DaViD´82

When you cheat and take drugs, you become a prostitute... What is surprising is that the Wild is also good in terms of the intimate and chamber line "lonesome Witherspoon - inhospitable nature - endless purifying walk - the eternal self-question of the heroine". On the contrary, on this level, it does the job really well. To the extent that it makes you want to take a bag pack, go on a solitary hike and at the same time clear your head. The only drawback are the unnatural flashbacks, which at first can do with only hints/flashes in a nice way, but the closer Cheryl's journey comes to an end, the more literal and didactic they are. But what it only takes is one alpaca and everything what should be said becomes instantly clear.

Run, Andula, run! So, actually... Take steroids, Andula, take steroids! The topic of "anabolic government programs for top athletes of the Eastern bloc through personal drama, we say hello to Kratochvílová and Fibinger" looks promising on paper and is likely to take moral and ethical (not only) historical skeletons out of the closet. Skeletons everyone prefers to remain silent about even today. But as a result, Fair Play doesn't play fair play with the viewer, because it opens the door of this closet so little that even a malnourished infant would have a significant problem putting his little finger inside. Sadly, the movie only stays on the surface and does not go into details. There is no room for having own opinion beyond the standardized Czechoslovak's conciliatory view of the normalization period in a style “this is how things worked during this period, it is not our fault, what can we do about it today". The same approach is true for most of Czech movies. Which is an even bigger letdown because this movie has a large potential to get out of this cursed box of current non-documentaries in the Czech republic. In fact, even the main story line "can she run so fast?" does not work, because of the Summer Olympic Games 1984, i.e. it is soon clear what this means for the finals. Simply another movie with good performances (although Bárdosová is clumsy, especially in tense scenes with Geislerová, but in those scenes when she is silent and only sweats, she looks determined and convincing) and routine craftsmanship that is not bad, not boring, but despite the theme has nothing to say. And so, the movie says nothing and just keeps up with the others, meaning, it politely remains silent, while another layer of dust is collected on the skeleton in the closet...

A famous hypnosis expert and a tricky case of a seemingly rational female patient that "sees dead people" who her colleagues have no idea to do with. A mysterious thriller about two characters who get to the essence of things one night through psychotherapy and hypnosis. There have been some films of a similar nature (whether working directly with hypnosis or dreams, for example), but not so many good ones. Especially those that would be so well thought out, built and properly executed in terms of quality. Basically, there is not much to complain about in terms of the first part of the movie until the point. But after the point... But don't get me wrong, the problem is definitely not in the point as such, but in what follows. It's hard to find another film of a similar kind, which would devote fifteen minutes of footage to literally explain everything in a way of "shot by shot, sentence by sentence, look after look". What's more, it's not justified, because it's not so tangled that the viewer can't unravel it himself (after all, it's likely that you'll see it through to some extent before it's revealed). And to make matters worse, this is followed by quite a few more minutes, which spoil the movie even more; namely, a melodramatic ending which is superfluous and looks like a scene from a film of a completely different genre.

They might have directly called it Das Schwindelgefühl sakumprdum because it was inspired but... you know what. And to its detriment, because from the scene "in Johnny's lair for the first time" on, it will have the exact opposite effect instead of having tension between the characters. This is a great example of plot planning so everything leads to the only one possible outcome. And this outcome, unsurprisingly, is slowly achieved about an hour later. So it works mainly thanks to the introductory third and the central duo (in which he is an unacknowledged German-speaking illegitimate child of Russel Crowe. Even so, it is a solid “Hitch movie", which, paradoxically, is better off in the line of "finally a different grasp of the theme of coping with the return from the concentration camp and post-war identity of the German nation", which in all its subtlety, hints and all that unspoken stuff is much more impressive than if it just followed the genre.

It's quite likely that after you see what kind of official shenanigans and "you can't make this stuff up" absurdities around the daily “traffic” and “construction” of the bridge, you will replace the phrase "Like in Kocourkov" in your dictionary with the much more apt "Like in Mumbai".

