DaViD´82

Neo-noir Woody Allen on cocaine laced with synthetics. Loud-mouthed, too tense, hypnotic, mumbling, repulsive, soiled, slimy and truly (I really mean truly) intense. It cannot be recommended anyone. Compared to Uncut Gems, Good Time would be a viewer-friendly film. This time, the Safdis provoke on purpose. You will either hate or admire them from the bottom of your heart, but you will hardly say “hmm, a nice average movie that I will not remember tomorrow “. You will remember. It is only a question of whether you will spit in disgust or nod appreciatively while recalling it.

As is the source work, so is the adaptation to a significant extent, though for completely different reasons, since how can you possibly adapt almost 140 pages of illustrations in eight episodes, right? The book Loop is based on illustrations (borrow it, google it, it's worth it), where the genius loci is the crucial aspect of every single painting. Each is brimming with nostalgia for the 1980s, a children's expedition for adventure, alternative “retro-future" history, cold and damp autumn and chilling, snowy distances. Unfortunately, the book Loop has a shortcoming in the form of the redundant “so-called storyline", i.e. padding. In the book, images paradoxically do not serve as illustrations, because the text itself is an illustration. How was all of this dealt with in a drama series? Surprisingly well. The atmosphere and design of Stålenhag's paintings are portrayed phenomenally (and strongly supported by Glass's music). It is undeniable that the stories are not in the spotlight, but despite that, they play a significant role, unlike in the book, where they are in the background. Whereas in the book the basic outline of the good storyline was expressed in one or two sentences if only someone was able to grasp it and elaborate it properly, that's exactly what Halpern / Amazon did really well. Not memorable, often lengthy, even for a series that is based on an intimate environment and a deliberately slow pace. The storyline is often not enough to fill up the almost one-hour running time, but it is sufficiently well done so that it does not diminish the quality or induce boredom. At first glance, this may give the impression of a cross between Stranger Things (poetics, children, retro, adventures) and Black Mirror (episodes, overlap, themes), but this is not the case. Tales from the Loop is original. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes not, but in any case it has (thanks to the atmosphere and audiovisual aspect) all of the prerequisites to become a sci-fi cult classic and a work that will discussed a lot. And it deserves that, despite it's shortcomings. | S1: 4/5 |

He wanted to have a festival, but influencers came. It's definitely fascinating, but only from the Schadenfreude perspective of “ha ha, they got what they deserved". Events events are not coherently documented, uncomfortable and sensitive questions are not asked, the key people of the “inner circle" are ignored, except for McFarland, and at the end there are more questions than at the beginning. It has already been overplayed, with several cases of fraud and embezzlement and there is nothing sophisticated or imaginative about them. It's just the idle talk and promises of a charismatic imposter supported by good marketing. Nothing more and nothing less. It worked for a short time and the people affected stared and stared until they could stare no more. The case involving Elizabeth Holmes is infinitely more interesting.

An overview of a single genre everything that revolves around it. It looks like an nearly two-hour trailer for a ten-episode series. And the series would have been excellent, because every single topic (and there are many of them) that is broached is stimulating and clearly calls for further elaboration. But that never happens. Something completely different comes up every ten minutes. And the previous one is left forever without anything other than unspoken general information (it can digress in the middle of the topic and they start talking about the impact of kung fu movies on breakdancing and parkour culture, but that never takes more than a minute, so what’s the point?). And damn, that's not enough. It's a good idea, but the form suffers. The talking head is replaced by a shot from the movie, followed by a graphic divider, and the person who speaks appears for just one second and then you find out what was being discussed. It all takes about twenty seconds and then the same song is played over and over again. And thanks to this, it is fast paced, it has energy and you make a mental note of "wow, I need to get this movie and yay, this is interesting, I have to find out more about it". But that's the problem, it just teases without going anywhere. It is not even clear who the target audience is. Definitely not fans of the genre. They know everything already and this is too general, too shallow. And it's definitely not for viewers who are not familiar with the subject, because it's so brief with no details at all about specific aspects aimed at fans, as something completely different is happening before the can grasp the topic that came before.

Taking into account the year in which the book was published, it is clear that this movie does not (and was not intended to) represent a new approach to the fantasy genre. No, this is (and should be) a black-and-white fairy tale, a naïve fantasy about a bunch of kids. Yes, it's largely a chivalric variation on Narnia (not the film, but the series from Studio Rosa) without the traditional fantasy creatures and talking fauna. And no, there's nothing wrong with that. If classics like Willow were your cup of tea back then, then this one is cut from the same cloth. In less than five hours, it never loses pace (the price for this is the logic of occurrence and transfer of characters in the second half and the final episode, which gives the impression as being one episode spliced together from two), the children are generally not annoying, the main character is absolutely a nice guy, the creators were not afraid to use “cheap" but breathtaking settings in New Zealand as exteriors and Czech castles as interiors and... And in general, if you want (except for one nice twist) a straightforward, unpretentious narrative adventure fairy tale for the whole family for one afternoon, then there is no need to look anywhere else. If, on the other hand, you are looking for a new Game of Thrones or The Witcher, then keep looking. | S1: 4/5 |

