DaViD´82

A two-round duel with probably the most complex and difficult climbing challenge ever (Holeček and Kreisinger could tell); one of the peaks of Mount Meru Shark’s fin. This documentary is not so impressive because it shows the first successful ascent, but rather because it portrays both attempts of climbers in a way that you have a feeling you are standing right next to them. But even so, it is not the most impressive sequence. The most impressive one is the second third of the documentary, which covers approximately three years between the attempts and which describes the life of the central trio. And a lot happened during these three years, that is for sure. If it had been a fiction, no one would believe screenwriters, because you would think something like that simply cannot happen. What ultimately prevents Meru from being an unforgettable experience is, surprisingly, the final history of mountaineering that rewrites the ascent, which also offers one extremely interesting and controversial dilemma. It's hard to say if they had little material about this ascent or if it seemed similar to the first attempt, but it's portrayed way too quickly much and coldly that it's detrimental to it.

Although bad (however nicely subversive) Bond movie, but a nice watch. And it could have been much better. However, the screenplay would have to back a way to long footage without particular reason, the tension between the 007, bond girl and the bad guy would have to work better, and the whole thing would have to be at least a little more spectre-style like the opening scene. Anyway, thanks to the open end, I would like to see another Bond movie with Daniel Craig. And even with the same team.

Despite all the considerable qualities (especially the first half is genre perfection and it is unusually intense), in the last third it turns into "awakening from naivety" and nothing more. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it weren't so obvious starting from the scene on the plane (which is about the twentieth minute) and especially if the main heroine wasn't so unrealistically extremely naive (not to be confused with her moral principles), although Emily performed her character well in an otherwise believable procedural movie it seems unnatural and disturbing. And so the viewer waits for the final twenty minutes eagerly until he finally comes to know what everyone already knows for a long time. The fact that the whole thing, despite the naive screenplay, still works perfectly is because Villeneuve/Deakins/Del Toro/Jóhannsson are great together. But maybe I'm just spoiled by Don The Cartel and Winslow that even an absolute masterpiece in this department looks void to me.

It's a kind of madness. An intimate melancholic psycho depression about coping with loss and involvement (or pretending that you belong) into society when you suffer from a mental disorder, by immersing yourself in the depths of the madness that will comfort you and work (yes, solving cases, which is typical for this genre), which more than skillfully combines the best of Nordic noir and British social drama. Praise to the masterfully minimalist, but captivating, empathetic Skarsgård River is perfectly justified, although (not only) Nicola Walker can keep up more than well. Which, of course, can hardly surprises anyone. In fact, It's all about the characters, because the detective line is kind of sidelined. The characters are both well-written and well-played, which will be clearly seen in the final episode, whose strength is based on the impact on the personal level rather than on the twists and turns in the crime line. The BBC simply proves once again (how many times already?) that the playful and clichéd genre theme "a genius detective torn apart by inner demons with ruined personal life" can still be portrayed in a unique way. And in a damn good quality; above all. | S1: 5/5 |

It's-a good-a show! The best of Doctor Who, Back to the Future, Futurama, The Wonderful Adventures of Vladimír Smolík, Macourkovin, Ren and Stimpy, The Red Dwarf, Douglas Adams, hard sci-fi, a sense of absurdity, satire, punk, pop culture and a black almost monty-pythonian humor. Incompatible? Says who? Rick and Morty (an old cynical super brilliant narcissistic God ... I mean, an alcoholic scientist and his somewhat dull, kind-hearted, mentally unstable grandson) is a cult movie that became classic immediately for all the adults who are still children in their heart. Children with a much perverted sense of humor, haha. There is only one drawback. Namely, a pilot episode, which rather spoils the rest of the series than anything else. However, from the second part onwards, it is absolutely true that every single episode is a masterpiece in terms of humor, narrative (meta) structure, references, development, exaggerated nihilism with a heart in the right place… In terms of simply everything. And despite all the playfulness, sense of pure boy's adventure, imaginativeness, sensitive character development, continuity that is gradually paying off, earth-shaking scenes and pop-cultural references to a lot of different things, the best thing about it is that it isn't afraid to show absolutely serious (and properly dark ) and mature scenes. And, for example, the dark atmosphere of the sixth episode is as disturbing as anything else (let alone in animated movies). I simply view Rick and Morty as one of the highlights of (not only) contemporary animated series. Nothing more, nothing less. PS: Definitely wait until the credits end. It is really worth it. That is for sure.| S1: 5/5 | S2: 5/5 | S3: 5/5 | S4: 4/5 |