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you, in other words avoid a fire alarm at all costs. A (non)conspiracy thriller par excellence in the form of an unfinished documentary. I understand that when they started filming, they still couldn't know exactly how it would progress and what would be unleashed, but that does not justify the poor dramaturgy done "in the editing room" during the completion. Maybe it should have been made later than only after one year or it should have not covered so many topics. It's a little bit about Snowden, but not that much. It's a little bit about the phenomenon of whistleblowing, but not that much. It's a little bit about the leaked materials, but not that much. It's a little bit about moral and ethical issues, what to publish/hide, but not that much. It's a bit about secret government programs, but not that much. It's a bit about the work of investigative journalists and the media in general, but not that much. It's a bit about everything from this department, because a lot of things are briefly mentioned but only a little is actually said and even less that we wouldn't (in the meantime) already know from elsewhere. None of the above, however, means that it would be bad or uninteresting. It's just wasted rather than anything else, because having the possibility to talk to an unprecedented source during (even after) such historical event calls for so much more than Laura Poitras did. Because he was afraid to ask Snowden displeasing questions. Others had to do that for him. PS: Citizienfour is a perfect example of the type of documentary in which the "importance" of the chosen event/topic is often (and easily) confused with the "importance" of the documentary as such.

Borgenov-like behind the scenes plotting enriched by the thriller and crime movie frame (or is it vice versa?) so target-oriented and escalated. And on top of that, wearing a shabby washed-in Nordic sweater... Yes, Sarah is back. The first season diluted the unprecedented and stimulating personal approach by stretching the season into twenty episodes with repetitive sub episodes, while the second season is more dynamic, has less episodes, greater filmmaking and the approach of "everything should be more tense and everything must be bigger". As a result it lost its unique concept and thus became an exciting and high-quality, but somewhat overplayed genre variation of other movies. However, the third season takes the best from the two previous ones and at the same time it did its homework and avoids their drawbacks. Thus it is far the best, the most dynamic and the most exciting. This is largely due to the fact that only in the third season the consistent adherence to the trio of story lines (criminal, political and personal) has finally worked. In previous seasons, their interconnection has not always worked, but this time they appear hand in hand as one integral whole.

The second movie of the non-declared Morris Cycle With Former War Ministers of Defense... And despite some reservations about this part, I would appreciate if they make a "third sequel" (William Perry should be the first choice). In any case, Donald Rumsfeld is an undeniably interesting figure, and Morris is a documentary filmmaker who is capable enough to take advantage of this, and (unknowingly) hand in hand with the World According to Dick Cheney's that is just being created and presented, to create an extraordinarily interesting image based on views of two main figures of Bush (or Cheney if you want) administration "looking back after some time". Traditionally, Morris is an exceptionally good documentary filmmaker with an ironic perspective, who can ask questions, put things into context and work with archival materials, but he is also a very capable filmmaker who is fully aware of the importance of the audio-visual side; especially for a documentary with only one talking person. As a result, however, it is worse than the Mist of War in terms of quality , which is largely due to the fact how McNamara approached it at the time and what Morris got from him.

Taiwan from a height that provides both the necessary distance and insight into both stunning beauty of nature and ruthless conflict with "an expanding civilization ignoring everything versus defending nature" which has no winners, only losers who failed terribly. In addition, Chi Po-lin has a sharp eye in terms of lines, contrasts, curves and composition as such, which is nice to watch all the time and he manages to avoid a syndrome similar to "too many, too brief, too quick beautiful full HD images", which are usually ruined by the fact that there is nothing else except these embellished images that you quickly become bored with if watched as a feature-film. The worst thing is the introductory third, which has its flaws and looks to a large extent only like a promo video saying "immediately pack your things and come here". But I must admit on the other hand it is a breathtaking promo video, that is for sure.

Kick-Ass made in a style of classic Bond movies. And it is done so consistently and one to one (again, it is genre conscious as much as subversive, furious, with a considerable portion of meta exaggeration, it emphasizes being cool in all circumstances and the resembles in clearly seen also in the course, the type of roles, allusions, etc.) that is clearly to its detriment, because the Vaughn/Millar duo are undoubtedly capable of doing more than just copying themselves. However, if (and as long as) it is such a thoroughly likeable incorrect fun, who would mind it? PS: Too bad the official subtitles, which are not very imaginative are not very good. At least Valentine's speech impediment directly calls for a playful approach.