Reviews

I will tell you right away, this is the first film in 2 years that I will definitely review, despite some exaggerations (which I will note later), the picture is exciting and interesting, it simply attracts attention with complex and fascinating cinema language, impeccable camerawork, amazing complex tricks, dynamic chases, monstrous cars, black humor. The work on the film was done at the highest level and required significant efforts on the part of the team of creators - this huge amount of invested effort, which is visible throughout.

Despite his age, George Miller has demonstrated excellent creative form, and over the years he seems to be getting better. This painting is different from anything he has previously created. Being at its core a tragedy of revenge in a post-apocalyptic world, the film contains reflections on a more subtle level of worldview, which are imbued with Miller's life experience and creative trials as a creator.

The director, along with screenwriter Nick Latouris, emphasizes symbolism without flirting with mythology. They honestly show what they realize and understand themselves; carefully, trying not to scare off the viewer, the film asks the audience eager for spectacles: "What unites an ironic sadistic mission and a cruel dictator? Why do we kill each other and who is leading us to war? For what and for whom are we sacrificing ourselves?"

The spirit of the times, militarism, political populism - are read in the picture, sharp topics are scattered with crumbs that a thoughtful viewer can catch.

We see a crimson crucifixion - a sacrificial cross symbolizing the redemption and salvation of a new earthly cradle, a matriarchal paradise on the remains of the human era. Later, in the finale, the director will finish the story using the same symbolism: the prototype of the temptress will pluck a fruit from a tree grown on a rotten body. Furiosa gives a peach to the chosen sisters - this scene refers to the image of Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper".

The young heroine loses her wig with woven bells - the heroine is freed from childhood illusions, discards the symbol of slavery, and on the strength of this act, on these relics, like a "phoenix from the ashes", a renewed Furiosa is reborn. Fueled by revenge, she, gaining strength, goes through time to her destination.

In this world of exuberant colors, Miller presents a new icon of diesel punk - the great, blinded by anger Furiosa.

Being a woman by nature, the author gave her all the power of masculine power and endowed her with prophetic meanings.

Before watching, I understood that the heroine would have supernatural survival skills and fantastic capabilities, and I must admit that this is true: men will crown the path of the avenger with their bones.

But I would like to thank George Miller for the fact that the genocide in his performance looks less humiliating, and at the same time, with a stretch, as close to realism as possible. In his interpretation, Furiosa is a man with a female face: laconic, fearless, with a tense, sullen look, not feeling physical pain, and she transforms mental suffering into testosterone fuel, so she has few replicas in the film, they are dry and functional.

Furiosa symbolically refuses to speak, her psychogenic mutism, caused by a personal tragedy, declares to the outside world about hidden aggression and protest. There is no place for emotions in her heart, there is only searing anger.

To be honest, this fragile creature, with a rough voice, thin hands and a childish face, does not inspire mythological retribution, but ... Taylor-Joy coped with her role perfectly, conveying the image of the avenger as accurately as possible, and her large, childish, expressive eyes captivate with their spontaneity, hypnotize and touch.

All the actors play their roles as well as possible in this high-speed deadly whirlwind of adventures, but there is one character who stands out from all the others - this, of course, is Dementus, a sadistic antihero with a childhood trauma.

This is the best role Chris Hemsworth has played in his entire acting career. Chris Hemsworth really plays in this film, this is the leading role, this is the most striking character: witty, ironic with cruel features. In this story, he is by far the most notable - this is Chris Hemsworth's brilliant benefit. And it seems to me that his image of Dementus clutching a teddy bear to his chest deserves a worthy place on the villainous movie alimp.

I would like to note the excellent work of designers and technical specialists who created impressive combat vehicles and bikes. This is a real work of art, and watching this mechanical power lift clouds of sand at high speed, explode, ram, ferociously twist metal is fascinating.

Stunt work is just an epic mystery, it's a real movie celebration of the profession. The stunts in this movie are unique and inventive and only a stuntman understands how difficult, difficult and dangerous it is. Of course, you can say, "It's all special effects (VFX)." But this is not the case. You can't make such a movie without the risky work of stuntmen, and you don't want to look at it through the prism of the "green screen", because each scene was created with great attention and love, and this is clearly visible.

What is happening on the screen easily immerses you in events, captivates you with exciting car battles, and evokes emotional empathy.

This is the kind of movie that is so engaging that you don't want the movie to end.

As for the flaws of the painting? Yes, the story is inferior to "Mad Max: Fury Road", both in content and in the choice of the hero. The plot is very predictable, the turns are not amazing, the director has something to show, but he does not tell as much as he would like, leaving the details out of the frame. The non-mortal Joe is a functional figure who does not participate and does not influence development. The story is based on the realization of revenge, a vivid antagonist and a high-speed adventure.

There are exaggerations in the movie and they, in part, remind of the fantasticism of what is happening, but I forgive Master George Miller everything: I watched Furiosa all 2 hours without stopping, such magic is only possible for a real artist and a professional who is sick of cinematography.

A fantastic apocalyptic adventure of a chimpanzee hero who has not been initiated, who was forced to embark on a dangerous adventure to save his tribe and find himself.

I do not feel excitement and awe in the tragic intricacies of the anthropomorphic zoo of talking monkeys, but this humanistic odyssey turned out to be better than a hundred bloody verses of conformist hysteria.

