Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Could have been better
16 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As it always happens with screen versions of popular novels, the audience will measure the movie not only by cast, special effects and such like properties but they will also judge the carefulness of dealing with initial Dan Brown’s text. But for me it did not matter because although I honestly read the book I cannot recall the way Brown described the characters of the novel. I do remember the events, but in my opinion the writer is not really good at dealing with the characters’ motives, their feelings and the stories of their lives. As a result exciting plot of the novel is combined with poor descriptions, and the characters seem to be quite impersonal. The stories of their lives are often too melodramatic as it was with the Camerlengo. His orphan childhood does not actually have much to do with what is going on in Rome, so I think the movie does not benefit from such flash backs.

I found “Angels & Demons” much more absorbing than the previous film about Professor Langdon. What I liked about Howard’s second attempt was that there were not many episodes in which Langdon gives lectures about historic sights. All he said in “Code” reminded me of Wikipedia’s articles. It was boring and he obviously enjoyed himself too much which was also a total disappointment.

I believe “Angels & Demons” could have been much more interesting if there had been an end different from the one in the book. It is clear that the task of the director seems to be to display Tom Hanks to the best advantage, to let him reveal all the conspiracies and become a sole night in shining armors. No more heroes needed if there is perfect Langdon. But I think that if in the final the cardinals had chosen Camerlengo Patrick McKenna as a Roman Pope, the film would have been much more daring. Of course such final would have been a shock to those who enjoyed the book, but still it would have been more fun in such case. You see, the cardinals lied in the press release about the Camerlengo Patrick McKenna’s death. But lie is already a deadly sin. And the cardinals turn out to be ready to exonerate this deadly sin under the condition that they tell lies in order to save their Church. But the Camerlengo lied and killed people because he also believed that in such a terrible way he does his best for the Church. So the cardinals can do wrong, and the Camerlengo cannot. That is unfair. He would have made a brilliant Pope.

The movie gets 7/10 from me mostly because I was impressed by Ewen McGregor in cassock.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transsiberian (2008)
4/10
About stereotypes
2 December 2008
Evaluating the movie I take into account two major things – judging “Transsiberian” as a thriller and the way they show Russia in the movie, because this is where the events take place. Besides almost everything in the screenplay is based upon the peculiarities of the country. Actually I live in Russia, though Siberia is father from me than most of the European countries but such are the distances in Russia. In one of the first Russian talking pictures, in “Tsirk” (1936) precisely, the was a song “Broad my native land is”; as I was watching «Transsiberian” I kept on thinking that the song might be really illustrative and that “Transsiberian” is probably the very film to show to everybody how boundless the country is.

But before watching I checked whether the film was shot in the USA, as I’m tired of watching the images of Russia that is shown in the Hollywood pictures. You know of course, if Russian then undoubtedly wearing USHANKA, drinking VODKA, singing songs, walking hand-in-hand with a bear and selling Russian dools. Such a grotesque character may be seen practically in all the films connected with Russia; and this very character is probably either a mobster (corrupted cop will do) or a prostitute, or maybe a drug dealer. This is all tedious. That is why having read that the film was done by a number of European countries (namely Germany, Spain, etc), I thought I might hope to see something adequate without Hollywood stereotypes. However there turned to be inalienable vodka and ushanka, luckily enough no bears. And those who acted as Russians were wearing sweat suits. Not but a long-distance train’s atmosphere I would not have watched the movie up to the end. In a train vodka and sweat pants are a little bit more acceptable than elsewhere. What puzzles me somehow is that the movie lays emphasis on drawbacks of the journey and the people surrounding the main heroes, the couple, but what is good – the sceneries, the hospitability, probably road romantics – is shown in passing.

The citizens of Russia may be roughly divided into “good” - those who help the tourists - and “bad” - all the rest. And the bad ones seriously outnumber the good, of course. The rights of the tourists are being violated at every step. But against all the unfairness of the world they have an incantation, that is: “We are Americans, mind you (probably, before torturing us)”.

I am most convinced of the naivety of those who wrote the screenplay, at least of what concerns Russian realities. I can assure you: nobody will drink for oil in the train. If they had shouted “Na zdorovye”, it would have been boring and dull but more or less looking like true.

Next, what a pleasure to watch a Russian police officer being able to speak English! Though a colleague of his does wear sweat paints, but one cannot demand everything at the same time. Grinko’s English proves that the creators of the film lay certain trust on our education level. For this only fact I would give the movie а 7, because earlier the only sounds the Russians made in the movies were obscene four-letter words.

