DaViD´82

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.

Strangely built. In the first half, nothing at all happens. There are too many songs in every other scene and they seem unnatural and forced (just a regular musical with questionable quality of production) to finally start something in the second half (such as Hans Christian Andersen à la Disney) and suddenly the songs start disappearing until they disappear completely (final half an hour). Beautifully styled and thanks to the second half even more for boys than one would expect from a "princess fairy tale with way to many songs". Which, in any case, does not change the fact that it is undoubtedly more for the girls, and the role of the male characters, which are clearly in numbers here (perhaps except for Olaf and the reindeer), corresponds to this.

Better and much less useless than what I feared, but at the same time worse and more useless than what I hoped for.

Chris Kelly trying to be Alan Ball during the Six Feet Under. And he fails miserably. At the same time, it tries to fill all the Sundance boxes and something like "the ultimate Sundance indie festival with characters who have no traits but are only a bunch of eccentricities." And it's so terribly obvious and not at all honest. In fact, it is sometimes annoying in that calculation and at the same time incomplete in terms of the concept. So Kelly should kiss the feet of the duo Plemons/Shannon, who find in those characters even what they don't even have. Only thanks to them does it work at least to some extent.

More mature? Don't let it mess with you, it´s only dirtier and free of childish staff. It is true that the first hour is largely redundant and the movie would probably do without it. There is also no denying that describing characters as one-dimensional means adding one dimension to them. On the other hand, this has always been the case with Star Wars. You can recognize scenes that were shot several times and that's not good. And what they did to poor Cushing will make you turn in the grave for more than a decade. At the same time, however, the final half hour has unprecedented zest for this series, that it goes its own way and that Edwards works impressively with space and scale (at least in Imax, it works great in this respect). Yes, it's nothing more than intense disposable blockbuster. However, it is a pretty successful disposable blockbuster that does not try to be anything else which is nice, not in terms of events let alone in terms of not pop culture idol like other self-centered movies of this universe. PS: Although Giacchin's accompaniment is not as good quality or grateful/suitable for independent listening as Williams's, it is surprisingly better, as it does not draw attention to itself and, in fact, only serves the film.