DaViD´82

The 80s original of Sorkin's Newsroom (which I mean as a compliment), in other words its non-news part that is relaxed in terms of relationships, when in addition to the same style there is also an unacknowledged inspiration of many characters. For example, MacKenzie McHale is such a faithful copy (in terms of behavior, abilities, craziness, obsession, articulacy and talkativeness) of the local Jane Craig that you can hardly tell them apart. Yes, it could have been shorter, and in the second half it shouldn't have turned completely into a relationship movie "one she and two they" at the expense of that behind-the-scenes insight into the news media, but overall it's very likeable and nice. But even so, the best part is that pre-subtitle prologue is worth having its own movie.

Undoubtedly nice and not bad in any way, but there is nothing that sets it apart from countless similar movies. I mean, apart from the fact that the story takes place in boys' choirs. Although... It is not something that sets it apart, as the French did the same thing ten years ago and it was more stylish and by far better, both in terms of cinematography and music. And despite the fact that they made something that had been made before a hundred times, they were at least successful in terms of raising emotions. The chants here sound nice, but it's as reserved and cold as a polar night. And for a similar type of film, it's simply the last nail in the coffin in the same was as for an action movie without any action.

It is not an adaptation of Krakauer's well-known original "about the event", which will surprise many in a bad way. And it is even more surprising that it lacks any significant ambitions with regard to the creator and the cast. From the whole expedition we only get to know a trio "Hall - Texas guy - postman" properly. What is a biggest disappointment is that given that the disproportionately more interesting trio "Krakauer - Yasuko - Fischer" is clearly only a makeweight here (not to mention the other participants who are present only out of duty "because they were also there at the time" rather than playing a more significant role in the movie. The same goes for Sherpas. Likewise, what is completely ignored are the controversial topics surrounding Hall's and his company's involvement in this disaster “we get the people to the top even though they cannot make it". They failed to make proper preparation, and even at the top they made a bunch of incomprehensible decisions. The movie completely avoids any dark undertones what a person is capable of when things go wrong. And the fate of the three Indians who were caught by surprise by the same storm is not even mentioned. So, these are the weak points what this movie is not and what it is not about. What is more important is, however, what the movie is at the end of the day. And it's a damn successful manly adventure movie with Hollywood-style human warming emotions about the invincibility of the human spirit and with heartbreaking phone calls to the pregnant wife. Once you get it and understand that the main role is not played by the actors, but by the truly impressive camera (by the way, it was made in 3D after years again, which is not just a way to increase the ticket price, but an integral part of the experience; especially when watched in IMAX), showing the beauty of the Himalayas that will intoxicate you, you will really enjoy it. That is for sure. Yes, it's surprisingly cold not only in terms of atmosphere but also in terms for emotions and the first half is better than the second half that describes tragedy, but it doesn't matter that much, because it's still quite impressive and very intense, which is undoubtedly the best non-documentary climbing film of the last few years along with German Nordwand.

When you see a good move, look for a better one. Undoubtedly, there is a lot that might be written about Mr. Robot. For example, about a refined formal aspect that many articles will certainly analyze (the introductory headlines, the framing of the characters in the lower third/corners of the screen, etc.). Whether it's imaginative work with an unreliable narrator, breaking through the fourth wall, as well as analyzing the details of a well-thought-out cold and refined Fincher - De Palma style of (audio) visuals and their role (especially from the second series, when Esmail directs everything himself) or how it plundered the German movie Who Am I. About how, thanks to the smart structure, it doesn't matter if you see through the twists and turns during the opening scenes or later when the creators reveal, because in both cases it works because a conscious game is played with the viewer in a way that "you think you know and we know very well that you think you know"" during all season. However, it is not based on the point anyway. The Malek's and Wallström's performances (not only) will be highly praised, as well as countless articles about how there is finally a show that does not mess with Linux-lovers community of the world of hackers, blackhats and the like. Forums will be packed witch comments addressing the meaning of each sentence, allusion or reference. But what is left for the "ordinary" viewer, who does not care about the above-mentioned and just wants to watch a good TV series? So such a viewer is by far the best, because Mr. Robot in a nutshell offers damn successful Palahniuk-like anarchist hacker Fight Club that combines corporate line of Underwoods by uncompromising pragmatism. Which could be enough for a viewer whose perception of the community from the dark side of modern technology is only based on novels with Lisbeth Salander to give a pilot episode a chance. Whether he will like it or not, is a completely different question, but Mr. Robot, even considering a bunch of great series of unprecedented quality of recent years, is so unique and courageous that it offers many reasons to give it a chance, despite its occasional problems with the pace of storytelling. And who knows, maybe the creators will hack you and you will fall for it. | S1: 5/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 5/5 | S4: 5/5 |