To make every detail even more authentic, the character performed by Thomas Kretschmann was given such a lovely name as Kolzak. It might be even better, if somebody explained me whether it is supposed to be a surname or a Christian name, because neither exists. There is no such a name, believe me. This caricature of Kolzak is wearing not only sport trousers with stripes, but a thick golden chain as well which is in fact too much. Does anyone really believe that this is a usual uniform of the police in Russia, for it seemed to me they were introduced as policemen? And it is a pity to see Thomas Kretschmann looking appallingly and participating in such stuff.

As a whole, very naïve. I lost my time watching.
29 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stalingrad (1993)
10/10
“If you start thinking, you’ll go mad”
29 November 2008
The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to.

The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.

After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.

“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.

As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.

In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.
43 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An exclusive police drama
15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First I heard about this film in May and since then I was looking forward to release. And such a long expectation was has justified itself. If it is said about a film that it is made by the same director and with practically the same actors as the “36 Quai des Orfèvres” film, then it can be taken for granted that this particular film is worth watching. Usually it sounds like pure advertisement, but in the “MR 73” case the fact that the plot is based on a true story is one of the key factors of the perception of what is going on on the screen. For there are scenes of borderline cruelty and they are shot with extreme naturalism. Though I think such scenes are on their place, and if they had been excluded, it would have damaged the movie. The rate of violence is exactly of that level a spectator can expect from the police drama of such realistic focus. In case Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair” is a novel without a hero, then “MR 73” can be called a film without a hero. Of course Schneider can account on certain sympathy, but as a whole his methods are inadmissible. I do understand his unwillingness to let Kovalski win laurels, but it is not a proper ground for showing hackles and putting at stake the safety of the city by violating the arrest procedure. After all, what is more important – to stop a maniac or to pay off old scores? Seeing the names of Daniel Auteuil and Olivier Marchal on a DVD box is a quality guarantee for me. Auteuil’s acting is magnificent as always. Schneider is a drastic transformation played brilliantly. Out of his partners I would distinguish Francis Renaud (Kovalski). He is actually not known well in Russia, but I can judge by two films - “MR 73” and “Gangsters” also directed by Olivier Marchal – if there is a need for a real bad, though “bad” is not exactly the word, probably an ugly, vicious and repulsive cop, then there is no better candidacy than Francis Renaud. A rare talent, a born talent I think to play scoundrels. Actually if I wanted, I might find fault with the screenplay. Say, it is not news that the criminal is being exposed by the parallel between homicides and the pets found near the crime scenes. It is rather easy to make a conclusion that a maniac is someone who has an access to these pets or who at least had an opportunity to see them. We have already seen this in “Red dragon”, but let us leave this far-fetched objection. The point is I am inclined to believe that what happens in “MR 73” took place in reality, so it has nothing to do with the imaginary events of Thomas Harris books. The pets that participated in the film, that is the puppy and the cat of enormous size are so sweet, but is has been said long before that if there are animal actors they will inevitably outshine the human ones. Those of “MR 73” were a real treat for spectators, especially the way Auteuil’s hero communicated with them. What the pets do is converting the gloomy atmosphere of the film into something a little bit less depressing.

With “36 Quai des Orfèvres” being my most favorite police drama, I could not but enjoy “MR 73”, and if you also like the previous Auteuil and Marchal common work, their new film will also find its place among your favorites.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Admiral (2008)
10/10
Modern Russian historic movie
30 October 2008
When I was about to watch this film I did not bother to read the critical articles in the papers or in the Internet. Initially I looked upon the film as just an entertainment, but the impression turned to be much deeper. What puzzles me is the reaction towards the film in the Russian media. After I left the cinema I was most convinced that "Admiral" is worth almost unanimous public acclaim for this film is an attempt to investigate probably the most complicated and still painful period in the history of Russia. And show this period through the destiny of Admiral Kolchak. According to the Khabensky’s words he was to show not a dictator, but a man in love who has also duties before his country but cannot deny his feelings. That is why "Admiral" though being a historic movie is actually neither about war, nor politics. It is a great and beautiful love story. After "Admiral" I was curious to learn more about the Civil War and the figure of Kolchak. Of course it is studied at school, but in fact what is written in the school textbooks is a total mess of facts and dates. But now the reading is more interesting as I can imagine this distant historic statesmen and thus I get a clearer picture of the Civil War in Siberia. Admiral Kolchak’s life was full of everything one can wish to himself: he discovered new lands in the Arctic Ocean and named them, he knew what it is like to win great battles, he was loved by faithful and brave women, he led enormous armies and gave aspiration to so many people. He was the symbol of honorable struggle. I would say that even dry historic books about Kolchak are as exciting as novels. So his screened biography is also breathtaking. "Admiral" is probably the best modern Russian film.
90 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed