DaViD´82

A proper genre direct-to-video B-movie, the kind of which video stores used to be full of. It has only one major flaw, not so much that the whole heist schtick is too predictable, but if I had Gina Carano and Dave Bautista on opposite sides of the barricade in the same movie, I would let them beat the living crap out of each other.

Home cares has high its highs and lows. You don't expect anything from it, and it first excites you with the golden sixtieth solid aura of the new wave, then it turns in a completely different direction, it is packed with ambitions that are very close to being ridiculous self-parody, and finally the movie is saved by a really nice ending. Horák seems to have an undeniable talent as both a screenwriter and a director, but he would need a big stick in the form of an uncompromising playwright.

Although Masterchef sometimes has a way to much over-the-top pompous American-affected tinsel to its own detriment (European adaptations are more moderate in this), it cannot be denied that behind this tinsel you can find everything that makes a good (not only) culinary reality show so good, exciting and a catchy, because it is not only a precisely tuned show, where everyone plays their intended role (from jury to the competitors covering each and every ethnic group and personality, so that everyone can choose), but it is a masterpiece that is polished to even the smallest details with an unprecedented pace and a contagious passion for cooking that will probably make every home cook feel excited. What's more, it gets better and better every season, as the creators manage to learn from their mistakes (adjusting the format and rules in the third season made it even much better; especially considering top level of participants). The first season was more about laymen in the kitchen but every subsequent season raises the bar a bit higher in such an obvious way that what the competitors showed in the final of the first season would hardly be enough even to qualify for the third season. So yes, Masterchef contains many aspects that can put you off at first glance (I would appreciate a fourth judge; specifically a food critic and clarification of whether the goal is to find a chef in the sense of an individual with a vision who has authority and can gain respect in the kitchen or someone who simply "only" does cook damn well, even if he/she won't survive in a top restaurant), but it is worth watching. That is for sure. At least, give it a chance. I mean provided that you are into cooking but that is something that seems natural if you watch this kind of show. Nevertheless, I would rather watch the French version, which looks (in terms of culinary and style) by far the best out of dozens of these shows from around the world. PS: I recommend Ben Starr's blog, which on the one hand offers an interesting insight into the backstage but more importantly follows the fates of some participants in the second season after it finished and how this show did (not) help them. After all, most of the finalists in the individual series are good at culinary to some extent. | S1: 3/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 5/5 |

The ultimate financial thriller about the "dark side of multinational corporations", about several years of investigating the flow of money with countless characters. Nevertheless, it is straightforward, exciting, the pace is frantic, it is full of twists and turns and the performances are magnificent. But still, I feel unhappy that it does not keep distance. You know, I mean the promotional bullshit, actors and directors praising each other during the first screening, and a decade later there are much more willing to share what they really think about the movie and its creation? So this is the same thing, because this case has so many aspects that remain unknowns until today that it will take some time for everything to come to light. It's like seeing the first half of a football match, after which the result is 1:0 in favor of team A and then, without seeing the other half, knowing that the team B won three to one, even thanks to one penalty. But you don't know anything about the course of the second half of the match, whether the penalty was (not) justified, how teams played, whether this result of the match will "indirectly" help someone else, whether it might have been corrupt (not) and whether betting agencies might have been involved... The Clearstream affair is exactly like that. It would be wise to leave it for a decade or two, so that more people would not be afraid to speak and that the intentions of stakeholders would be clear, wait until some evidence comes up etc. I must stress again, however, that from a purely genre-cinematic point of view, it is simply perfect, providing you get over the “typically French-leftist" stylization of Robert depicted as a martyrdom victim of the of the evil state power, when judicial and financial forces back each other. The whole judicial aspect of the affair was based more on whether an investigative journalist has the authority to come to one-sided conclusions and make accusations without having any evidence and having only suspicion (however reasonable) and who is not willing to reveal his sources? So it wasn't nearly as black and white as it's presented here, but it is the case of the contradiction between reality and facts versus genre requirements again.

It has style, an idea and it is fun. But this applies only to the first half hour. Then the theme is runs out, it becomes static and boring and it unnecessarily soon turns (not) in favor of the romantic line in a thousand times seen adaptation of "how a disparate duo finds their way to each other despite circumstances and prejudices"", that is packed with countless clichés. Which wouldn't necessarily have to be bad if there had been least a small spark between them and if it hadn't been the same as the director's Romantics Anonymous. Just this time it is much, much, worse.