Surprisingly, there was more humanity in the images of primates than in the most pompous highly conceptual phenomena of cinema.

The film really contains emotional depth and is able to captivate not only an interesting story and excellent animation, but also moral arguments about self-destructive will. The wise orangutan "Cancer" calls for mercy and peace, pointing to the only right path for the main character, marking in front of him the landmarks of conscience and the sacred meanings of forgotten human knowledge.

For me, he has become the most pleasant character, but alas, the philosophical orientation gives way under the pressure of the commercial paradigm of rationality, and the authors wash away the furry philosopher in a stormy river of mass preferences and heartbreaking conflict.

The third act was the most tedious and predictable for me - everything became extremely clear and monotonous: a minimum of reasoning, a maximum of actions, no intrigues, only the goal "forward to a dramatic happy ending" - so one could title "Act 3". The third act is a guerrilla war of saboteurs in the realm of the fascist dictatorship of the monarchical order, the frenzied miasma of which will be washed away by the all-consuming ocean, and the self-proclaimed tyrant will become a ritual sacrifice of the "New Kingdom"

Directors Matthew Bettinelli and Tyler Gillett have shot an exciting black comedy called "Ready or Not" However, this non-demanding horror does not cause any positive emotions, not to mention delight.

Violence in modern cinema has become one of the main forms of social communication, presenting a grotesque mirror of "hypernaturalism". The authors have "straddled" the dominant of violence and gallop in the bloody prose of everyday absurdism, urging the viewer not to think, not to reflect, but only to have fun "with bulging eyes". Such primitivism takes place, especially if the author is unique and has his own charisma. In this case, we are witnessing an exaggerated children's image in a musical and choreographic performance.

And as we can see from the positive reviews of teenagers and grown-up "Peter Pan", this approach resonates, and we hear deafening exclamations of admiration. But do not worry, the puberty period is passing, although it may be delayed.

The leitmotif of the painting is a sucking candy, a children's treat, and in the picture it has nothing to do with anything, most likely it is something personal. The heroine's makeup is very striking, a very contrasting make-up, apparently they tried to rejuvenate the actress or make up for flaws.

The beginning of the film is worthy: diverse characters, an interesting non-standard plot, a good acquaintance with the characters through a verbal portrait characterizing them, but all this only before the main turn. The basis of the film, or rather its disadvantage, lies in the main action scene: endless chase after the victim, games of "catch if you can". They are too primitive both in implementation and in idea. Rare humor saves the situation, but it is sorely lacking. There is not enough subtle humor to mask the straightforwardness and simplicity. Although they say that brevity or simplicity is the sister of talent, but in this case, it is a characteristic of a different order, it is rather a flaw.

I don't want to praise the acting: the directors are too passionate about the demonic running of a young psychopath after adult outsiders. The plot is based on an element from the series "From" - a box with a dancing ballerina, well, at least someone was inspired by this mystical "Santa Barbara", with an incoherent conceptual pile of underdeveloped ideas, which even the authors themselves are not able to figure out.

Dan Stevens, who played the role of a former policeman, stands out strongly. His character stands out for excessive neuroticism, apparently, the directors frantically came up with a justification for his hidden antagonism, but apart from annoying tantrums, they did not find anything better.

Melissa Barrera is in second place in importance. As I mentioned, her provocative makeup and close-ups are aesthetic violence. However, pain is the basis of this "bloody drama", the sacred nature of everything that is happening. She plays quite moderately, if I may say so at all. She shows observation and determination, and sensitivity and guilt convincingly justify the author's decision.

The third most important character is Abigail, a young actress Alisha Weir has tried very hard, and her diligence is noticeable. The ability to bend gracefully and tap with inserted "fangs" is not something every teenager can do. Unfortunately, her game "sags" at the moment when she reveals to the characters the essence of what is happening, but otherwise she shows herself as an energetic and promising actress, and copes well with the directorial task.

The image of Abigail's father made a special impression, the best acting in this film was Matthew Goode demonstrating a master class. His cameo role turned out to be brighter than the whole film as a whole.

Viewing this picture, for me personally, can be compared to the senseless feat of Sisyphus: I regret the time spent on this relaxed bloody ballet, which lacks the ability to experience and even to think.

Another "genius" craft of a female director, and of course, such directors have male characters or scoundrels, or psychopaths, or traumatized boys, and female characters are all strong and independent. I want to ask you, those who shoot such feminist and incompetent nonsense: "Who taught you this?" Unoriginal, irrelevant, assembled from templates and cliches: he went a kilometer away in need and left a girl; a difficult teenager from a dysfunctional family is insulted by peers and his mother, and it all looks so shabby, and this is only in the first 15 minutes. The amateur production, the boring camerawork, the disgusting light that shines everywhere, all this is just repulsive with its unprofessiveness. I don't want to blame the actors, they play normally, but here's the directorial task that the actors perform - I haven't seen such a primitive for a long time. Who are all these people who are praising this movie? Did they even watch this movie? Or do they stamp their reviews without looking? Why are you doing this, do you really not care, or do you take the viewer for an imbecile? Or are you engaged in infoshamanism, instilling false meanings, for entertainment?

