Change Your Image
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzgzNTY5YmEtNGEzNC00NDEwLTk1MDAtNmZhOWFkOGI4NzI3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTEzNTk5Mzk4._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
lyubitelfilmov
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
That Hamilton Woman (1941)
A beautiful story of legendary love or a Good American propaganda historical film
A historical drama. An interesting picture with an interesting fate, shot at a very convenient time - so we can briefly say about this historical drama, shot in the United States by an English director and producer with English actors (who were the vast majority in this case) in 1941, when the British Empire was already involved in World War II. The favorite painting of Winston Churchill, who invited director and producer Alexander Korda to present it to the Soviet Union for the most significant contribution to the fight against Nazi Germany in 1943, so the picture was shown here, and more than once, even after the war. Moreover, Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier starred in the main roles here. And how can you get past this? That's why, and also taking into account all of the above, the author of this review took the time to look at this picture - and it made an extremely pleasant impression (not at the "masterpiece" level, of course, but at the level of high-quality work). And here's a brief opinion - A good American propaganda historical film. There were both obvious advantages and disadvantages in it (where without them), so you should finish such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.
So, the pros:
1. The script - the film mainly focuses on the romantic relationship between the beautiful Lady Emma Hamilton and Admiral Horatio Nelson, who met by chance in Naples at the house of the British ambassador. The young beauty helped the admiral a lot to get the necessary help to continue the military campaign against France. And Nelson, the real hero of the English navy, could not resist the charms of the young Lady Hamilton. Their romance lasted until the Admiral's death at the Battle of Trafalgar. This was extremely scandalous, since both of these persons were already legally married, and naturally their relationship was condemned by society, but the beloved did not care. And their romance is shown here beautifully and spiritually. It's nice to look at him. You can admire him. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier didn't even have to play romance - they were married in real life, so their love looked natural in the frame. And even now it looks extremely good. And especially sensitive people can survive a tear (or even more than one). The ending is tragic, and that's exactly what happened in reality. And although this is an artistic interpretation of real love, in general they are very similar. The author of this review highly recommends it to all lovers of romance.
2. Entourage - the end of the eighteenth-the beginning of the nineteenth century. An amazing time, the junction of epochs and the junction of important historical events. The century of the First French bourgeois-nationalist Revolution, which brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power. The time of the ongoing rivalry between England and France for dominance over the colonies (and the markets for their goods), the time of the collapse of the institution of monarchy in Europe and the time of the rise of capitalism as it is now. The scenery, costumes - everything perfectly conveys that important historical segment. Of course, the dialogues are close to the twentieth century, but the way of thinking is conveyed very clearly. The creators managed to convey to the viewer a British view of those events.
3. The Battle of Trafalgar - this battle has been filmed since the dawn of cinema, but only in this picture it turned out to be spectacular and dramatic, and this with those primitive technologies of the late thirties of the last century. Here the scale is felt (as far as it was physically possible to do it), and the spirit of that era, and the joy of the victory of the British fleet over the enemy. The author of this review has not seen the best film adaptation of this battle anywhere else. It may appear in the future, but it is unknown. So far, we have what we have. They were even able to demonstrate tactics, which the British used.
So, the cons:
1. "We fought alone, without allies" - this phrase is pronounced in the picture and this is a blatant lie. England at that time was in alliance with Austria, Sweden and Russia, although it was the English fleet that dominated the sea. Please tell me, does the landing in the Netherlands and Suvorov's company in Northern Italy and Switzerland mean anything? So you were the only ones holding back the Corsican monster? The statement is extremely dubious.
2. Historical mistakes - first of all, this concerns the very image of Lady Hamilton. She was not such an "innocent lamb" as she appeared in this picture. At the time of arrival in Naples, Amy Lyon (that was the real name of the heroine) was already aware of her relationships with several men, and she was an outspoken courtesan. And after she married Ambassador Hamilton, she revealed herself in all her glory - parties, "tableaux vivants", played politics, and after moving with Nelson to London, only the lazy one did not know about their relationship. At the same time, she was a trendsetter, everyone admired her style. But she did not want to think about the future, she lived in a big way, and after the death of her husband and Nelson she found herself in debt and died of an unpleasant illness, being on the run from creditors. A scandalous personality, but also attractive at the same time. And in the painting, she was whitewashed as soon as they could.
3. Putting England in the most favorable light - the context of time is important here, because the picture was shot during World War II, when England was fighting against nazi Germany, Italy and Japan, and they created the picture in America, which accompanied England, therefore, such a pro-British picture turned out, in which Napoleon and France were attacked all kinds of criticism (mostly unfair), the Austrians, Swedes and Russians are forgotten (they will remember us later after June 22, 1941), and England is represented almost as a Beacon of justice and the might of Europe. It doesn't look good now, but then critics kept quiet about it. If you were an Anglophile, then this picture will definitely please you. If not, then it's better to avoid it or focus on the romantic line.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Lady Hamilton performed by Vivien Leigh is a young girl who arrived in Naples to meet her fiance, but found her true love - Lord Nelson, with whom she will be happy. She is sweet, charming, and understands local politics, which allows Nelson to win a number of victories. Vivien Leigh is just a beauty here, and very much resembles Myra from "Waterloo Bridge" in 1940, and not Scarlett from "Gone with the Wind". Talent! This role suits her perfectly. Bravo Vivien! Bravo!
2. Lord Horatio Nelson, played by Laurence Olivier, is a hero of England and one of the greatest naval commanders in history, who won significant victories during that period of time. But he paid a high price for his victories (numerous injuries, and then death at Trafalgar). He is shown as a brave and determined man who is waging his personal war with France and Napoleon (whom he hates and is very afraid of). He is straightforward, loved by sailors and officers, although he often gets into an argument with officials from the Admiralty. Lawrence was great. Bravo!
3. Lady Nelson, played by Gladys Cooper, is the admiral's legitimate wife, who tries her best to bring Nelson back to the bosom of the family, but to no avail. She suffers ridicule and contempt of society for her husband's infidelity. You sympathize with her, although it is clear that both spouses are not happy in marriage. Gladys played a great role in a wonderful picture "My beautiful lady," and here she is younger, but she plays just as well. Bravo!
The film was a huge success with viewers of all countries in which it was rented, and it is deserved, despite the clearly propagandistic element. And although this story was filmed again in 1968, it was not possible to repeat the success of the 1941 version. You probably won't want to review this picture, but it's still worth watching a good romantic story once.
A score of 7 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
La batalla de los Tres Reyes (1990)
The story of the Moroccan Sultan or a good Soviet film about a little-known battle
A historical drama. A unique painting that is almost forgotten by everyone, although it was shot relatively recently. And already at the end of the Soviet Union, together with Italy, Spain, the USA and Morocco. This is an international project that had no analogues in the world at that time (especially about that historical period), but alas, human memory turned out to be short. The author of this review himself did not know about the existence of such a painting until it was mentioned by the respected military historian Klim Alexandrovich Zhukov. And here is a brief opinion - A good Soviet film about a little-known battle. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture, and it's worth talking about it all. And that's the end of this introduction and let's move on to the interesting.
So, the advantages:
1. The story of Sultan Abdelmalek - the script of the picture revolves mainly around the story of this prince of the blood, who, after the accession of his elder brother Abdullah the First al-Ghalib (and before that, the murder of his own father Sultan Mohamed al-Sheikh by the Turks), was forced with two younger brothers to flee to neighboring Algeria (which was subordinate to Turkey) so that their brother would not kill them in an attempt to keep the throne. The exile of Abdelmalek and his younger brother Ahmad al-Mansour lasted for seventeen years. During this time, the prince had to get to know the Ottoman Empire from the inside, study its strengths and weaknesses, adopt the best and regain his rightful throne of Morocco. They will show us an honest and just ruler who can not only expel the usurper from the throne, but also prevent the invasion of Portugal on his land. And although the real Abdelmalek was not so clean (such people do not live long in big politics), he still looks much better against the background of other rulers. The Sultan had a sad end, but he managed to do several important things for the country, without which Morocco would not be the country we know it now.