A dense and well-played procedural crime movie made in a style of the best movies of the seventies of the French genre school; which is further enhanced by the stylization of Personnaze to young Delon. I think the best thing we can say about the quality of Serial Killer 1 is the fact that it can easily keep up with Fincher's Zodiac and it would have been a success even if made at that time. Let alone today, when such good movies are rather exceptional.

Adaptation of Miłoszewski's original, which has dense atmosphere, excellent cast and is stylish in terms of following genre of "northern noir", where sociological and social overlaps and historical Polish skeletons are addressed. Więckiewicz enjoys this pragmatically cynical approach, which is hardly surprising, since he has been so good in this area that his movies became simply must-watch purely because of him. However, all the strong points are overshadowed by his biggest snag. The creators scores their own goal by the way how straightforward the local investigation is, clearly build up in the style of mediocre genre movies and, thanks to that, completely predictable from the very beginning. Considering that you need to wait so much time until the main character finally understands what you already know from the very beginning after having watched the complex investigation of all suspect that is required by the genre rules, it can hardly be considered a successful crime movie. Paradoxically, it is better and more interesting thanks to its overlap rather than the genre level.

It's not about Jobs's many successes (failures) in Atari, Apple, NeXT or Pixar, so it's not a movie an about a visionary who without doubt influenced the Western world in many ways by them. It is a little more about Jobs, however it is not mainly focused on him, as an extremely interesting person, who combines a capable (willing to do what it takes) and in many respects genius and very intelligent "leader" who was able to sell his innovative vision like no other, with undeniable business skills and charming personality, as well as an arrogant and often unreasonably cruel and emotionally unstable manipulator suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder who does not hesitate to go over dead bodies even of those who are close to him. And that's the nicer side of his dark side. But by far the most it is about the simple relationship of a complicated personality to the world, colleagues, friends and above all about finding a way in life and about an unwanted daughter. It's typically "Sorkinian-style" movie. No doubt about that. However, this time he managed to avoid a frequent weak point of his movies in a very smart way; namely, that his characters theatrically recite and do not speak like real people. And so he immediately captured it as a kind of stylized theatrical performance based on fiction inspired by the reality showed in three acts and returning visits à la Dickens's Christmas Carol. What Honor did well is that, apart from the period format of the individual acts, he stays away from his habits and he completely relies on the frantic pace of Sorkin's energetic dialogs and excellent actors, which is far from just a hymn to the Fassbender-Winslet-Rogen trio.

Although it might seem natural to shortly describe it as "eight-hour Black Swan/Red shoes loosely based on Showgirls", but... Whatever. This description not only seem natural but it may be very apt too because it is about a dark and uncompromising insight into the dark side of the ballet through a self-destructive desire for one's own perfection. The only serious (but important at the end of the day) drawback has to do with the supporting characters, who, given how much space they have, only blend in and are present only to have sex and take off clothes. And in some places it is too dull and boring to its own detriment; especially in the approach to the main heroine, who, moreover, is not very charismatic and is as quiet as a mouse. Which is a big letdown, because otherwise it's written and performed well, and thanks to Arkapaw, it has impressive cool visuals and beautiful compositions of the dances. Although it is not bad, it's hard to recommend it as others have done the same job better and within the shorter footage. However, if you have already watched the "better movies" and want more from this department, then (and only then) there is no reason not to watch it.

A six-episode movie-conceived miniseries (shot apart from Norway mostly in Czech republic) about perhaps the most famous (and from the point of view of the most important point) sabotage of the WWII; Operation Telemark, which confirmed the validity of Murphy's Laws as the course of the operation is hard to believe. The objective of the operation was to stop the production of heavy water used by Germany in attempts to build a reactor for the production of plutonium, but perhaps nothing went according to the original plan... And this series addresses this fascinating milestone from scratch, comprehensively and with regard to historical facts (except for the character of Anna Friel) and does so through three main storylines and numerous black and white characters from both sides. The "scientific" line of Nobel Prize winner Werner Heisenberg, "betrayal" line from the factory after the new manager took office during the occupation, and of course the "saboteur" line itself. None story line is more important and they are all equal. Not only in terms of space, but also in terms of quality (the only drawback is that the second half of the final episode is too quick and brief), although each of them has its own style and themes addressed. And even though there seems to be the risk of the whole show falling apart into three independent lines that play take place in different backyards, the exact opposite is true, since in this way the story lines complement each other.