I couldn't stand this absurdity, I didn't watch this mediocre movie trash.

It was shot well, but what the series will be fascinating about is already more difficult. The screenwriters are trying their best to polish the dialogues into a poetic and secular rhythm, while at the same time they acquire an even more theatrical bombast. It's funny to look at the complacency of the authors, who embellish and praise their creation in every possible way in a video interview after the first series, their stubbornness is so great that the gaze is unable to see beyond its nose - the work does not work, does not captivate, does not touch. However, this is only in my ignorant opinion. For me, this is an unorthodox self-repetition, uninteresting and mediocre.

A tragicomic story about a tomb raider. The film is uncomplicated, funny, a little sentimental, which may give a little laughter, but what it does not take away is sadness. So, dear lover of "not such a movie", I also decided to participate in the rural revelation of the female worldview of the necropolis and grieve with you. In this Italian comedy, we will plunge into the atmosphere of rural life with its charming colorful details. But I warn you, you need to be careful, because everything here is saturated with withering and the grave dampness of sincere feelings. I advise you to look at it in portions, stretching existential cognition into uniform parts.

A minor character with the archetypal name "Italy" takes care of babies like a real Capitoline she-wolf. Apparently, the author sees himself as the Umbrian mother of the Etruscans calling from the age-old graves. You can ask a fair question: what about the main character? And what about the main character? Yes, there is such a thing - it's a walking stooping shadow, a stinking, helpless stereotype - yes, it's stinking, that's how the author described it at the very beginning of this satirical story - it wasn't my idea, don't think, don't be offended by me.

So, this spineless shadow, who was lucky enough to touch the divine face, does nothing but dig the ground like a mole, he burrows deeper and deeper and only the director's favor does not allow him to comprehend the "zen" of the meditative "hole", but do not worry, in this picture, it will not last long: female variability will manifest itself in the denouement She will get even with him in full, for the wasted years of ardent youth.

And here is the finale, which puts an end to this ridiculous idea, masking a crystal-clear concept under the guise of the uniqueness of "not such a movie", pulling at the red yarn of the female microcosm, Alice Rohrwacher, playfully smiling, tears off the supernatural veil and, to the loud applause of the cinema crowd, reveals her Indiana Jones to the world. Rhythmically tapping the shards, Rohrwacher hypnotizes with an arthouse look. Fascinated by the reflection on love and death, the jaded admirers of strange cinema, choking with enthusiastic exclamations, glorify the unorthodox flair of a creative genius!

Beyond the place of anger and tears Only the horror of the shadow looms, But still the threat of long years Finds and will find me fearless...

• a fragment of a poem by William Ernest Henley, which he wrote shortly before the amputation of his leg.

These sad but strong lines are uttered by Freud's daughter, subjecting the subjective characterization to opposition. The picture is full of meanings, classically shot, with a brilliant performance by Anthony Hopkins. The film will be of interest to a certain audience interested in philosophy and human behavior. If you don't have such aspirations, then it seems to me that even Hopkins' unsurpassed acting will not be able to hold your attention.

The story describes an alleged meeting between writer Clive Staples Lewis, author of the fantasy novel series The Chronicles of Narnia, and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. It is not known for certain whether such a meeting actually took place, there is only a mention that shortly before the suicide of the founder of psychoanalysis, he was visited by a certain famous man from Oxford.

The film is an intellectual discourse of an agnostic and a defender of Christianity, both characters are deeply traumatized: one prefers determination, the other seeks solace; one chooses courage, the other tries to drown out memories. There is no right decision, there are actions dictated by will and consciousness. This is a sad psychoanalysis of beliefs, in which important topics are voiced, but only one is revealed - the opportunity to change your mind, a sign of adequacy.

The authors contrast the conflict of thoughts and the conflict of actions: Freud compares religion to a worldwide kindergarten and calls on humanity to grow up, and the writer accuses humanity of suffering, which it itself has generated, arguing that only free will makes good possible, calling pleasure a whisper of God, and pain a loudspeaker.

The theme of war actually permeates the plot, emphasizing the parallels between the past and the present. Freud calls fascism evil and says: "I saw the light and saw the face of a beast, a monster. There is no escape from the beast, our moral conviction is the beast, we are the plague, we are hunger and death, we are the apocalypse. Thank God I won't live to see another "Hitler"".

The film is interesting for its deep content, metaphysical reflection, dramatic characters, and eternal philosophical reflections. The film does not leave a deep impression, but it encourages discussion about good and evil, about human weaknesses, about religion, about science. This is a good, emotional, philosophical drama with a talented and unsurpassed performance by Anthony Hopkins, however, I would like a brighter conflict and a bolder provocation, which is so lacking in this psychological duel between an unbelieving psychiatrist and a church-educated writer.

If you liked this movie, then I can recommend "The Dangerous Method", a film about the method of psychoanalysis by Carl Gustav Jung and Sigmund Freud in the form of a love drama. Jung and Freud were friends, but later their friendship broke down and these real events are reflected in the film.

I remembered an interesting real event related to Gustav Jung: At the time of Jung's death, a lightning bolt hit his favorite tree in a garden near Zurich, and his friend Lawrence had a dream in which Jung waved his hand, as if going somewhere and said that "I'll see you again." A few years later, standing under the same tree, Laurence van der Post was talking to a journalist and at the moment of his story about the death of a psychiatrist, lightning struck the tree again.