2. The history of Europe and North Africa in the 1570s - the picture managed to tell and show not only the local history of Prince Abdelmalek, but also the European politics of the 1570s - and this guest is never seen in a big movie. We will be shown and told the inner cuisine and the difficult relationship between Morocco, Algeria, the Ottoman Empire, the Pope, the French Kingdom, the Spanish Empire and Portugal. Here you have a conflict of religions, and the attitude towards Jews in Muslim and Christian countries, the Inquisition, uprisings, a tangle of contradictions of European countries and their attitudes towards the Ottoman Empire. And although all this is shown briefly, it becomes easily clear to a savvy person what time it is, and who is here. And this is extremely interesting, because there is still no big movie on this topic, except for this picture.
3. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 is one of the greatest naval battles of Modern Times, in which the fleet of the Catholic Holy League (union of Spain, Venice, SRIGNA, Italian states under the patronage of the Pope) defeated the fleet of the Ottoman Empire and Berber pirates. This battle was the last battle of the galley fleet, the Turks suffered huge losses. Although the war between the League and Turkey did not end (and in general peace was concluded taking into account the occupied territories of each side a few years later), but for Europe it was a propaganda event, and in history it took the place of one of the greatest naval battles. This battle is present in the picture, and some characters participate in it, and from both sides. It should be repeated - apart from this picture, THERE is NOT A SINGLE FEATURE FILM about this battle. How did it happen? One can only guess. What can I say - so far no one has filmed The Song of Roland.
4. The "Battle of the Three Kings" of 1578 - this is how the battle of El Ksar el Kebir between the army of the Moroccan Sultan Abdelmalek and the Portuguese army of King Sebastian the First, in whose ranks Moroccans loyal to the deposed Sultan Abdullah Mohammed fought, entered the historiography. Therefore, it was more correct to call the battle "the battle of one king and two sultans." As a result of Sultan Abdelmalek's bold action, the Portuguese army was lured to an unfavorable battlefield, and lost it because of the youthful maximalism of King Sebastian the First and because of the tenacity of the Adbelmalek army. Almost the entire Portuguese army died on the battlefield, and this will turn out to be sad for the country in the shortest possible way (the young king did not have time to marry and leave an heir, Spain took advantage of the ensuing civil strife, and Portugal lost its independence for sixty years). For all three leaders, this battle was the last. Surprisingly, in the picture, this battle is given catastrophically little time. We were not shown the senseless attack of King Sebastian on the Moroccan army, the encirclement of the remaining Portuguese army and their flight after a long resistance, the brilliant maneuver of the Moroccan cavalry under the command of Sultan Ahmad al-Mansour's brother. But, nevertheless, they gave a basis for understanding, and this is good.
5. Costumes and scenery - the picture was shot in Morocco (the basis and panoramic views), Crimea (the harem of Suleiman the Magnificent) and Samarkand (the exile of one of the heroines). The costumes are pleasing to the eye. The author of this review did not find any historical errors (but he is not a professional in that era, so he may be mistaken). It is clear that the Moroccan comrades followed the creation of a suitable entourage, because this is their national history and a reason to be happy for their ancestors, who drove the European invaders from their land, and the next Sultan Ahmad al-Mansour did a lot for the rise of Morocco, for which its inhabitants are still honored.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Many characters and many events - the vicissitudes with the Holy League, contradictions with France (which has been actively trading with Turkey for decades and contributes to the prosperity of its country with its neutrality), Spanish affairs, religious contradictions, Sebastian the First's dreams of returning lost lands to Morocco, the formation of Abdelmalek, the Battle of Lepanto and military talents Don Juan of Austria, the friction in the harem of the Turkish sultans, and so on. The writers have piled so much into two episodes that it would take a series with at least ten episodes to reveal. Instead of focusing on the battle of the three kings and the events around it, so that the audience would understand why the Portuguese lost, and rejoice at the victory of the Moroccans of Abdelmalek, they dumped a bunch of characters and did not reveal many of them in any way. Because of this approach, the viewer risks losing the thread of the narrative at the very beginning, and given the local installation (everything happens quickly and without much eyeliner), many things may not be understood with this method of narration. You can't even tell Turks from Moroccans here, or Spaniards from Portuguese.
2. Historical mistakes - Sultan Abdelmalek was not poisoned by anyone, he had a long-standing disease - fever, which only intensified from the last years of the struggle for the throne and the protection of the country from the encroachments of the Portuguese and Turks. The Sultan died a natural death. Although the poisoning version has a right to exist (if you believe in the conspiracy theory). His brother Murad did not kill Selim the Second (Selim was a drunkard, and this killed him). If there were any more historical mistakes, then you are welcome to comment.
The international cast was pleased, so I'll tell them all that they were great fellows! Bravo! The sad thing is that the rental was only in the USSR and Spain, and the picture did not win much fame, although it is not a masterpiece, but a pretty good costumed historical drama about such events that are practically unknown. If they know about the Hundred Years' War, they know about the Thirty Years' War, they know about the battle of the three emperors, about the Battle of Crecy, Agincourt, the two battles of Poitiers (732 and 1356), then not so much is known about the Battle of Lepanto, and only a few about the battle of the three kings. And this picture will give you at least a basis for knowledge about that battle and that historical period, because there is simply no alternative!
A score of 7 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Traktoristy (1939)
How did a Far Eastern man find love in Novorossiya or Another masterpiece of Soviet cinema of the thirties
A musical comedy. Another painting of the Stalin era, which can be called a masterpiece without a shadow of a doubt, along with such giants as Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great. Which simply could not pass by such a lover and connoisseur of cinema as the author of this review. So she also has an original script that does not rely on a certain literary source. They were able to make real masterpieces. The author of this review asks the audience to forgive his enthusiastic introduction (he usually doesn't do that), it's just that this picture inspired him so much. And here is a brief opinion - Another masterpiece of Soviet cinema of the thirties. To the great joy of the author of this review, there was not a single minus in the picture, so you can safely stop at the advantages of this wonderful musical comedy.
So, here they are:
1. The scenario is the end of the thirties. Demobilized tankman Klim Yarko returns to Novorossiya from the Far East. And he is going for a reason, to find work in the endless steppes and the main breadbasket of the Soviet Union, but because in the newspaper he saw a portrait of an editorial produced by Mariana Bazhan, whom he liked very much. Mariana is the beauty and pride of the local collective farm, the foreman of the women's detachment of advanced workers, awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. And Klim himself is not without his advantages: he is smart, dexterous, knows all sorts of mechanisms, so he also brought with him the spirit of the Far East (very turbulent in those years). In addition to the expected romantic line (which is good here and even managed to do without the classic "love triangle"), they told about the life of the collective farmers of those years, well, the powerful patriotic finale will make you sing along with the heroes "When Comrade Stalin sends us into battle,
And the first marshal will lead us into battle."
2. The life of the country in the late thirties - the picture strikingly accurately describes the state of village life at that time - this is the ongoing Stakhanov movement, collectivization, and the feeling of an approaching "great war". At that time, the Soviet people had no illusions about their future opponents - they would be Germany and Japan. Therefore, there are military notes in the picture, the characters talk about their readiness to join the Red Army at any moment and fight back against the enemy. And the New Russian residents listen with interest to Klim's stories about the Far East. At the same time, the heroes' clothes are soaked in sweat, they are dirty - it is immediately clear that people here are working for the benefit of a country that they love with all their hearts, and which they are ready to defend with weapons in their hands.
