius accountant is chasing everyone with a gun in his hand and tries to cope with matters of the heart and uncompromising fatherly love among countless headshots. Simply B-movie, roller-coaster ride. The movie is simply a lot of fun. It shouldn't work on paper and it should have been silly and have had potential to win this year's Golden Raspberries Award. But... But contrary to all expectations, it works. And really well (especially in the first half). It's distinctive in a way good-old European crime movie of 1970s used to be. The only weak point is silly effort for the final twist, relying on the identity of one of the characters. At the same time, it was only in the middle of the movie when I realized that the characters/viewers, according to the creators, probably are not supposed know it from the very beginning.

Leo's deeply personal essay on his long-term struggle with windmills, certainly not a document in the true sense of the word. It’s impressive solely because of its urgent immediacy and visible effort to draw attention to something and to make a difference. It can be urgent and persuasive without slipping into the mode of a Jehovist on your doorstep "who has come to talk to you about global warming for your personal good". It's just a little ridiculous (if not hypocritical) that the whole world travels by plane and helicopter and at the same time it is talking about importance to avoid it. However, I assume that it's all about causing small evil for a sake of achieving higher good, and without this there would not have been the best scenes, such as a disputation with an Indian woman. Although it is not an investigative document, you will also be pleased about the fact that there is an effort to look at the topic from several perspectives (scenes focused on the beef, etc.).

Cyberbullying in a tech trolling thriller riding the Simon Says wave. The escalating tension of a deadlocked situation to (and beyond) the very edge of bearability. In that respect, it smacks of Watkins's debut Eden Lake. The cherry on top is the pleasantly relativising twist.

Straight into oblivion. Paranoia² or facing the depths of madness through play psychotherapy. Excellently constructed, it's just a shame about the slower pace and the main character who is too much of a typecast American Joe to be likeable in the way that this type of story demands.