Hello all you cool cats and kittens. In recent years, true-crime documentary TV series have been the epitome of what's “unthinkable". And that's doubly true in this case. The main characters are eccentric, egomaniacal, hypocritical rednecks engaged in a dispute, who above all love attention, money, mullets (“business in the front, party in the back"), horrible hackneyed  country songs, guns and big cats. But it could (and should) have one or two episodes shorter. It loses pace in some places. However, there are many topics covered in the series: breeding big cats in captivity and their conditions, the financial business resulting from it, the guy who was the inspiration for Tony Montana (in which other show would such a character be the least interesting?), femininity/masculinity, building a commune/cult with everything that goes with it, an inheritance worth millions, a presidential candidacy, tons of meth and, above all, the gradually escalating backstabbing among everyone involved, up to point of murder, etc. So, it will keep you entertained at all times. Which you will know for sure from the fact that you will constantly shake your head every time you see an “unthinkable" or “it can’t be possible" moment, and your neck will hurt like hell. But maybe it would be appropriate to wait another year or two, because even “after the end" there is and will still be a lot of interesting things going on in those cases.

If you expect a behind-the-scenes look into a famous college football team, an insight into how future stars are able to balance their studies and preparation for a professional contract, the specifics of “transfers" between universities, the relationship between mainstream students and the football elite, tensions between freshmen and seniors who have the last chance to prove themselves on the team, and the rivalry between individual schools... Exactly nothing like any of that is addressed here (except for a few flashes). It is purely a sequence of games during the college football season; it's well presented and fast paced, and it's not without anything interesting, but it's only about the sports aspect of game preparation, the game itself and what happens after the game, again and again.  The few attempts to delve into the personal level are too staged to provide any real information. In other words, what is most interesting compared to the NFL's All or Nothing series, i.e. the college dimension, is not used enough. You will certainly know that they are immature young people only by how they try to be natty and constantly stare at their mobile phones. PS: The defensive coach is the largest conceivable collection of all the “American football coach" clichés; such a character would not have been possible in a non-documentary work, because it would not have looked real, not even for a second.

The most impressive thing about this series is not the unprecedented realistic (as far as possible) behind-the-scenes access, strong emotions, troubles, joys, backtalk, the difference between press releases and what is really “on their mind", the portrayal of adrenaline-fueled races (Fast and Furious is no match for this action), the absolutely masterful editing (even routine scenes with not much action are breathtaking, not to mention those packed with action), intrigues full of backstabbing between stables and (together with) (co-)riders in the style of “Game of Thrones", the non-linear structure, peeling of tinfoil from polished F1 facade, to “Clarkson-Hammond-Mayovsky" (they will definitely cut that out) snapshots or the running joke in the form of “ignoring" Räikkönen. No, by far the most impressive thing about this whole masterpiece is that it gives the polished and prescribed motor-circus the human face, individuality, emotions and charm that F1 had for many of us in the 1990s, sometime around the age of Senna or the later rivalry between Schumacher and Häkkinen. I'm not at all surprised that the first season about 2018 brought an increase in interest and viewership of the season about 2019 as a result. And what about the second one, when the crew, in addition to the rest of the field, also got really close to the unstoppable Mercedes/Ferrari duo (if only for just a few races and not the whole season). This real, high-quality sports documentary series provides an insight into how it looks when the TV cameras are turned off and the press conferences are over. Generally speaking, that is something Amazon is good at, but with this series (and also Sunderland), Netflix has has an ace up its sleeve. There is currently no better-filmed, emotion-packed and information-rich insight into top sports (and there are a few damn good ones). | S1: 5/5 | S2: 5/5 |

Dark Waters is a rather standard, though high-quality, drama about a long “David versus Goliath" legislative battle in which the arrangement is clear. A conglomerate hiding its misconduct against nature/humanity and a lawyer who is becoming disillusioned but not losing his ethics. It follows the plot of the well-known Erin Brockovich and other, similar movies. What makes this memorable is the impressively disturbing Chernobyl-esque atmosphere, especially during the first half.

The first third is so packed with energy and drive that the last time I remember watching something like this was the last Mad Max. It pushes you forward, one idea alternates with another idea, you don't know whether to admire the technical aspecte, the mise-en-scène or the content, which never falls short...and is inevitably followed by a fall into the darkness. As much as the technical mastery remains, the more the film progresses, the more it turns into a variation on Come and See; the more reserved it becomes, despite the “one-shot integrity", the more episodic it is. Eventually, it completely falls apart into a jumble of scenes; sometimes unusually impressive, sometimes already seen, sometimes rather repetitive. Having slightly more or less scenes doesn’t really matter. The path (physical and internal) of the hero and the viewer would be quite the same. It's not bad or boring, not for a second. Only it's never as good as it was at the beginning. Which might be a problem for a movie intended to provide an exhilarating experience. So, it's not exactly a matter of form over content, but it's dangerously close to that. No doubt about it. However, given the very high level of the form, that wouldn't be anything negative.