3. Songs - one thing is that for the first time, songs were played here "Three Tankmen" and "March of Soviet Tankmen", which became the anthem of the tank troops of the Red Army, then the Soviet and then the Russian army, can already be given the highest rating. What songs, what words, what music! They were written by the real talents of the Soviet era. It would be extremely difficult to imagine our life without these songs.
4. Sensuality - the picture lifts the mood (although it sags in the middle of the narrative), fills with happiness for our Great Homeland, for the ancestors who endured such trials. The painting prepared the Soviet people for war, and in the current situation it has not lost its relevance. The picture is filled with patriotism and generously shares it with the audience. Therefore, do not be lazy and watch it (but only the original version, not the 1964 castrato).
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Klim Vividly performed by Nikolai Kryuchkov is a demobilized tankman who became a collective farm tractor driver, and then climbed another important social step. And all this is due to resourcefulness, every kind of skill, and natural charm. Klim is an example of a commander and a working man of the Soviet Country, who is ready to stand up to the end for his ideals. Nikolai Afanasievich again pleased with his acting. Bravo!
2. Mariana Bazhan, performed by Mirina Ladynina, is a brigadier, an editorial, a real example of a communist of the thirties, for whom the common good is more important than personal affairs. Yes, she is also a beauty, even after a shift in the field on a tractor. And although she doesn't want to get married, the charming Klim made her change her mind. Marina Alekseevna was excellent in this role. Bravo!
3. Kirill Petrovich, performed by Stepan Kayukov, is the head of MTS (machine and tractor station) and the direct supervisor of Mariana and Klim. He constantly utters his trademark phrase "Gore you mosquito." A kind and cheerful peasant who stands up for his employees like a mountain, and considers everyone his equal, although formally he is the boss. Stepan Yakovlevich was no less convincing than the rest of the actors, and no less charismatic. Bravo!
It is also worth canceling the wonderful artist Boris Andreev, for whom this picture became his debut in a big movie, and Peter Aleynikov in the role of fidgety Savka. Not to mention the other actors who looked extremely convincing in the frame.
How good it is that after many years of showing the castrated version of 1964, you and I can enjoy the original version of 1939, the truth has triumphed, despite all the slander of enemies. Just watch her!
A score of 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Volga - Volga (1938)
A river cruise of two musical groups or a Good Soviet musical comedy of the late thirties
A musical comedy. The famous work of the famous director Grigory Alexandrov and the actress Lyubov Orlova, beloved by millions at that time, as well as Comrade Stalin's favorite film, which he often reviewed. And how could you pass by such a thing? So the author of this review could not do this, and looked at the picture with great pleasure. And the final result rather pleased him. And here is a brief opinion - A good Soviet musical comedy of the late thirties. There were almost only advantages in it (with the exception of editing, but the author of this review will tell you about this in a separate paragraph), but for now you should finish the introduction and move on to the interesting.
So, here are the pros:
1. The scenario - the picture tells the story of two amateur musical groups that go to Moscow to participate in the Olympics, and the leaders of these groups: Avdotya Petrova, nicknamed "Strelka" and Alexey Trubyshkin are lovers, which gives everything that is happening a whisper of piquancy. At the same time, the local bureaucrat Byvalov takes part in all this activity, who wants to "push himself" at the expense of talented people. The old pilot fits well into this company. There are many different situations waiting for them on the way, and in the final there will be a grand triumph. In addition, the creators even destroy the "fourth wall", which looks pretty good. In addition to the fact that the script here is easy, it also charges every viewer who looks at the picture with a great mood. It's worth a lot.
2. Humor - there are frankly funny moments, and a lot of funny situations, and outright antics of some actors (in most cases it works correctly). Of course, wild laughter is not worth hoping for, although there is one point that strongly leads to this. The humor here is more mundane, and that's what catches on.
3. Songs and music - this picture can now be called a musical with full rights, since they sing and dance quite often here - and it turned out just great. The precision of the movements, and this despite the fact that some of the artists were already far from young. And the songs are pleasing to the eye and ear. Although there is not a single one that sticks in the memory (except classical music, which everyone knows). Although their text was written by Vasily Lebedev-Kumach.
4. The life of the USSR in the thirties - we will be shown the Volga-Don Canal, which was one of the great buildings of communism, musical competitions, and not only. They will show us how life itself is changing, how the achievements of the Soviet government made the dreams of ordinary people a reality. And although the scenario line with Byvalov is reduced to humor, it reflects reality (which is still relevant).
Now it should be said about an important point that somewhat spoils the overall impression, namely the crooked installation, and the author of this review watched the color version of the painting, which was castrated in the fifties of the last century, and the original of 1938 has not been preserved (thank you tell the Cornhusker for this), so we cannot enjoy the original version. And it's lucky that they didn't paint the fully castrated version, because there is a black-and-white version from 1961, from where all mentions of Stalin, his images and busts were cut out. The installation was done very poorly and the glues are visible (this is written by a person who has been engaged in installation for a long time).
Separately, the author of this review wants to thank the artists Igor Ilyisky (bureaucrat Byvalov), Lyubov Orlova, Andrei Tutyshkin, Vladimir Volodin (old pilot), and all the others for the talented performance of their roles in this musical comedy. Now their acting will seem too "pompous" to many, but they tried anyway, and it's not for nothing that the picture has gained well-deserved popularity, and it's not for nothing that it has gained cult status in the country. You need to know the classics!
A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Svetlyy put (1940)
The history of the country through the prism of the girl's story or a high-quality historical Soviet picture of the thirties of the last century
Comedy, drama, melodrama. The film adaptation of the play "Cinderella" by the Russian and Soviet writer Viktor Ardov, directed by the famous Soviet director Grigory Alexandrov, with the participation of the celebrity of the thirties and forties Lyubov Orlova. The author of this review has nothing to say for the play, so he will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. This painting came across completely by accident, and the author of this review expected much more from it than it eventually turned out to be. And here is a brief opinion - A high-quality historical picture of the thirties of the last century. It had both advantages and disadvantages (unfortunately). And this should end the introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. The scenario - the picture tells the story of Tanya Morozova, a simple village girl who, thanks to colleagues, colleagues, and the achievements of the Soviet government (and her abilities, of course), was able to climb the party and career ladder high in the thirties of the last century, in fact proving the advantages of communism. We will see the path of the heroine's formation - from the nanny of a rich lady to the editorial of the weaving industry and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. In addition, the picture has some parallels with the main character of the fairy tale Cinderella, and this is very appropriate here and as a result, the viewer gets the idea that all this is a fairy tale, although at that time it was not a fairy tale, and a harsh reality. There is also a romantic line, which is also appropriate and makes the viewer worry about the lovers.
2. The history of the USSR of the thirties - the history of Tanya Morozova is not only her history, but also the history of the great country of the USSR in the thirties of the last century, because significant events are perfectly shown: the fight against illiteracy, the industrialization of the country, the Stakhanov movement, the promotion of the best people from the younger generation who will lead the country in a bright future. In addition, patriotism plays an important role, which is also given attention here. The heroine goes through all the above stages with honor and relying on reliable comrades (although she almost gives up at some points). And the party plays an important role in this (Komsomol and VKPB). Therefore, the picture is also interesting from a historical point of view.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Installation - since the author was dealing with a castrated version of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev era, there is a crooked installation. At least the moments with the bust of Stalin at VDNH did not do anything wrong, but the letter to the Council of People's Commissars to Comrade Molotov was cut out. Well, you know this story with Molotov, so you shouldn't go into details. The original 1940 version could not be found (it remains to be hoped that it exists).
2. Boredom is not the "Hearts of Four", not the "Girl with character", not the "Seven Brave ones" who catch the viewer with their songs and characters. This film lacks this (except for the music of Isaac Dunaevsky and the famous song "March of Enthusiasts"). The main character is too flat, looking more like the heroine of an agit poster, but not like a living person. In the above-mentioned paintings, the characters also "came off the poster", but they spoke like real people, and the experiences were natural, but here the experiences are visible only in a romantic line, no more.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Tanya Morozova, performed by Lyubov Orlova, is an ordinary village girl (with the appropriate manner of speech and voice), who in a fairly short period of time was able to travel a long way, and in the end she was almost not recognized, that's how good she became. She is brave, determined, not afraid to take responsibility, while being very suspicious and vulnerable, if not for the loyal comrades who supported her in a difficult moment. Lyubov Petrovna played perfectly only in the second half of the picture, because in the first Tanya Morozova is more annoying.
2. Alexey Lebedev, performed by Evgeny Samoilov, is an engineer at the textile factory where Tanya works. Moreover, both Alexey and Tanya fell in love with each other, but it will be explained later, since Tanya has principles, but Alexey does not understand this. The leader of production and the person who supports the heroine in all her endeavors (after all, they all serve for the benefit of the country). Evgeny Valerianovich was great in this role, bravo!
The picture is not remembered in any special way, neither by the characters nor the script, unlike its colleagues. But it is interesting culturally and historically, and the creators worked efficiently (though not in everything). The author of this review was not impressed by the picture, but maybe it will impress you? Who knows.
A score of 9 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Vikings (2013)
I just don't have any censored words to describe this.... series
I just don't have any censored words to describe this.... series. It's such a mess and a natural mockery of history that you just turn out the lights. The script - well, it certainly exists, but it's not about Vikings, it's about modern people in Viking costumes. The actors don't play at all - they make faces, as in modern Russian cinema. The series are reasonably boring (especially the first one, on which many people stopped watching this series - and rightly so). Once again, they spewed bile at Russia. We have caught up with mysticism, which is needed here like a dog's fifth leg. Only the names of the characters remain from the real story, but the characters are simply unbearable. The ending is open and terribly incomprehensible. Watching this series was torture, especially if you know about real Vikings or are familiar with the history. Do not watch this series ever, do not waste your precious time on it - there are much more deserving series for you. I don't understand what can be admired in this series?
Rating 3 out of 10, only for the blood and a couple of dramatic moments in the third season! Do not watch this creation of greedy producers who, for your money, promote to you not a story, but their wet fantasies!
Devushka s kharakterom (1939)
The adventures of Katya Ivanova in Moscow or the Magnificent Soviet pre-war comedy
Comedy. The author of this review came across this picture quite by accident when he was engaged in his review activities, and it was not for nothing that he postponed this picture to himself for viewing in the distant future. This distant future has come, and the author watched this picture with some pleasure - and was completely delighted with watching it, since Soviet pre-war cinema is something unimaginable and ingenious. And here is a brief opinion - A magnificent Soviet pre-war comedy. The author looked at this picture very carefully, but could not find a single minus, so he will tell you only about the pros. And this should be the end of the introduction, and move on to the interesting.
So, the pros:
1. The scenario - the picture will tell us and show a brave and determined girl Katya Ivanov, who lives in the Far East and works at a local animal farm. The director of the sought-after animal farm ruins the work and makes life difficult for ordinary workers in every possible way. Seeing the injustice, the determined Katya goes to complain to her superiors (neutralizing and detaining the saboteur along the way), but this journey will lead the girl to Moscow and to unexpected love in the person of a young Red Navy man (an excellent student of combat and political training). We will see a lot of interesting situations in which Katya will find herself and how she will show her character in them. After all, the name of the painting corresponds very precisely to the content. After all, we will see not only the Far East, but also Moscow, which is very different from Katya's small homeland, but it is in it that she will find justice for the director and not only. Considering that an interesting case will trigger a chain of events that will lead to very interesting consequences. The ending is predictable, but it charges with optimism and faith in the Soviet people.
2. Humor - it's everyday here, and it will definitely pull a smile out of you, but don't count on wild laughter. You will receive a considerable dose of it from the famous clown "Pencil" (Mikhail Rumyantsev), and the rest of the artists will abundantly pull a smile out of you. Yes, it's naive, yes it's funny, and yes it's funny.
3. The atmosphere - the pre-war USSR is felt very well here, and not only because the main characters are from the Far East (after all, civil war has been raging in neighboring China for almost fifteen years, so the Japanese also intervened there, creating a very tense situation there). As long as peaceful life is felt, Soviet people are making plans for the future, they believe that peace and the victory of communism will soon come to the earth. The police will find all the missing, the Red Army will protect the country, and ordinary citizens of a great country will grieve only because of small trifles of a domestic or working nature. Everyone is smiling and everyone is confident in the future. The same atmosphere is present in another film by the same director (Konstantin Yudin) and the same main actress (Valentina Serova) "Hearts of Four", which the author has a review for, and he categorically recommends this picture for viewing.
4. Acting - all the actors are selected flawlessly, behave naturally in the frame, their dialogues and monologues are "alive". And here it's not only about their origin (almost all from a working or peasant environment), but also in excellent training under the guidance of competent acting teachers, because the Soviet film school is a great asset that needs to be studied, and especially now, in the age of mediocre actors and directors and their endless alterations of early (talented) works.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Katya Ivanova, played by Valentina Serova, is an employee of a fur farm who decided to achieve justice and punish her director for abuse. During her journey, she will have to go through many incredible situations and prove in practice that the Far Easterners are the strongest and most inflexible people of the Soviet Country, always ready to help a comrade and it is better not to mess with such people (the episode with the Japanese is a clear confirmation of this). The author of this review remembers Valentina Vasilyevna from "The Hearts of Four", so he did not even doubt her acting talent. This girl with character will turn mountains without even paying attention to it. Bravo!
2. Sergey Berezkin, performed by Andrey Tutyshkin, is a Red Navy man, an excellent student of combat and political training, for his success in which he was awarded a trip to Moscow, on the way to which he meets the charming Katya Ivanova, and realizes that he will never be able to forget this extraordinary girl. He shows all his qualities in order to win this impregnable beauty, because there was an embarrassment that could endanger their happy marriage. Andrey Petrovich was no less convincing than Valentina Vasilyevna. Bravo!
It is a pity that we had to evaluate not the original version of the 1939 painting, but the castrated one, made in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev times (it is difficult to say more precisely, information on the date could not be found). They cut it out for about six minutes, and the mounting glues are visible. Joseph Vissarionovich did not please the censors. Well, you know the story.
And the picture "Girl with Character" is a vivid example of Soviet pre-war cinema, which perfectly demonstrates the hopes and aspirations of Soviet people at that moment, therefore it is still interesting both from a cultural and historical point of view.