An amazing coincidence shrouded in mysticism, which Jung was passionately interested in.

A bright, fascinating sight: the story tells a little about the problems of the stunt profession, but quite a bit. The plot is based on puppy love for a woman, add to this a detective story, and the explosive mixture of the pop genre is ready. The quality of the film is at a high level: professional staging, excellent cinematography (although without unique solutions), beautifully executed artistic component, exciting stunt work and an entertaining plot. For me, only the content caused a repulsive feeling. The film is designed for the average viewer, it will entertain, evoke sympathy, in general, it will be a good pastime in good company.

At the very beginning of the story, the hero gets a spinal injury, but at the end of the first act, all the injuries disappear and the hero is still awake: jumping, falling, fighting - in general, turn off logic, and everything will become harmonious.

The film imperceptibly imposes an gynocentrism social model of behavior in which a man cries, suffers and seeks female attention - this is very wrong, it destroys the male personality, especially for the teenage viewer - matriarchy in its vivid form. It seems that the whole of Hollywood is under a sharp metal heel, tightly compressed in a rigid metal corset, and sexism is the only sought-after product packaged in a bright wrapper.

Renny's back, hold on! A film for connoisseurs of patriotic spy adventures based on the novel by Paul Lindsay. Rennie Harlin is back on the big screens! The floodgates of muscular sadism were reopened by John Wick, and Rennie, shaking off the dust from the firecracker, bounced cheerfully, plopped into the director's chair, nervously flipping through 10 sheets of the script shouting: "We write along the way, we're used to it!", gushing with amazing ideas in his favorite genre.

The plot of this brilliant play tells about a duel between two heroes: a villain with moral "quirks" and a brave master "trowel", who is no longer young, but still strong, please do not confuse with "The Beekeeper", but, in the end, what difference does it make?

Flying bullets, bruises, explosions - a complete gentleman's set.

The level of absurdity and exciting deadly fights will entertain bored "baboons" scratching the back of the head of a dreamy male self. The range of applications of construction tools for injury is quite extensive. However, the Greek-Bulgarian style of cinematographers in this film impresses with its author's zest and Gypsy originality. This is a straight genre "cabbage patch" with espionage intrigues and dizzying adventures, where almost every character is an agent of the special services. The main character is a bulletproof, unsinkable, fireproof stalactite of violent testosterone fantasies. This is an entertaining circus of mutilation, where trained non-player characters, taking turns, trying not to interfere with each other, taste the soles of the great protagonist's soldier boots. They fly apart from the calloused fists of the movie hero - be healthy!. Dwayne Jones, watching intently from afar, cannot hide his envy, feeling lost time due to endless training. "What, was that possible?" - indignantly, questions sound in his head, and the director confidently answers: "Yes, of course you can!", with a smile, adding a fat fist in each frame of the storyboard. So get ready for an exciting dive into the world of espionage, excitement and the unbridled appeal of hand-to-hand "smashing".

The picture is for its viewer: viscous, emancipated, airy, stingy in details, focused on one idea. It is difficult to call the picture "a discussion about humanity in the construction of an ecological catastrophe", rather, it is a collision with the elements, but for me it is a lyrical one-man show of a mother and child. The film is the directorial debut of Mahalia Belo based on the novel by Megan Hunter, with a female lead role.

The female role is central - spiritual, emotional, reflects all the power and beauty of a woman. The painting is feminine in everything: from the handwriting to the melancholic tone. Male characters are like allusions, flashing against the background of an abstract theater, washed by rain and the vitality of a mother saving a child. The main character is floating in the flow of circumstances, guided by instinct, in search of refuge. Her image wanders in a small drowning world, coming into contact with fear and despair, she finds and loses under the pressure of severe trials, preserving hope and determination, embodying Mother Nature on the remains of humanity.

Despite all the efforts of the director, despair remains incomprehensible, and nervous tension does not attract attention. The restless journey is focused on taking care of the baby - this is the little and the greatest thing that motivates the studying contemplator; this is the small but great thing that inspires the rare viewer.

To my great regret, I could not watch this movie until the finale, apparently my inner world is not ready for such an aesthetic treasure.

The painting, based on the novel "Black Flies" by Shannon Burke, is a rare case of a meaningful idea and discussion of a difficult topic, as well as the expression of the author's opinion.

The mission of street saviors is not suitable for fans of "gentle cinema". This depressing work, which allows you to see through the dirty reality of Brooklyn life, destroys pink illusions and covers soft skin with bleeding scars.

The first part of the film presents the audience with a series of scenes depicting the heartbreaking work of paramedics in poor immigrant neighborhoods. This part leads to a crisis point, where the midnight express breaks out with a piercing cry of conscience, and the plot takes shape and meaning.

"We, the dead and the dying, that's our job. We are suffering, and we don't care about anything. If you don't acknowledge what you see in front of you, then... Then you are a coward!" - this is the quote that conveys the main idea of the film.

Pain, suffering and blood - all this represents a world from which some will not be able to get out. The decision depends on you: to become another lost ghost or to get out of the darkness. The heroes of this story will face such a choice, and their actions will divide the hot asphalt into two parts - one soaked in gloomy realism, and the other stretched by the nerves of human doom.

