DaViD´82

Detailed portrayal of characters in the form of a family drama that plays out over several decades in the context of the historical twists and turns in China. In terms of structure, it is the embodiment of “a great novel in film form". Although it lasts three hours, it feels like six, at least. But not in a bad way, because Wang can be so enthralling that at the end of the movie you do not feel “that you have seen something", but “that you have experienced something". And if you leave the cinema with such a feeling, then you will be fine with the film's many shortcomings. And there are quite a few of them; a strong emotional twist in the end, diluted to perhaps twenty-three endings, around half of the running time comprises way too many digressions before it gets back on track. It is not always consistent (paradoxically, the best scene of this intimate film is a speech give to a proletarian crowd, which seems to be from another movie by a different director). The editing is either terribly amateurish or a case of not everyone being able to keep up with the phenomenal central duo.

Yes, it's basically trivial and in surprisingly many ways less sophisticated than it looks (apart from idea with laughter and the final “relativization"). Yes, its quoting/following of Scorsese’s examples in the form of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy is too obvious and consistent to be considered a plus. It's not surprising in terms of its course or outcome. At the same time, however, it is undeniable that what Sher can do with the camera, Guðnadóttir with the droning (non-)music and especially Arthur Fle ... Um, Joke ... Um, Phoenix, together make a film that is disturbing, gets under your skin and won´t fade away when movie is over. Even without an apologetic excuse “in the context of a comic-book movie". Which means a lot.

As an interactive experiment, Late Shift is uninteresting and the movie clearly missed the bus, because others have already done the same but better. In addition, the choices for a similar type of experiment are not very common. And after all, with a few notable exceptions, it's more of a semblance of choice, as you alternate the main character's reactions to the event rather than directly influencing the event. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the non-actors were good, but they are not. If the directing was good, but it is not. If at least the script had been good, but in fact it is not. It is appalling and doesn't make sense. So, as a movie, it doesn't work at all. Nor does it work as a game, because the two dozen meaningless yes/no decisions are simply not enough for a “full-length". Instead of feeling that you are creating the movie, you feel more like a passive spectator who has to avoid falling asleep between long boring non-interactive blocks before you can make another choice. Moreover, most choices are one-word and, given their outcome, clearly misleading. The creators specially designed repeated passages, but they doesn’t work, precisely because it is hard to watch due to poor quality and it cannot even be played due to the lack of meaningful choices.

The cult Czech one-liner "Don't be angry that I'm bothering you again, but I forgot to ask if you have a cellar. Do you have a cellar? And could I see it?" elaborated in the form of a feature film consisting in (by far not only) a thriller mixed with a black-humor class satire in which you never know what you can believe as a spectator. This could have easily ended up as an embarrassing mishmash (and this has happened to Bong Joon-Ho in the past), but it resulted in a scathing masterpiece that give the South Korean wave a second wind. Second wind? This is not a simple revival, but a full-fledged comeback in several respects.

As a whole (i.e. three episodes), this is the best of the whole European quartet. Like the others, the dialogue is very well written and cast is a great fit. The series toys with the connecting format, but the highlight by far is the way it handles the overall course of the interrogations, twists and “overlapping sauce" around them, whether that involves the social aspect or that in front of/behind the mirror.

Horror subgenres are bound by traditions, and this applies to “folklore horror" even more. It can’t surprise anyone, if we are talking about a movie that is centred around following and respecting traditions, right? Maybe that's why not many filmmakers are eager to make something like this. Because dealing with the fact that the viewer will know “where the movie is going" is certainly not easy. You will not only know it, but you will expect it and maybe even require it. What's worse, you get into a position where you reluctantly expose your work to the  pedestal of cult classics with The Wicker Man at the top. Nevertheless, several good films in this vein have appeared in recent years. Aster's Midsommar is the best of them (although it is paradoxically closer to the new Suspiria than the original The Wicker Man (1973). After all, as with all the best horror movies, “scaring/disturbing" is just a means of looking at ordinary problems. So Midsommar is primarily a chilling psychological study of a dysfunctional relationship/breakup, and what goes hand in hand with that is the fact that this study is disturbing, unpleasant, magnificently shot, enriched with some gore effect and performed in a riveting way.

Easygoing and fast paced. It could have a little more pulpiness, more active involvement of Grace during the finale, and especially a cameo from Vin Diesel with a speech about family.

Games Without Boarders/Takeshi's Castle meet Fast and Furious Grab a beer, turn off your brain and just watch how boys and girls in tuned cars can(not) drive. The more stupid, the more fun. The only one that is missing (except Stig); is the possibility to really turn up the volume so that all those roaring V8s could rumble through the whole house. But it is not possible because overly excited hosts are constantly chattering in American English. And what's worse; they are chattering but basically saying nothing. And it’s really challenging to listen to it. | S1: 4/5 |

The final scene is not based on previous events; it would work in the same way as a separate half-hour “what if" short story. For over two hours, it is hogwash without any direction and a patchwork of unnecessary scenes full of padding, which... are so finely tuned, well acted, funny and set in the time, while making a point and paying tribute that it's no wonder that one wishes to have more of them. Of course, however, there should have been a lot less of them. And if it had not been “from Hollywood lover Tarantino to Hollywood lover Tarantino" and had it mainly been more cohesive, then I would have left the cinema fully satisfied.

A documentary mini-series that, based on its title, trailer or theme song, you could (rightfully) dismiss as another standard ostentatious celebration of football. You know, a huge amount of such things (not only “by FIFA") will always come before the World Cup. Well, appearances can be deceiving. And that is exactly the case here. This is related to football documentaries in the same way that one unnamed quarterly for football culture is related to the Czech Deník Sport newspaper or the magazines Hattrick and Pro Football. Rather, it is a celebration of the power of football (even considerable emotions will come up), but from a completely different perspective and in a completely different way. Each episode is a separate documentary about an hour long; one is about the role of football (e.g. Liverpool) in Rwanda during/after the genocide, another is set in Japan after the tsunami from the perspective of the female national team, an an episode about outsiders who  unexpectedly shock the world. Then there are episodes about the miracle from Iceland and about Messi, which is probably closest to what one would expect from it based on the misleading trailer or the horrible theme song. However, it can still surprise you. The production values are large-format, so this would be watchable even on the big screen. The snag, however, is the music, which in some moments (mostly introducing drone shots) is so inadequately monumental or, conversely, so bitter that it is clearly annoying. Other scenes that I found annoying are when someone, while thinking back to a crucial match, shows their reactions to the course of the given match (shaking their head when the opponent scores, etc.). These are indecently cheap sentimental flashes. And then there's another cheap shot: if a doctor is being questioned, he is wearing a medical uniform, if it's a safari guide, then he is wearing a safari-guide uniform, etc. There is no reason for that. In the final part, however, the best that can be written about it is that it is so fascinating and full of strong stories that it works perfectly, even if you have zero interest in football.