A score of 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Desantura (2009)
The life and service of three friends or The best Russian TV series about the Airborne Forces
Historical drama, action movie. The author of this review has loved this series since childhood, because he watched it on the box every time it was shown. He remembers almost everything by heart, but every time he worries about the characters anyway. And so, it's time to review this series again for a review. And we can safely say that it still looks great. Beautiful, spectacular, dramatic. And here is a brief opinion - The best Russian TV series about the Airborne forces. But, in order to be at least a little objective, it is necessary to touch not only the obvious advantages of this series, but also its disadvantages (which certainly exist), therefore, it is necessary to finish such an important introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. Scenario - the picture touches on a difficult time in the history of our country, namely the decade from 1991 to 1999, when the USSR collapsed and Russia was formed in its place, and the former union republics became independent states. Long-standing interethnic conflicts broke out (Georgian-Abkhaz, Georgian-Ossetian, Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the civil war in Tajikistan, the rebellion, and then the first Chechen war, the Moldovan-Transnistrian conflict, and so on). And all this had to be settled (and in the case of Chechnya, to restore constitutional order and put an end to international terrorism) by the Russian army, and in particular by three friends, paratroopers Lischilin, Kudinov and Samorukov, the last lieutenants of the Soviet Union. They became defenders of Russia at a difficult time for the country and the people, when the army was unloved and unappreciated, when experienced and ambitious officers left its ranks, this almost led to a personnel famine. Fate and service will shake our friends literally all over the world, but they will always complete the task, because the landing is forever, and no one but us. The characters (both main and secondary) are well written, the dialogues are also pleasing, because you feel that real people are saying this, the dynamics are also pleasing, you will not get bored under any circumstances. All eight episodes fly by in an instant. Moreover, this timekeeping managed to accommodate a decade of the life and service of our heroes.
2. Russia and the CIS of the nineties - through the prism of the main characters and their families and lovers, the viewer sees a picture of the "dashing nineties", which we survived by some miracle. This is the collapse of a powerful country, wars on its outskirts, impoverishment of the population, banditry, and people's attempts to simply survive in these years, and all this did not bypass the army, in which it became "not prestigious" to serve, and although it does not put much pressure on the viewer, but the scenery speaks for itself for myself. There will be mentions of MMM, and vouchers, and Lenya Golubkov, pop songs of those years and wars in which Russian soldiers showed miracles of bravery while officers tried to defend principles and not fall into corruption, to fight hazing. They touched on the topic of officers' wives - who need to be put up a monument for their inhuman endurance and the ability to wait for their defenders in any conditions (after all, they may not return, which means constantly worrying about them and jumping up from any call at any time of the day). The creators did not forget to reveal the theme of friendship and honor.
3. Scenes of fights and fights - they are frequent guests here, so the creators have worked on them properly. Pyrotechnics are not spared here, and they pamper you with blood. Of course, it would be foolish to count on massive battle scenes, but for the series, the extras were decent. At least you believe in what is happening, and it is clear that the actors were trained for filming, for which you can only praise. The uniform and clothes fit perfectly.
4. Music - it turns out that the composer in this series was Ivan Burlyaev (who wrote the music for the excellent series "Stormy Gates"), so you can hear familiar melodies here, but also the main theme is very good (it was she who was most remembered at the first viewing). The music is appropriate here, and it is remembered, and at the same time it is inseparable from this series. The author of this review highly recommends listening to it.
5. Acting - you will be surprised, but once upon a time in ancient times (the zero years of the twenty-first century), Russian actors behaved naturally in the frame, did not shout, did not pretend to be incomprehensible, did not whisper, so that the viewer could not distinguish the speech of the characters. They just played real people, and so convincingly that you believe them. Yes, there was a Russian acting school, there was.
So, the cons:
1. Historical inaccuracies - despite all the obvious advantages, the creators of the series made a number of historical inaccuracies and blunders. For example, one of the heroes receives money from the future (after the 1997-98 reform), car brands are also from the future, as well as songs by famous pop groups. A small note on the icons on the form. Nothing critical, but for an experienced person it will become a kind of annoying element.
2. Open final - what happened to the heroes? Did they win or not? It's just that the series ends abruptly with the dedication of the Russian army and that's it. Well, you can't either, after all! The audience got used to the characters over the course of eight episodes, and you cut the narrative off so abruptly? The one who came up with it is to write out the Darwin Prize.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Lieutenant (Lieutenant Colonel) Loshilin, performed by Nikita Yemshanov, is the most cheerful of the trio of friends. He almost never gets discouraged and is always ready to go on the most dangerous ventures. During the series, he shows himself to be an excellent commander, who, nevertheless, can listen to the opinions of his subordinates. Nikita played this character very convincingly. It's a pity that he died in a car accident in 2011. He could have played many more good roles (although we don't know for sure if he "left" in time). Bravo!
2. Lieutenant (Senior Lieutenant) Kudinov, performed by Kirill Pletnev, is the most persistent and most daring of the trio of friends, for whom honor and service to the Motherland are above all. And ironically, it is for this that his life will hurt him, and more than once will make him test his character. But even after all this, he remains a loyal soldier and a competent officer on whom the Motherland can rely. Kirill has repeatedly proved that he is good at playing the military, and in this work he proved it once again. Bravo!
3. Lieutenant (Senior Lieutenant) Sumarokov, played by Egor Beroev, is the most silent and modest of the trio of friends. His service to the Motherland was extremely interesting, but no less exciting. My favorite character from trinity. Egor also plays the military often, and here he was extremely convincing. Bravo!
In addition to them, many other iconic actors have starred here, but we will not stop there, otherwise the review will be too long. Russian Russian cinema. I just want to note that after fifteen years, this series looks very good, although the Russian army has changed beyond recognition during this time, and such patriotic series only benefit both Russian cinema and strengthen the prestige of the army in society, because now it has become an honor to serve in the army.
And a little bit about the creators. Konstantin Ernst personally financed the filming of the series on Channel One. Yes, those were the days when the First and Ernst gave out a good movie, for which you did not have to blush.
A score of 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Balto (1995)
The story of the legendary dog and her feat, or a good, but only a passing children's cartoon
Adventure, drama. The film adaptation of the famous historical event, namely the "Great Mercy Race of 1925", when an epidemic of diphtheria occurred in Alaska, which struck many cities and villages, including Nome, mostly children fell ill, and it was necessary to urgently deliver medicine, but only a sledge with harnessed dogs could do it, the main character of this The dog of the Siberian husky breed Balto became the winner of the race. What can the author of this review say - this is a cartoon from his childhood, which has been viewed more than once. But now, after all these years, he no longer causes the same storm of emotions as before. It is designed exclusively for a younger audience, and that's all. And here is a brief opinion - A good, but only a passing children's cartoon. There were both advantages and disadvantages in it (which the author of this review had not noticed before). And this should end this important introduction and move on to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. The scenario - if you do not take into account the distortion of the real story, then in general the scenario is not bad. He tells the story of the outcast Balto (volkosob), who loves the dog Jenna and aspires to participate in sled dog races, but he does not succeed in either the first or the second. Faithful friends do not allow him to become discouraged: Boris the goose (our Russian, always whines, but always supports) and two polar bears Poppy and Varnish. Balto does not yet know that a simple attempt at a date will lead him to the title of a "hero" who saved an entire city from a terrible disease. Batlo will show his best qualities here: strength, bravery, perseverance. After all, it is he who will lead the team with the life-saving medicine in a dangerous way through all the bad weather and various obstacles. The ending is predictable, but sincerely makes the audience happy for the characters. In general, there are all the components of a good adventure here.
2. Animation is classic 2D, when each frame is drawn by a talented person (and, as a rule, not one, but the whole team), a juicy picture, full of colors, the atmosphere of snowy Alaska (our Russian Alaska, I hope it will return to us). The drawing is good, you can see the attention to detail. Not a single frame causes rejection. And how beautifully the wild bear was drawn - this is probably the best bear in the history of world animation. Watching this animation is a pleasure. It is a pity that such animation is not used in the production of cartoons now. Everyone switched to cheap and already boring 3D.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Discrepancies with the real story - remember, if you see the inscription: "Based on real events," it ALWAYS means that a lot (if not everything) THEY'LL TURN IT AROUND. That's what happened here. Balto was never a wolfdog (in reality it was a black Siberian husky dog), he was not a tramp in the city of Nome (in reality he was the leader of a sled team that carried food to the city, but no one expected him to do more, because Balto was slow), more than one team participated in the delivery of medicine sled dogs (in reality there were twenty sleds, and there were as many as one hundred and fifty dogs), there is not a word about another hero, the dog of that one, in the cartoon (although it was his team that overcame the record distance, but all the glory went only to Balto, who led the final segment of time). As you can see, the creators of the cartoon lied in many ways, although this does not make the script bad, it's just that the cartoon is not about real events, but a free fantasy on the topic, and made exclusively for children.
