DaViD´82

A stylish, confident, and well built hacker film, a descendant of Fight Club and a probable precursor of Mr. Robot.

As a film about Bobby Fischer, it works much better than a chess film, but the problem is that you can't separate these two things. In other words, in order to make an excellent movie about Bobby Fischer at the time of his greatest chess successes, the movie also has to work as a chess film to a certain extent. And this, unlike the Luzhin Defence, did not happen. Although you may be disappointed that out of so long and interesting Bobby Fischer's life story the movie focuses only on the period before and during the famous series with Spaskky to the sixth game, this is not the main issue. The main issue is the absence of tension and Zwick's failure to make everyone start to care about the chess. From the beginning, he ignores the game itself and offers only (semi) details of the pieces, so if you don't know what the breakthrough and ingeniousness of Ficher's strategies from Reykjavík 1972 is about, then you won't even find out watching this movie, not even remotely. You'll just have to do with the fact that it is simply "exceptional". The movie not only does not show some of the characters directly but it neither does help to explain them. Maguire did his job well, but considering how interesting his character was, his performance is not that interesting; especially when Schreiber’s performance is obviously much better (I do not mean on the chess board, but actually on the chess board too...). And he even has almost no room apart from the motionless sitting at the desk.

The plot clearly lacks any idea, as well as an interesting development and a point, and purely. In terms of a thriller, in the right hands (yes, Chan-wook Park is out) it would offer enough material to become a genre classic. But… But that's not the case, because it's completely ruined by over-the-top, silly and long action sequences packed with CGI (someone should pay for the snakes) with such a confusing and shaky camera that even epilepsy would get epilepsy fit after watching it. South Koreans like to make experiment with the seemingly incompatible things, and they often succeed. However, this is not the case, because it doesn't work neither as a dark freezing thriller nor as a silly over-the-top blockbuster action movie. Let alone working together as part of one movie.

Catastrophic movie made of two halves that are completely different in terms of quality. The first halve follows perhaps all possible genre rules and clichés, but in spite of that (or maybe because of that) it works absolutely perfectly. Largely it is due to the fact that it relies on the beauties of Geiranger, the movie is not afraid to show it. However, as soon as the tsunami hits, not only the picturesque tourist village is swept away into the ocean but also the so far quality and tension. Instead of bird's-eye view of fjords, an atmosphere of disturbing tension or some story lines with interesting characters, everything starts revolving around one flooded room and one "after apocalypse" that makes you stop believe it and it starts look like a playing on a disaster with a movie studio with some props. All characters except the central family are thrown overboard and the movie seems tense, forced and mediocre. Even so, there are a few scenes (literally; bus and panic) that wake you up, but otherwise you may way to often find yourself thinking about logical lapses (and there are plenty of those) and dealing with things that wouldn't even come to your mind if the movie had been catching.

A court drama (loosely inspired by the early life of the controversial President Roh Mu-hyun) par excellence about the "moral" struggle with the machinery of state power that can easily keep up with best movies in this genre. In other words, if it weren't for the unfortunate opening half hour, which is superfluous and it doesn't say anything about the characters that the rest of the film wouldn't say better anyway. On top of that, what is really annoying is "wannabe relaxed style" that is rather embarrassing than funny and does not fit the rest of the movie. However, once the class meeting becomes dramatic and serious, it is almost perfect; especially when it all resembles in many ways similar trials in our country (however the other way around).

What is a letdown for me is that "story-telling" line provides disproportionately more interesting characters (and also actors) than the "narrative" line where only shallow characters show up. And while Hemsworth carries the movies, at least because of his charisma, Walker doesn't. What is an even a bigger letdown is that it is often so obviously digital. There are not so many movies where it is so obvious that the actors are standing in front of a green screen in the studio, and all the rising waves and sea vermin are added subsequently. But even this can be done in such a way that you will not know it, but this is not the case. This is highlighted by the fact that, with a few exceptions, the camera zooms in on the actors’s faces and bodies in these scenes, which is rather unusual. Fortunately, there aren't that many these scenes, and as soon as it takes place in classic interiors and locations, it suddenly works much better. And why did I use a word letdown when talking about these two shortcomings? Because otherwise it's true classic (maybe too much though) manly old school maritime adventure movie about survival.

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.