How much better it would have been if it had skipped the blind spots, being too literal too often and not having every emotion that the viewer should feel explained and what is even more important redundant voice over? Much better, but still not enough to hide the fact that despite of being impressive in many ways you will not remember this movie for long. Which, considering how this theme is interesting (“children’s like" Conrad's Heart of Darkness), is at least surprising, if not shocking.

Gothic horror movie should, by its very nature, contain elements of romance, as well as Gothic novel should contain elements of horror. There is no doubt about that. But this ration must be well-balanced, whether in favor of horror movie with elements of romance or the other way around. Which is exactly where Toro fails. He took half-and-half approach and so it's neither a dog nor a cat, but a kind of hybrid covering two genres, which does not work very well in either department and the ending of "intense snowy Kill Bill final" is not appropriate in terms of genre rules. Audio-visuals are highlighted too much and it lacks a decent story line (it would hardly be enough for a short story), atmosphere, mystery, pace or just a hint of tension between the characters. If del Toro wanted to make the Gothic subgenre more interesting for today's youth, he did not pick his battle very wisely. If his intention was a traditional movie of this subgenre, then he failed terribly. If he tried to pay tribute to Hammer’s horror movies, he did exactly the opposite in a very disrespectful way. In any case, we must admit that the aforementioned audio-visual side of things is really impressive (except for the horrible CGI nonsense...I mean, ghosts and I do not think that in the gothic genre movie it needs to be so obvious) and along with the cast that does their best, is the only thing that makes it bearable.

What is more important, the basic legal pillars of society, where everyone has the right to a fair trial, a higher moral principle, which is however not stipulated the law, the inner integrity of each individual or just a giant pile of dust? Yes, difficult and ambiguous ethical and moral dilemma, which is viewed from different perspectives during the footage and Miike constantly forces both character and viewer to take sides. And it's not an "academic discussion over a cup of tea", but a well-paced action thriller packed with action. Back then, Nolan tried to do something similar in the Dark Knight for a few minutes, but only here is finally "did the job". And as if that wasn't enough, it also works on the third level as a psycho (logical) insight into a closed group, which is under enormous pressure because they can not trust anyone from the outside and not even each other. It is simply Miike's idea of a "normal" blockbuster.

A movie without the past and the future, which will be (not only because of this) described as a holocaust-style Come and See (1985). Thanks to the chosen format of "long scenes over the shoulder", it is unusually intense, suggestive (amazing sound work!) and gets under you skin very quickly and for a long time. Maybe too much, because it's constantly moving and it is so dynamic that the viewer (nor the character) will be sitting on the edge of his char all the time. What can happen is that the viewer becomes used to it by the end of the movie, although the horrors during the Sonderkommando shift are shown "seemingly accidentally", are sidelined and presented as a daily routine. But as a result it is even more terrifying and disturbing. No matter whether you become used to it or not and whether you can get over it or not, it is indisputable that Saul's son is one of the exceptions confirming the rule that the film's qualities and the importance and urgency of the theme form one functional unit, which rightfully deserves "festival fame". If nothing else, it is because such a view of the film depiction of the Holocaust through the industrialization of death was desperately needed, because although these events are captured in literature from time to time they are almost never depicted in a movie.

Iranian feature version of Taxi. Although without Hama and the competitive aspect, but this is more than enough made up for by mirroring and making the system look evil with humor and exaggeration. PS: Are there any cars of other colors than white, silver metallic, white, black and white in Tehran (apart from taxis)?