2. Underdressed - this word can characterize the entire cartoon. The drama is underdressed, the atmosphere is underdressed, the music is underdressed, the script is underdressed, the characters are underdressed. Yes, everything is too short (except for animation, of course). When watching it, one does not leave the feeling that at this moment it was necessary to intensify the drama, but at another moment to choose more appropriate music and so on. Maybe the creators were afraid to strengthen the necessary moments, maybe the head of the studio put pressure on them, but the result was a good result, but a box office failure and not the best ratings as a result bankrupted the studio. This cartoon may appeal only to children, but adults will not appreciate it. This is not "Kung Fu Panda" (the first two parts), and not Mulan 1998, which are interesting at any age, because they contain something that you only begin to understand over the years. There is no such thing in Balto. There is only the main theme and a few life guidelines that the creators of the cartoon have invested in the main character, and that's it. There is no humor, no drama either, only the adventure was more or less successful.
This cartoon has as many as two sequels - and they are both a failure. They are definitely not worth watching.
The author of this review was glad that he liked this cartoon in his deep childhood, but now he understands that it can only be recommended to children, because adults will find the cartoon too boring, despite the amazing animation.
Rating 7 out of 10!
Solomennaya shlyapka (1974)
How an innocent incident gave rise to a whole adventure or a Diamond of Soviet vaudeville
The musical. The film adaptation of the vaudeville of the same name (musical) by French playwrights Eugene Maren Labiche and Marc-Michel. And since the author of this review is not familiar with the original source, therefore, he will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. This will be the second viewing of this masterpiece of Soviet cinema (more precisely, a revision), and for the first time it made an indelible impression on the author, and during the revision the cons were found, but the pros stood out even more. And here is a brief opinion - The Diamond of Soviet vaudeville. It's time to finish with this introduction and move on to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. The scenario - everything was fine with Fadinar, the joker and the rake. Today he is marrying a girl from a rich family, although he does not seek to tie the knot. But an unpleasant incident (his horse ate a lady's straw hat, and her cousin (a military man) threatens Fadinar with breaking up the wedding if the hat is not found) forces the hero to set off in pursuit of such a trifle as a hat. This leads to a whole mountain of curious and unimaginable situations in which the Fadinar will have to show all his talents so that the bride's relatives do not suspect something is wrong, and at the same time find the hat and return it to the lady. The ending may surprise you a little, although it was guessed in advance. The script keeps you in suspense and does not let you relax for a minute, because everything happens very quickly and dynamically, plus the acting of all the participants does not leave you indifferent.
2. Humor - there is a wagon and a small cart here for this good. There is a deception of expectations, and funny dialogues in the spirit of Ilf and Petrov, and just turning upside down. And at the same time, Fadinar is trying to "save face" in a similar situation (which is extremely difficult). You may just get tired of laughing. And it's not just humor - it's high-grade humor. Perhaps now not everyone will be able to appreciate it.
3. The atmosphere is windy France in the middle of the nineteenth century, the bourgeois do not know where to put themselves, because it is no longer fashionable to serve in the army, and living on rent is too boring, so young people become rakes, like our Fadinar. And although the picture was shot in the Soviet Union, the creators manage to convince the audience that France is in front of them. The picture is light and allows the viewer to relax, while laughing heartily and having fun.
4. Music and songs are beyond praise (except for the songs of the bards and another one sung by Fadinar). The duet of Isaac Schwartz and Bulat Okudzhava has created a unique kaleidoscope of music and words that evokes both admiration and emotion. It is extremely pleasant to listen to it.
So, the cons:
1. The moral component - everything revolves around our main character, who has not changed a bit by the end. This is still the same rake and deceiver, who is easy to set up other people for his own personal benefit. I have no conscience. Yes, everything is served with a sauce of lightness, but if you look closely, it becomes clear that the main character is not such a hero. At the first viewing, it was not so obvious (the author was absorbed in the music and playing of Andrei Mironov). And some of the other characters have not gone far in terms of decency.
There is one more remark, namely a remark, since the author of this review will not dare to call it a minus. In general, the actors overplay. It is visible and it is obvious. But it's better than not playing at all.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Leonidas Fadinar performed by Andrey Mironov is a newly-made groom who, by the will of fate, is forced to look for a straw hat on his own wedding day and not let his life be ruined. A very extravagant, ladies' man, extremely cunning and quirky. One of the best roles of Andrei Mironov in his entire career. Bravo!
2. Antoine Nonancourt, played by Vladislav Strzhelchik, is the father of the bride and the future son-in-law of Fadinar, who is always chatting and trying to upset the wedding for any little thing. Vladislav Strzhelchik was incomparable in this role. Bravo!
3. Monsieur Beaupertuis, played by Efim Kopelyan, is an extremely jealous husband whom Fadinar meets without suspecting who he is. A suspicious gentleman, but also a little naive. Another brilliant role of the great Soviet actor. Bravo!
It should also be noted Igor Kvasha (Lieutenant Tavernier), Alice Freundlich (Baroness de Champigny) and Zinovy Gerdt (Monsieur Tardiveau) and all the other wonderful actors who starred here.
A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
John Adams (2008)
The difficult life of the second president of the United States or a good American historical series
A historical drama. A film adaptation of the novel of the same name by American writer David McCullough, telling about the life and political activities of one of the founding fathers of the United States, John Adams, who became the first vice president (under George Washington) and the second president of the United States. And since the author of this review has not read the original book source, he will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work, with an eye to the real story. The author of this review wanted to watch this series two years ago, but after watching a good series "Turn: Spies of Washington", "Sons of Liberty" and the painting "Crossing the Delaware", he got a little tired of American history, so he decided to wait with the series "John Adams" - and he did the right thing, because such a movie should be watched it is extremely dosed and do not believe everything that is shown in it. Although the viewing experience was good. And here's a brief opinion - A good American historical series. There were both advantages and disadvantages (which must be mentioned), and this should end such an important introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. The script - if you do not take into account historical mistakes and omissions (of which there are many), then in general the series, as the name implies, tells and shows the story of the life and political activities of Boston lawyer John Adams, who became one of the founding fathers of the new state of the United States of America, the first vice president and the second president who played an important role in the war of independence from the British Empire, and after that tried to maintain the neutrality of the new state in relation to European policy (this policy continued until the beginning of the twentieth century). We will see endless debates in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, the difficult adoption of key documents (the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights of 1791), Adams' difficult political game in Europe in order to persuade France and other countries to help rebellious Americans, the first years of the presidency of George Washington and, of course, the presidency of John Adams himself. The creators did not forget about our hero's family, especially paying attention to a faithful and loving wife (who also had her own opinions on many things, including politics) Abigail. Friends and enemies are shown and revealed. In general, a whole life (except for becoming a hero), and it's interesting to watch. There are enough dramatic episodes, the dialogues are written quite well, and the actors are trying, and the finale can generally knock a tear out of you (or even more than one), because there is both a mockery of fate and a kind of irony.
2. Costumes and decorations - it is clear that the series was filmed on location, in particular the famous Independence Hall (where the document of the same name was signed), buildings (Monticello manor, John Adams farm, and so on) all this greatly enhances the atmosphere. These houses are well preserved there and they are being monitored. It's not worth talking about costumes - everything is selected extremely well and does not cause confusion. Everything is in place. Technically, the series looks "expensive and rich", although there is a sense of intimacy, but the drama and dialogues try to dispel this (and not without success).