This fairy tale that is one of the best has an obvious (and thanks to Desplat also in terms of voice) potential to become another annual regular Christmas favorite movie. However, exclusively on Czech TV art channel, because the slow-paced local settings carefully follow the style of the originals of even today well-known fairy tales, which certainly were neither too kind nor easy to watch. And it is exactly this true (dark) not glamorized and horror-like side that is as fascinating (especially with regard to the amazing visual qualities) that makes it really hard for a conservative family to gather and watch it together without any harm.

I guess, you will not find out what the problem (or more precisely the unpleasant snag) of this series is… It has two central lines. Drug dealers "South American" Spanish-speaking lines that is focused on the late career of the patron of the Medellin cartel Pablo Escobar (fantastic, respectful and, Mour that does not overplay at all), which is full of intrigue, tension, well built and adhering to genre specifics, without however, deviating significantly from reality (after all, there is no reason for that, because even the reality was sometimes hard to believe). The second DEA "North American" English-speaking story line is way too much procedural, addressing the details of the investigation (both agents were actively involved in the development of the series) and the hunt for the drug lord, who was one of the richest/most dangerous people of his time. You already know what the snag is, right? Yes, each story line is completely (but really completely) different. It cannot be said that one is better or worse than the other one, because their style, atmosphere and concept are so different that they are simply incompatible in many respects. In addition, there is a third component in the form of very frequent documentary sequences that are like a radio broadcast and are accompanied by archival then footage. Although each of the components works great independently and there is nothing to complain about (perhaps it just looks like each agency is represented only by one person), they do not fit together and do not form a coherent whole. Which, given their qualities, is rather a letdown. And it is even a bigger letdown since it has already been shown that these seemingly incompatible approaches to this topic can still be successfully combined (I mean Don Winslow). In other words, it is a disappointment, but it is certainly not something that would change the indisputable fact that Narcos has become one of the top shows in contemporary quality TV.

The opening half is, sadly, too slow, which is caused by the fact that it almost the first contact of the Western audience with Japan since the war, so there is a need to explain the concepts and the Japanese personality. That is something that everyone knows in today´s world. So, the academic explanations of bushido, yakuza, katana, emotion and duty to honor and commitment is time-consuming. Sometime it looks like filmed Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, unlike many similar Western movies, it is not being disrespectful to Japanese traditions, and on the contrary, it follows the rules and specifics. However, once everything is explained and the bloodshed of getting even and paying back for old commitments, it does the job very well. Except that from the point of view of history, customs, and obligations within the yakuza it was better depicted by Japanese themselves; especially in the movies by Hideo Gosha.

The spirit of the God-forgotten 70s (however it was not created until the early 1980s) Bronx, whose very distinctive genius loci is plays the main role. It is depicted through the unadorned daily routine of true patrolmen who just want to do their job without being annoyed by they superiors or the street rabble. Even after several decades have already passed, this movie still inspires many films and series that work with the harsh and dirty poetics of work and depict personal life of ordinary police officers. And that is why (but not only because of it) it is a genre classic movie that fully deserves its status and which, with its qualities, fully lives up to the good name it has built.

A (non)noir (non)Christian (non)fairy tale that captivates with its peculiar atmosphere and charismatic villain, but trips over its own feet with shoddy sets, appalling theatrical overacting by the entire cast, and an annoying duo of kids in the lead roles.

A priceless idea that is reprehensibly unimaginative. With a few exceptions that prove the rule (looking into other people's heads, filming dreams), this is a banally straightforward adventure in which Pixar "un-Pixarishly" often stoops to cheap character goofing off.