It is not necessary to identify this movie with Martin Scorsese's "Raising the Dead". They represent two different views on the same topic, two different methods of conveying a story. There is depth in this painting, a thick atmosphere and light in the pitch darkness of human indifference.

At the beginning of the film, in my opinion, there was too much air, laconic contemplation and an atmosphere that was oppressive with its morbidity. There was a lack of internal dynamics, but the brilliant play of Sean Penn and Ty Sheridan creates a contrast of good and evil.

It is important to mention the high suicide statistics among paramedics, and the film reflects the harsh and unsightly realities of this profession on the verge of life and death.

It's so bad that it's delicious at the same time. It's unbearable to watch, but you watch.

"They came from other worlds to fight for us, to die for us. May they find peace. We will honor them as best we can..." Well, how can you not admire the childlike spontaneity of Zack Snyder, how can you hate him for his hilarious fantasy? I can't. And you?

How many times, per view, I covered my eyes with my palm ... how many times, I exhaled tiresomely, looking at the clock ... Yes, a lot!

This idealized test can test the strength of any cynic. This is a stylized poem that only a real dreamer can write. Well, how can you blame it? And for what? For a grain of rye, or for a mug of ale? For the desire to be free, or for that notorious love? Love is fleeting, the rules are changeable, and people will always remain people, with their weaknesses and passions, but what will remain? Memories, or maybe a legacy? Whatever you call emotions, feelings, we always turn to the past, it is there that the origins of our motives, which inspire the ideas of incorrigible dreamers, restless storytellers, cheerful cranks. It is these strange dreamers, discoverers, innovators, inventors who make our lives more interesting, more diverse, richer.

The author is not afraid to create, make mistakes, fall and get up again. Is it right to condemn yourself for a harmless creative impulse and be afraid of censure? Maybe it's better to pretend to be someone you are not: put on a fake mask and be like everyone else... to agree with the one-voiced majority and march in step with someone else's will... Probably not! That's what the author thinks: he talks about freedom, home, family, love. He says it's worth fighting for! He speaks as he can, as he sees, as he feels.

Is it possible to condemn for this? No, I CAN'T!

"Next season, and in 100 years and continuing to live..."

An example of the inept use of a three-part structure. This is an example of a montage that is a disorderly juggling of the past and the present. The very idea of investigating economic crimes and the disappearance of a key informant is intriguing, but it is implemented and written in the worst traditions of the detective genre: not prescribed characters and, as a result, lackluster roles with superficial dialogues; stupid plot decisions justifying circumstances. The screenwriter "turns off" smartphones and forgets about the compass to justify lost tourists; tourists quarrel over the map like children, and as a result, the map floats downstream, and a girl from the group tries to fish it out of the water, flounders in the water and bruises her head. In the stream! The stream is knee deep! Just think, the girl went with the flow for a few seconds and got a head injury... how? The director did not bother to show it, just put the viewer in front of the fact.

The stupidest thing is how the group navigated on the map - without a compass, visually looking around. Are you serious? Only a schoolboy can come up with such nonsense, but the director seriously continues to confuse with the absurdity of what is happening, straining with alarming notes. I am simply amazed at how much human and material resources have been invested in this ridiculous theater of "forced losses" with empty chatter and women's screams. "Women's screams" is a directorial technique that is used wherever possible and where it is not necessary. I don't like the slang definition of "stuffy", but in this characteristic designation it corresponds to the content - it's shrill, stuffy, boring constructive junk. The director is unable to organize the acting, he does not see falsehood, does not know how to place accents, does not understand the material, and this misunderstanding is reflected in the viewer. It's a pity for Eric Ban, he has the image of an intelligent man, but in this film his virtues have dissolved into directorial incompetence.

3 out of 4 found it useful. Permanent link.

The first thing that caught my eye: An officer of the fascist army calls a black man a "knight", another fascist officer opens the door to him, that is, he serves - very funny, apparently modern political correctness has no right to injure the dignity of anyone.

But after further viewing, all aspects of the picture became irrelevant and it is pointless to discuss the production or the play of the actors...

"Guy Ricci was inundated with green papers and he was simply forced to outgrow his creative path with a great legacy - a patriotic, carefree preaching of hyperrealism.

The inspiring path of the winners of wet fascism was entrusted to the freak squad "gentlemen of all trades" under the command of Henry Cavill, with the blessing of Sir Churchill, of course.

The wild squad of "gentlemen" is entrusted with an important and impossible mission, which they will fulfill - bravely striding with stylized fetishism: after all, they are magnificent snipers, capable of destroying the enemy with whole garrisons day and night; they are virtuoso saboteurs and masters of cold weapons, and they do not even need to breathe air in this sadistic matrix of violent mythologism.

Stacks of "foes" will be so slender that even good old John will have no questions left: the degree of violence will evaporate in the blast furnaces of carbon sadism. Questions about screenwriting graphomania are exhausted as unnecessary; anti-Semitic collaborationism will drown in the gray mutter of unintended comedy.

I'm sure there's some kind of mistake, or someone's malicious joke.... and the director will make a rebuttal - "I have nothing to do with it!""