So, the disadvantages:
1. Historical mistakes - John Adams' son Quincy was ambassador to Russia in 1809-1814, whereas in the series he was sent to Russia in 1780, which was not the case. John Adams participated in the drafting of a peace treaty between the United States and the British Empire (there is not a word about this in the series), was a member of the federalist party (headed by Alexander Hamilton), whereas in the series they did not say this (rather, they portrayed him as a kind of arbitrator between Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson) and so on. There's enough of that in the series. We will not dwell on this in detail, otherwise we may get stuck for a long time. It's just that the author of this review must repeat again that in any historical cinema there are similar moments and you should not blindly believe everything that is shown to you, do not forget about critical thinking.
2. The image of John Adams is too correct here. He is fighting for honesty (this is simply ridiculous, especially in the context of time and the range of socio-political processes), for a strong institution of government (honor the monarchy, only limited by a term), and it's not worth talking about his presidency at all - there was only one act (although he served two consecutive terms in the White House, and during these two terms, we were shown only one of his victories - it's just ridiculous). John Adams is fighting everyone here, and he concedes to many of his opponents (Thomas Jefferson is represented here as the best politician and one of the smartest figures in the country, George Washington also gives himself much better, not to mention Benjamin Franklin). At the same time, the hero survived all of the above figures (since he left politics in time). In the series, he was presented as a classic fighter "for all the good against all the bad." This does not happen in real life. John Adams from this series never got out of the mantle of a provincial lawyer, and if his image is similar to the real one, then it is clear why his name is not as advertised as other founding fathers. Such a John Adams is too boring and not inspiring at all.
3. Context - it is very lacking in this series, and rare titles with the place and year of action certainly do not improve the situation. It is absolutely impossible to understand where events are taking place, and most importantly in what year, therefore it is extremely easy to get confused in events. The author of this review, of course, understands that the series was created primarily for the American audience, who passes the founding fathers of their state at school, and they at least heard these people, these Adams, Washingtons and Jeffersons are an empty sound to the Russian ear, but even modern Americans will not understand a shred what is happening in this series. There is very little information. Many years have passed since those events, and modern people need information to understand. If suddenly this is an opening for filmmakers.
4. Disregard for minor characters - in the series, the audience was told important historical characters, whose fate we will not learn in the future. There are Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Sam Adams (John's second cousin), George Washington and a whole bunch of others, but the above played an important role in the fate of the hero and the new state. Of all the lucky ones, only Thomas Jefferson (who was brilliantly played by the English actor Stephen Delane), who was first an associate and then an opponent of John for many years, and only at the end of their lives they were able to reconcile. You will not learn about the later life and death years of Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, and so on from the series. They declared historical characters - and they did, but the creators were not going to tell a lot about them. Yes, one confrontation between Adams and Hamilton was extremely interesting, as well as disagreements with Franklin, and Sam Adams was a very radical man, and in the series he sits next to John at meetings of the Continental Congress.
If we note the acting work, then Tom Wilkinson looked very good in the role of Franklin, and Paul Giamatti was not bad in the role of John Adams himself, but the most memorable role was Stephen Delane in the role of Thomas Jefferson. He turned out to be the brightest politician, with his own beliefs and views on the development and further life of a new country, which simply had no analogues at that time. Against the background of Jefferson, the local John Adams turned out to be too flat.
Despite the obvious shortcomings and historical inconsistencies, the author of this review recommends this series to all viewers, even those who are not particularly interested in history, because in seven episodes the creators were able to show a lot.
A score of 7 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
What's Love Got to Do with It? (2022)
How childhood friends fortunately walked or A sad romcom from a famous director of historical cinema
Romantic comedy, melodrama. The author of this review intended to watch this picture in a cinema (fortunately, there was a rental in Russia, and even from March 8), but there was only one cinema, and the sessions were too late, so I had to abandon this idea, but the name was taken "on a pencil". And now he got to it - and was extremely disappointed from watching it. Apparently there is a God who looks after the author of this review, and does not allow him to spend money on an unworthy movie. And here is a brief opinion - A sad romcom from a famous director of historical cinema. In addition to the minuses, there were also several advantages in the picture, which are also worth noting. And this concludes the much-needed introduction and proceeds to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. Director - the famous Indian director Shekhar Kapoor shot the picture, who staged such good historical paintings as the dilogy about Elizabeth Henrikhovna Tudor ("Elizabeth" and "The Golden Age") and another good historical drama "Four Feathers". These are his most famous works, and it was the director's name that prompted the author of this review to watch his new work, especially since Kapoor has never shot romcoms. Well, the first pancake is lumpy. He does not know how to shoot paintings of this genre. The experiment turned out to be unsuccessful. Here he succeeds in historical paintings.
2. References to good romcoms and melodramas - the creators obviously watched them (as did most viewers), so these references are understandable. Here is the advice of the author of this review - it is better to review the listed romcoms instead.
So, the disadvantages:
1. The script is a banal cliche that we have all seen in such films as "Real Love", "Bridget Jones's Diary", "With Love, Rosie" and so on. But do you know what made the banal cliche of the script in the above pictures work? The characters are correct. They were shown by real people who are close and understandable to all viewers. These characters have both advantages and disadvantages, they showed emotions on the screen and turned on their heads, did crazy things for the sake of their loved ones. The actors themselves showed this very love on the screen. All of this is not in today's picture. We were just shown an interracial union between an Englishwoman and a Pakistani. That is all. There is nothing but platitudes here. The ending is empty and guessable. There are not even any crazy actions here, and there is no point in talking about the chase. Even there is no "spark" between the actors, which must necessarily be there.
2. The actors do not play - except Emma Thompson (this is her best work, after the terrible in every possible sense "Cruella"). Lily James, Shazad Latif and others don't try at all. It seems to show relationships in different families, but there is a certain distance between them. They don't even have anything to say to each other. Can you imagine such a family? It's hard to believe. It is clear that the actors are just working off the fee, no more.
3. There is no atmosphere - the author of the review is not talking about filming in Lahore (Pakistan) and London, he is talking about well-chosen music, famous compositions, serious dramatic scenes (there are only two good ones for the whole picture, and everything in them rests on the characters of the second and third plans), the sadness of the main characters from longing for each other. Yes, these are also cliches, but they work if the cliche is used correctly (this is not observed here). Thus, the creators themselves brought down their romcom without creating a stable pillar on which this genre is based.
It turns out that there is really nothing to say about this picture. She's dull, she's boring, she doesn't cling to her characters. It is remembered only for its Pakistani flavor (which arouses suspicion, since the director is Indian, and you yourself know the extremely strained relations between these countries and peoples, remember three wars and many deadly incidents). But for the layman, the Pakistani flavor may be interesting.
The author of this review does not recommend this romcom for viewing, given that in this genre there are much more worthy pictures to watch. Shekhar Kapoor did not make a name for himself in this painting. This is an unequivocal failure for him.
Rating 5 out of 10!
Morskoy yastreb (1941)
An excellent Soviet military adventure film
An excellent Soviet military adventure film about the confrontation between Soviet sailors and a fascist submarine, which sinks all spotted ships without a flag on the eve of the Great Patriotic War. The difference in the mentality of Russian and German sailors is perfectly shown, the actors play just great. The tense confrontation between the Soviet and German captains was perfectly demonstrated. Ours won, but they deserved to win. Of course, the film is not without certain drawbacks, but this does not affect the overall result. Honor and glory to the Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet!
