DaViD´82

To describe it as a French "zombie" Twin Peaks is a cheap description that's a long way from the truth, but on the other hand, it does offer itself... Eight episodes about a town in the foothills where peaceful coexistence is disturbed by returning (un)dead household members who have not died of natural causes and who have somehow not been told that they are long since dead. As cheesy as it sounds, it works perfectly well thanks to the unique characterization of the characters (and their logical behavior) and very suitably chosen intimate stylization, and one would believe that if something like this ever happened, it would happen exactly like this. And despite the occasional lull in the storyline, it keeps you in constant tension precisely because you care about the characters, and especially because of the dense, disturbing atmosphere (strongly evoking Trier's Melancholia) massively doped with a musical undertones by Mogwai. Perhaps a warning to those who require all questions to be answered; it is similar to Twin Peaks also in the following respect. There are no clear answers here. Which is good - it would just lose its charm otherwise. I just don't know how, considering the season one finale (brilliant, by the way), they can maintain the civility on which it all stands for season two.

When a trio of grandmasters of their craft is silent and train individual executioners with machine-like purity, there is no choice but to admire their art with a respectable nod of the head. But this will only happen at the very beginning and then at the final credits. Meanwhile, for 90 minutes, the filmmakers for some incomprehensible reasons force this trio of non-actors into chatty emotionally tense scenes which would be hard even for some great actors; which these people are not. Moreover, I do not even understand the approach of the creators to introduce unembellished karate and its philosophy through a scenario that does karate a complete disservice, because it creates the impression of a self-centered discipline of the least resistance in order to gain a piece of cloth, with no regard for others.

An outstanding and rather (very) subversive genre piece which stands and falls with its conclusion. And it‘s with that final explanatory and point making last ten minutes that there is a problem, and not just one. Not that it’s borderline stupid or that it doesn’t make any sense, but.. There simply are few absolutely crucial buts. Which makes you doubly sorry, especially with a movie that’s coherent as this one.

Save the Tiger 2012. When the wheels of justice begin turning even against an arch-asshole who, after years at the top, finds his personal and professional life starts falling apart (with nobody else to blame but himself), it’s hard not to root for him despite everything he stood for before. An intelligent thriller that shows the true face behind the American smile. In marriage, in unfaithfulness, in business, in friendship, while bluffing, while cheating, while threatening, while submitting evidence... Simply in all possible situations. At least, this applies in this pleasant blast from the nineties (in terms of style, themes and even casting) which would have been more than equal to others in this genre even back then. P.S.: In fact, I think the frequently criticized ending is absolutely perfect and also the only ending possible; it’s clever, ties up all loose ends, while being ingeniously open, leaving sufficient room for viewer fantasy.

A melodramatic attempt at a poetic illustration of the philosophy of kung-fu in a non-genre art film about the last grandmasters, when all the time you are being slapped in the face with “let’s talk about philosophy over a cup of tea" with action-packed “most effective ineffective fights for miles around, sparkling with Hollywood nonsense like never-ending trains". In both cases, this might have worked superbly, but together it works about as well as a Terrence Malick movie cut with Bay-style action. The only one-on-one fight scene that fits this thought-demanding course is the “cookie scene".

The mood-setting question provoking intimate first half with the visions of a postapo janitor is in sharp qualitative contrast to the second, cheap action-ridden (stupidly) explanatory half. And it just has no idea when to stop all of this with honor and so the hitherto pleasant Cruise is now faced with emotional scenes that mostly go wrong or else he becomes immediately out-acted by everybody, even the GLaDOS/Sponge Bob duo. The second half is simply a regular product, which just cannot be said of the first half. In any case, in terms of visuals, design, sound and music this is on a level rarely seen of late.

The wife of a currently imprisoned boss of an influential clique of the Yakuza. A wife who, in his absence, runs the business well and keeps an eye on the partners of imprisoned “employees" to make sure they don’t go wild or suffer hardship. However, when the “main godfather" dies, an internal fight for power breaks out between separate cliques, in which her husband would have been a favorite. So she decides to start actively playing a dirty game full of intimidation and intrigue... There is very little to fault about this storyline, but for incomprehensible reasons, this shares the screen with equally long footage with her younger sister’s “Montague-Capulet" storyline. And this is a dime-a-dozen storyline where the main protagonist is unpleasant and occasionally even annoying. And these are words that I never imagined I would use with about a Hideo Gosha movie.

Hollywood is once again jerking off in a moronic routine rip-off of a moronic line with a moronic attack on the White House from the moronic seventh season of 24. However, as much as it is stupid (and it is stupid), it is also unintentionally funny (and it is funny).

I can’t remember seeing a movie which was be so likable, while at the same time undermining itself so much. The “good honest" thriller style of the 90’s has gone out of fashion, so every attempt to revive it is nice to see. Reacher has the advantage that despite being serious it doesn’t take itself too seriously which is even more admirable if we take into account the casting of Cruise who is certainly not the right person for the role of charismatic guys reeking of testosterone. Also worth mentioning is the cool directing (and that’s not just because of the opening eight minute taciturn sequence) and the emphasis on action scenes which aren’t over the top and involving cheating using CGI effects. Against that, it’s needlessly long. Not that there are unnecessary scenes, but many are longer that they should be and would be more suitable in the cut scenes section on the DVD/Blu-ray. Then there is the predictability of the plot which shifts the meaning of that word onto a completely new level (and it’s nothing to do with the fact that, for some weird reason, we know from the opening scene that this time Barr is innocent). The “who and how" is clear from the very beginning and very soon the “why" becomes apparent too, but the characters find out only after a good seventy minutes. And the biggest mistake you can make is to hire a (non)actor with one of the most charismatic voices on the planet for the role of arch villain, and then to use him as no more than an extra and in just two scenes. Otherwise I was satisfied and hopefully for number two the authors will learn from their mistakes.

The backstage of a kitchen in a posh restaurant run by a self-centered chef with a divine talent. Quite a rare topic amongst mainstream sitcoms. So in the end it’s hard to understand why the supporting and rewarding part of a special world in itself has been so blatantly ignored (even though whenever pursued it makes for the most memorable moments of the series) and overwhelming majority of humor is based on simple American “who’s fucking who" relationship (non)humor and pondering about life with a moralizing lesson at the end of each episode. It’s basically identical to HIMYM. Just that it’s happening in a kitchen instead of a flat/pub, but it could be happening in offices of an accountant company or in the drains with homeless people; there wouldn’t be much of a difference. It’s a waste of a good theme and the cast as both of them deserve better than a trivial result seen a hundred times before.