DaViD´82

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.

The opening half is, sadly, too slow, which is caused by the fact that it almost the first contact of the Western audience with Japan since the war, so there is a need to explain the concepts and the Japanese personality. That is something that everyone knows in today´s world. So, the academic explanations of bushido, yakuza, katana, emotion and duty to honor and commitment is time-consuming. Sometime it looks like filmed Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, unlike many similar Western movies, it is not being disrespectful to Japanese traditions, and on the contrary, it follows the rules and specifics. However, once everything is explained and the bloodshed of getting even and paying back for old commitments, it does the job very well. Except that from the point of view of history, customs, and obligations within the yakuza it was better depicted by Japanese themselves; especially in the movies by Hideo Gosha.

The spirit of the God-forgotten 70s (however it was not created until the early 1980s) Bronx, whose very distinctive genius loci is plays the main role. It is depicted through the unadorned daily routine of true patrolmen who just want to do their job without being annoyed by they superiors or the street rabble. Even after several decades have already passed, this movie still inspires many films and series that work with the harsh and dirty poetics of work and depict personal life of ordinary police officers. And that is why (but not only because of it) it is a genre classic movie that fully deserves its status and which, with its qualities, fully lives up to the good name it has built.

A (non)noir (non)Christian (non)fairy tale that captivates with its peculiar atmosphere and charismatic villain, but trips over its own feet with shoddy sets, appalling theatrical overacting by the entire cast, and an annoying duo of kids in the lead roles.

A priceless idea that is reprehensibly unimaginative. With a few exceptions that prove the rule (looking into other people's heads, filming dreams), this is a banally straightforward adventure in which Pixar "un-Pixarishly" often stoops to cheap character goofing off.

The first part of John Woo's Pearl Harbor about the fates of three couples on the verge of the Chinese Civil War. You certainly won't miss nor overlook that Woo has gotten a huge budget at his disposal. There is no problem with that. The problem is how he used it. The scenes of everyday life of the central trio are naive and so sweet that they would easily fit into romance movie, but despite all of this, you will get over it. Surprisingly the problem is, (don't forget it is John Woo!) over-the-top epic war scenes (they look like those from the Navajo Code; just bigger, bigger and even bigger), when Woo doesn't know what to do and so he shows one explosion after another, the all this slows the pace significantly. And yes, on both of these levels, it's simply 100% Pearl Harbor. It's just not that fun (or ridiculous) and it's just boring. And also thanks to the fact that it is a prologue, which could have easily been captured during the first fifteen minutes of the second part. However, it will not make you want to watch the second part, not even remotely, because the fates and the characters are not interesting and, to their own detriment and the over-the-top style of action will soon annoy you even in this movie.

(over) An over-the-top stylized, undemanding spy retro one-time movie, which is not purely comedic, but it make you smile throughout the footage. Unsurprisingly, it is entirely dependent (even thanks to the unnecessary bad guys) on the squabble of the central trio, which usually works. Most of the time. And if not, "sixties" Ritchie, "Morricone-like" Pemberton or Uncle Rudi with his fairy tale carry it.

I cannot deny that I really enjoyed Rebecca Ferguson and all that neatly shot, imaginative and various actions scenes without overt-the-top CGI (especially the motorcycle scene is simply perfect), but what is the best thing about it (apart from Rebecca Ferguson, of course) is the final minimalist personal London third, when it definitely turns into a classic British-style spy film, where the well-written characters (not only in terms of action blockbuster) mess with each other using dialogs "I know that you know and you know that I know" at the airport, in the room or on the restaurant terrace, and it completely does without any action. And it works, because it's not silly at all, while respecting the principles of the genre, and McQuarrie makes you forget that twenty years ago, in terms of script, he was able to do with one room and unfortunate narrator. As you can clearly see from this, he was mainly concerned about the characters and the plot and the action and tinsel were sidelined; which is an unprecedented thing for a summer popcorn movie, which in fact it is not.