DaViD´82

"I'm reluctant to rate it with the hackneyed phrase of "form overshadowed content", though it's pretty much the best way to describe it. In any case, the chosen format "in real time" is bold and ambitious, everything is in constant motion, it is made as one uninterrupted shot and through several different moods and genres it can be undeniably engaging, intense and as “Mann-style" captivating in many scenes as anything else. However, when something does happen (and it does more than it is appropriate), then the chosen form is on the contrary the cause of complete alienation and total exclusion from the movie, when you get so bored that you start noticing the smallest technical and production aspects, how they did a sloppy job in some scenes, and you will not pay that much attention to what is (not) happening on the screen. It's just the whole footage follows the sinusoid curve, for some time it is great, while some time it is out of place. Yet at the end of the day, what is the worst thing about this movie is a way too long, unjustified footage, especially the opening hour. As a result, I would be much more interested in watching a documentary showing how this movie was created including its pitfalls rather than watching the movie itself. Still, great job! We cannot deny that it is something that no one has ever tried before in such a scale. And more importantly, this movie is rather a success than a failure.

Talent reality show about baking in all forms in a tent in the English countryside… It may look like a waste of time and it may call to be labeled as "guilty pleasure" from the department the Czech show Prostřeno, but that would not be entirely fair. Because it's really good and it offers a nice alternative to all those glorious, too loud super-talented mega show. In fact, "bake off" is nice, homely, it offers a lot of useful tips (if you are into baking) with typical English hosts and jury that stay on top of things, without being unfriendly or fishing for emotions. And yet (or precisely because of that?) it can be exciting and it can work in terms of emotions. No wonder, there have already been a few seasons and it belongs to Britain's most watched TV shows for several years in a row. Although I must admit, that this TV show is intended for a completely different target-group than those of FilmBooster users. In any case, it is surprising that no Czech adaptation of this has not yet found its way to the Czech republic in a from of Saturday evenings on Czech TV. In fact, this kind of TV show would suit us much more, as there are many grandmothers, aunts and mother who are into baking, than countless shows that we so gladly and often adapt without even thinking.

The sports line serves more as a tool of perception of Hispanic social part, which is what it's all about. As a result, it doesn't matter that it follows the same path of a gutsy emotionless guy found his way through prejudices and despite the initial setbacks and losses, they finally brought joy to everyone together even if being outsiders. At the same time, however, it is true that creators managed to avoid genre clichés and when they do occur, they are decent. In other words, as a social-sports-fairy-tale drama we get to know a different ethnicity and at the end we will be moved by their accomplishments and it is actually a nice watch. And you will also get Adam Arkapawa's camera as a bonus, who proves again and again that he is able to level up anything, regardless of format, quality or genre. And this is also true here, because what he does with the arid landscape of California, sunsets, night scenes and graceful silhouettes of runners, all without lapsing into kitsch, so you can simply enjoy it.

Matt Damon needs to be rescued. Again… So the bestseller Handbook of Young Martians written by Bear Grylls finally got a blockbuster film adaptation. And this adaptation is so successful that it rectifies most of the weak points of the original (especially the repetitiveness of the first half). In any case, advertising of NASA through the fate of the botanical MacGyver, who starts to like Abba, sand, red, taste of potato and solitude, is fun, stylish and what is nice is that it is relaxed and humanistic in a feel good style that is rather unusual in terms of survival films (let alone sci-fi blockbusters). It is as unusual as refreshing and surprisingly fitting.

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.