Behind this riot of colors and shades, it is necessary to mention one more fact: a lot of time is spent on lifeless dialogues that retell further actions in the plot. Roughly speaking, half of the plot consists of informational dialogues about upcoming events, and the other half is the events themselves. That is, half of the timekeeping we listen to what will happen, and the rest of the time we watch the retold. It is not difficult to draw conclusions about the painting from this obvious fact.

The story of a father and two teenagers in a post-apocalyptic world inhabited by bloodthirsty creatures. The first thing that cannot be agreed with is that Nicolas Cage has not aged in 15 years, probably the atmosphere of the post-apocalypse has influenced him so much. Secondly, it's a twitching camera, it's like shaking the screen in a movie theater - a nightmare for epileptics. Thirdly, the operator does not know what a mise en scene or composition is at all - there is nothing beautiful in camerawork, there is nothing for the eye to cling to. Fourthly, it is very boring. Watching this is like standing in line for an appointment with a therapist: it's unbearable, and I want it all to end as soon as possible. I couldn't watch it to the end, it's beyond me.

Alexander Garland is an experienced screenwriter and director, I do not admire his screenwriting and directing, but his works find their audience. For example, I watched his "Annihilation" not with delight, but with interest, and this film is very controversial in my opinion. The plot is interesting, and such acute topics have not been filmed for a long time, but it turned out to be difficult to adapt his picture in your mind.

From the very beginning, I couldn't accept Kirsten Dunst's game: she portrayed detachment and fatigue with painful melancholy, flashbacks explained her inner tension. The director wanted the audience to feel it, but he did not provide any details. The author is not very interested in the inner world, he cares only about the provocative topic and therefore feels false, it is not only in the characters, but also in what is happening. Kirsten Dunst only frowns the whole picture without conveying emotions and compassion to the viewer, and her main role feels like a secondary one: she does not affect anything. As I said, the author is only concerned about a radical event - the civil war. But even here there is a feeling of falsehood, not only are the reasons not explained to us, but there is no atmosphere either. Centrist methods of cruelty transmission are used to justify the plot: armed people kill each other for no reason, they are like sadistic maniacs who feel neither pity, nor compassion, nor remorse - they only do what they kill, as in some computer shooter. For what? What for? Why? - the question is open.

And moreover, in some places the director uses songs that are completely unsuitable for the mood, confusing the viewer, breaking the context of what is happening.

The character Cailee Spaeny is introduced very primitively, she just asks for a traveling companion on a dangerous journalistic business trip, and she is taken! Who in their right mind would take a teenager to a "hot spot" where people kill each other with firearms? And the answer is on the screen... And all the characters suffer from such exaggerations.

There is nothing to say about Wagner Moura: the role is like a role, the author did not put anything outstanding into it, but what an actor! How beautifully he played Pablo Escobar.

The dumbest idea ... yes, there is a stupid idea in this film: the director came up with the idea to add spice - by jumping the characters from car to car at full speed. For what? - for a plot twist that should bring an element of the "Big Drama Show" You won't believe it! The heroes of the picture are accompanied by a minor character, only to die dramatically, he does not affect anything, his dialogues are everyday - this is utter stupidity.

There is a civil war in the country, but life is absolutely normal everywhere: There are no power outages, there is no shortage of medicines, food, fuel. And the director, as if to justify himself, slips an episodic character in a clothing store who declares that everything is fine!

Action scenes in the film, this is generally a sore "corn" of the director, he does not know how to stage combat scenes. His gunfight scenes are like bad theatrical productions where the extras shoot into the void, like in a good parody comedy.

A pretentious, implausible, not insightful radical statement, for the sake of the statement itself!

And after all, there are people who praise this "black square", find hidden philosophical messages and deep meaning - indeed, it is now customary to admire mental distortions and pass it off as the norm.

The plot element migrated from the film of the same name to the main part, the action is built around it: the director thought that the idea of a "green laboratory" in the family estate was interesting and provocative.

Excellent production, good cinematography, intricate and vivid plot. The characters are interesting, it's nice to be nostalgic again with the charismatic Vinnie Jones and the director feels the same emotions, he keeps his "favorite" next to the main character, replacing the explosive male image with a retired composure - and it's a pity... Ray Winstone, an excellent dramatic actor, but on screens we often see him in the role of violent sociopaths and this series is not I became an exception for him.

Theo James in the main role ... it seems to me that the main roles are not for him, no, get me right - he is charming, intelligent, but his game ... actors with a more expressive appearance can afford such a game. In general, it is absolutely not interesting to look at his acting, but in this movie image of a noble aristocrat, he is harmonious.

Bright respectable hooliganism is able to entertain with humor, sharpness, stylish light presentation of material - the author's style is present. Of course, we have seen all this in previous films, but the director has irrevocably outgrown the most sincere author who lived on unemployment benefits, and with him rock'n'roll enthusiasm has gone.

In the scene of the first episode, where the hero is present at an illegal fight and persuades his brother to take the "bet" - nothing happens: the hero repeatedly demands from his brother to abandon the bet, and that's it. At that moment, I was convincing myself: now Guy Ritchie is sure to surprise with a sparkling twist, now ... but no, the hero will get angrily drunk and chew his cheekbones importantly. Of course, the scene is not meaningless, yes, there is a necessary twist of the "lying bookmaker", but...

I couldn't watch the first episode before the final and the whole series as a whole.

When will these newfound playwrights stop copying the hackneyed, tortured, battered plot about "devilry" in Christian settings? At least they read books on demonic mythology or Stephen King was asked to give them an idea.

Is this kind of nonsense in demand by the audience? There is absolutely no semantic content in the film, only dirty images. None of the characters voice a philosophical idea, and in fact the theme of the film is predisposed to just such an exposition; only the convulsive absurdity of a hoax.

The main character is "not such a" nun, she has neither knowledge nor beliefs, and even more so she has no position, she is simply a vicious creation of a lover of stupid horror stories. The creators stretch the short film with psychedelic scenes to inflate the "bubble" of demonic nonsense; the actors "climb out of their skin" by rounding their eyes; the screenwriters "give birth" to a micromelic something incapable of life for the umpteenth time. The most important plot twist is concentrated in a woman's womb, there is nothing more important in the world than a female reproductive organ, well, what else can a consciousness bound by ambivalent feelings come up with: gloomy nuns, religious psychological attitudes, Satanists in robes - a whole bunch of stereotypes in an Oedipus bag.

This is a good-quality post-apocalyptic film adaptation of the game universe, filled with black humor and comical cruelty, so the film is recommended only for viewers over the age of 18. The fifth series stands out in particular, in which excellent directing and a well-developed script create an eccentric adventure of complex characters. The artists did a great job on the visual design, the visual effects are acceptable, and the characters are motivated and their conflicts are readable.

The painted inhabitants of the wasteland may seem too plastic, as well as power armor, but the degree of discrepancy does not cause strong dissonance and you can put up with these conventions, because the series has an intriguing plot and voluminous characters. Each character is endowed with an individual character, background, beliefs - you sympathize with them and worry about them.

However, it may seem to some viewers that the plot is too focused on personal drama, which is why the series sometimes sags on protracted explanations, which can cause fatigue. Despite this, the film can captivate with intriguing twists, and the atmosphere of the film corresponds to the game lore, which will appeal to fans, but, unfortunately, it does not immerse into the world of the apocalypse, does not convey the threat and struggle for survival, but entertains with bright colors and comical characters. The role of Walton Goggins, who created the colorful, hardened "The Ghoul", stands out in particular. Aaron Moten does not seem to me suitable for the image of a knight lover, in my opinion, the casting director should have looked for a more suitable actor: it is somewhat annoying to see his surprised face. Ella Purnell, who was chosen for the role of a resident of the asylum, plays reliably, she emotionally conveys the image of a woman whose worldview will change as the plot develops. In general, the picture was not bypassed by processing for compliance with the quotas of inclusivity and respect for racial diversity, but fortunately, the picture will not focus on gender guidelines.

Before watching the movie series "Fallout", I was skeptical, but when I started watching, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of work on the script, bold jokes and a realistic look at the post-apocalyptic world. Although I am not a fan of the game, but only played in "Fallout 3", I accepted the world of the movie series without a doubt and gladly immersed myself in its atmosphere of radiation and the tragedy of human destinies.

As I said, there is too much drama in the picture, from the controversial novice of the brotherhood to the hypocritical caretaker of the asylum. This tragedy, in my opinion, is overloaded, there is clearly not enough humor for balance. It is black humor that sets the crazy pace of post-apocalyptic fun, but it sags under the plot necessity - to build a structure of motives and goals. Rather, this is a feature of the series, not a disadvantage. It's very difficult to please or balance emotions, and I don't blame the authors - they did a good job, and this work is at a decent creative level.

A detective story told by an unreliable narrator describes a hero undergoing experimental treatment for Alzheimer's disease. The film clearly demonstrates the symptoms of amnesia, but ignores other forms of dementia, such as apraxia, agnosia and motor aphasia, and I assure you, if the creators had not ignored these forms of the disease, then the need to shoot this picture would have disappeared by itself:) But this convention is necessary for an expressive ending, but you still have to endure to the final and this unpleasant feeling will haunt you constantly :) I like Russell Crowe as an actor, and I always hope for his bright comeback. Fortunately, the film is not as bad as it could be, but it is also not as exciting as I would like it to be.

I did not see the atmosphere of a noir story, and, alas, there will be no dramatic struggle with the disease, but only a hat on a kind old man, reminding of the injury.

The story, stubbornly, but with a creak, pulls the thread of the investigation, which can be called intriguing, but from the characteristic definition, upon careful examination, only "horns and legs" remain :) I, almost with a microscope, peer into poorly grounded characters to find at least one "bone" that was gnawed by a metaphorical dog, but my deductive methods are completely powerless in this senseless search :) Out of respect for the actor, I overcame lethargic symptoms by taping my lips and inserting "matches" into my eyelids to grin over the director in the denouement, and praise for the really dramatic ending.

An inspiring sports drama that will captivate a two-hour screen life in the world of basketball.

One of the features of the film is the participation of real professional athletes and coaches, which makes it even more authentic. In addition, the film was produced by one of the best basketball players LeBron Raymone James. Such attention to detail and professionalism of the filmmakers allow the audience to really feel the sports atmosphere.

The plot centers on the relationship between an experienced "talent hunter" and an aspiring basketball player. The main characters, Adam Sandler and Juancho Hernangomez, played a charming, life-affirming duo of an actor and a basketball player. Their experiences and overcoming obstacles on the way to success can emotionally affect the viewer. Each of the characters has many unresolved conflicts, and they must face them in order to overcome themselves, their fears, learn to forgive, make friends and not give up.

The classical techniques of the genre in this case are not a disadvantage, but on the contrary, they become an advantage of the film. I absolutely do not want to blame the picture for predictability, the creators talk about basketball with great love, presenting all its aspects, disadvantages and advantages, not forgetting about authenticity. This is a bright, sincere work filled with passion and obsession that will not leave the viewer indifferent and will not let him get bored.

A biographical sports drama, the prototype of which was the general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, Billy Bean. His image was embodied by Brad Pitt, and this role is rightfully considered one of the best in his career.

The plot was based on Michael Lewis's bestseller "Money Ball: The Art of Winning in a Dishonest Game", which tells about the method of choosing professional athletes based on the statistical analysis of "sabermetrica". The film received high marks from critics and viewers, and was repeatedly awarded prestigious nominations.

The film skillfully adapts the documentary into a work of fiction, placing conflicts and obstacles in the way of a hero who puts his career "on the line" and does not want to put up with defeat. As a pioneer, he breaks down the wall of prejudice and misunderstanding to prove to himself that baseball is more than just a business.

Despite the fact that the picture has a more personal character, it quite inventively and interestingly explains the internal organization of sports life, pragmatically prioritizing players and managers, as well as explaining everyone's point of view. This is not a colorful show that wants to entertain the audience with gambling fervor, this is a story about a man "here and now", about his experiences and feelings through the prism of professional ambitions, a retrospective analysis of the past and a look into the future.

An angry citizen declares war on the criminal justice system. The film was nominated for Best Director and Best Actor. Broadmeadow Prison and Philadelphia City Hall were used to create an authentic atmosphere.

The struggle of a lone hero with the system is a separate genre of cinematography affecting state institutions of power.

Gerard Butler's hero directs "righteous" anger and rage of a "biblical scale" not only at murderers and rapists, but also at surveillance officers, whose function and task is to protect the rights and freedoms of a citizen.

The main theme of the film indirectly points to the will of the ruling elite, but is fixated on the brutal path of the "vigilante". Having abandoned proto-humanism, the grief-stricken husband and father enters into a discourse with a representative of the executive branch, Jamie Foxx, who is concerned not with observing the rule of law, but with his 96 percent of convictions. For him, human tragedy is just a dry statistic in an ambitious ascent to the heights of vanity.

Most of the picture is captivated by events and unexpected turns, and the "crusade" against corruption and indifference feels close and understandable. But the intellect of the "domestic terrorist" is drowning in merciless revenge; his position is justified, but devoid of the main goal, lowering the curtain of the endless hell of the suffering father.

A manipulative psychological thriller that plunges into a world of madness. Director Brad Anderson, using his characteristic manner, reproduces the motifs present in his film "The Machinist" in order to create a pathological and painful atmosphere of inner pain. In my opinion, this film is capable of confusing and disorienting, creating a psychological rebus of deformed consciousness in which the hero desperately clings to an elusive reality, suppressing a deep sense of guilt. He has already lost a lot, and his wife and daughter are the only things he has left, for which he forced himself to live, and the fear of losing his last sense of existence pushes him to fight, even if the world turns upside down. Feelings of powerlessness, anger, longing and the severity of loss will alternate, creating an atmosphere of chilling conspiracy. The director is not trying to create a feeling of a waking nightmare, and perhaps his visual solutions do not have strong expressiveness, and the dialogues are focused on an alarming one-man show, but they reflect realistic manifestations of stress shock.

The film shows interest in its hero, studies him and uses plot twists to bring him to the very edge. Perhaps this language of cinema is familiar to the sophisticated viewer, but it is able to offer an intriguing puzzle for the curious public, who, armed with a deductive method, will analyze the evidence in search of an answer.

An exciting and intense financial drama from the talented director and screenwriter J. C. Chandor. The film won several film awards and was nominated for many awards. The film reveals the causes of the global financial crisis of 2008, which began with the US mortgage market and led to the bankruptcy of large financial institutions and the collapse of stock markets, which negatively affected ordinary people who became victims of the current situation.

The plot was based on real events, and the prototypes of the characters were the heads of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, which existed in the industry for 158 years before its bankruptcy. But even in such a situation, the owners of the bank do not miss their advantage and sell dummy shares to their customers, extracting maximum benefit until the "financial contagion" engulfs the entire market.

"It is more convenient for a camel to pass through the ears of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" - Matthew 19:24.

The director masterfully conveys the beginning of the intrigue, using mysterious numbers and graphs, which begin the financial collapse. The crisis was already on the threshold, but no one wanted to see it, because the money was "flowing like a river." The author creates an exciting tension through a variety of dialogues and talented acting, whose conflicts develop fascinatingly in sharp scenes. Kevin Spacey - "locomotive" will rush to the immoral finale, hypnotizing with a lively look. All the actors are in their places, creating an image of financial celestials and clerks, complacently looking down from the black skyscrapers of the megalopolis of monumental pride.