A score of 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Love, Rosie (2014)
The twisty love of two childhood friends or a high-quality, albeit passing, English romantic comedy
Romantic comedy, melodrama. The film adaptation of the novel by the Irish writer Cecilia Ahern "Where the rainbow ends". And since the author of this review has not read the original book source, therefore, the film adaptation will be evaluated as an independent work. It will be hard to believe, but the author of this review has wanted to see this picture for more than seven years. Yes! And this happens in life, but up to this point it has not been possible to do it in any way. But the forced wait was worth it, and the viewing was a complete delight. The author of this review has not seen such a high-quality romantic comedy and melodrama for a long time. And here is a brief opinion - A high-quality, albeit passing, English romantic comedy. Despite the extremely good impressions (and mood), the author will indicate not only the advantages of this picture (which are absolutely deserved), but also the disadvantages (which can be considered rather quibbles in this case, since nothing is perfect). Therefore, let's finish with an emotional introduction (as it said: "Girls, I'm in shock"), and move on to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. The script - the picture tells us the story of Rosie Dunn and Alex Stewart, childhood friends who love each other, but do not dare to admit it, at the last moment unable to pronounce the right words. Life will shake both Rosie and Alex. They are waiting for casual relationships, unwanted pregnancies, pain and loss, new friends. But over the years, they have been inextricably attracted to each other. After all, there is not just love between them, it is a connection that only these two people understand. They feel it like no one else. There will be quarrels and reconciliations, and there will be a grand finale that will make you cry and therefore prepare a handkerchief before viewing, otherwise you will have to look for it at the most inopportune moment. The characters are spelled out well, they are shown as real people who can be empathized with, while they are not perfect, but they are so similar to the people that surround us (sometimes suspiciously similar). I am glad that there are no unnecessary scenes and stretched moments. The story has its end, and it is not a sin to revise it if desired.
2. The romantic line between Rosie and Alex - without the "spark" between the main characters, there would be no success of this picture. Lily Collins and Sam Claflin did their best here. They didn't just play love, they lived it on the screen. Yes, this may not be the best screen couple in the history of world cinema, but definitely not the worst. The actors did their best here. At the same time, this picture (like almost all romcoms) does not slide into "vanilla snot", but shows life as it is, with its unpredictable twists, unexpected finds and dreams that collide with this very life, and that all this sometimes leads to the most interesting results. Yes, the ending is classic for romcoms, but that's exactly what we expect from paintings of this genre. Once again, it is worth praising Lily Collins and Sam Claflin for playing love on screen.
3. Humor - there is a little bit of it here, and in this case this is the case from the category "it's good that a little bit", because all the jokes here shoot one hundred percent. One joke with a call from a frightened Rosie to Alex is worth something (who watched it will understand, in the opinion of the author of this review - the best joke in the whole picture). There were two or three more, and they worked perfectly on the image of the main characters and the atmosphere itself.
So, the cons:
1. Some physiological details - more precisely, one detail that was shown in close-up, and it was absolutely unnecessary. Modern cinema sins like this (which is why it is simply impossible to watch most of the current romcoms). There is only one moment, and it is a little unpleasant. At the same time, the author of this review does not scold the fact that the characters utter "bad" words, because it is spoken by young people and this is a romcom about life.
2. Puncturing an unpleasant character is so stupid and stupid that you are amazed. Maybe it moved the story in the right direction in the book, and in the film adaptation it also works, but it's too much to "burn" like that. The author agrees that this quibble is far-fetched, but nevertheless could not fail to mention it.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Rosie Dunn, played by Lily Collins, is a beautiful black-haired girl who dreams of becoming the head of her hotel. Alex's best friend, whom he understands like no one else. She made a lot of mistakes, but remained a dreamy girl who really misses Alex. Lily Collins was pleased here, but before that, the author of this review had only seen her in the comedy "Snow White: Revenge of the Dwarves", and here is a serious role. Clever Lily! Good girl!
2. Alex Stewart, played by Sam Claflin, is Rosie's best friend, for whom he has romantic feelings, and from the lack of communication with her he hits into all sorts of novels and relationships in order to drown out the pain of an empty heart. He also messed up a lot of firewood, and more than once wounded Rosie with words, for which he punished himself. Sam has "eaten a dog" in such roles, so this is a typical role for him (one picture "See you Later" is worth something, and "With love, Rosie" came out earlier, and he is already good here), so it remains only to praise Sam for the work done. Well done!
This picture will charge you with good emotions and give you an incentive to realize your dreams. This is a good movie that serves not just to brighten up the evening in the company of a loved one (or alone, if that happens), this movie gives guidance in life and does not forget about a couple of life lessons. Perhaps the author of this review got too emotional from watching this picture (or overdosed on "women's" films too much and now his head began to work differently), but he highly recommends watching it. And for the atmosphere, he advises you to watch it in the original in English with Russian subtitles. Moreover, the author overestimated the assessment due to the fact that this picture touched him to the quick, so it turned out that way.
A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Les trois mousquetaires: Milady (2023)
The adventures of the French bums continue or the Shoddy conclusion of a Dumas-based dilogy
An adventure, a historical drama. A direct continuation of the first film called "The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan", a review of which has already been made in the premiere month of the release of this movie on the wide screen in Russia. The second part was also planned to be rented in our great and vast, but did not take place, although the author of this review was extremely interested in watching the second part, where all the goodies were planned. And now, after watching, the author of the review comes to the conclusion - well, it's good that the second part was not released in Russia, because it would be extremely insulting to pay money for such a thing (even two hundred rubles). The second part was even more disappointing than the first. And here's a brief opinion for you - A shoddy conclusion to a Dumas-based dilogy. Despite the negative emotions after watching, the author of this review (in view of fairness) will tell you not only about the disadvantages (which are enough here), but also about the few advantages (which were found). This should conclude such an important introduction, and proceed to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. The atmosphere - as in the first part, it is good. France is on the verge of a new religious war. The kingdom is bursting at the seams, if the king and all patriotic forces do not restore order in the country and solve the problem with the Huguenots (first of all, by taking their main stronghold - the fortress and port of La Rochelle, and secondly by defeating the Huguenot movement), then France is threatened by the continuation of religious wars. This is being closely watched by England (represented by its first minister, the Duke of Buckingham), which is ready to intervene on the side of the Huguenots at any moment, which threatens a new hundred years' war between England and France. There are conspiracies everywhere, it is unclear who is a friend and who is an enemy, families are divided along religious lines. And four brave Musketeers live and serve in this mess. Guillaume Roussel's music (as in the first part) works great for the atmosphere. Not to mention the excellent scenery (obviously filmed in France). It is impossible to blame the creators for this.
2. Fights and battles - their staging pleases the eye, it is a pity that there is little blood, and they fence according to the rules of the nineteenth century (which of course was not the case in the first half of the seventeenth century). There is also a dynamic here, although no enchanting tricks have been noticed. Some episodes of the siege of La Rochelle pleased (although the arrival of the British squadron right under the walls of La Rochelle is a pure myth, since the British fought on the island of Re, where they were beaten by the French, after which they retreated, they did not reach La Rochelle). There are more similar scenes in this part, so the picture does not look as boring as the first one.
So, the cons:
1. The script - as in the first part, it is bad, only here everything became even worse, since only the names of the characters and a certain line of confrontation between the Musketeers and Richelieu remained from the book source of Alexandre Dumas, but here everything became even worse, because the creators decided to mix the real and extremely interesting history of France, namely the end of the religious warriors (which have plagued France for more than a century, preventing it from living and developing in peace) and the book story of Dumas - the result was deplorable. And the hint of a sequel in the finale is a spit in the soul of fans of the book. In general, the existence of this dilogy is a mockery of them, because so many book characters have been removed, new and alien ones have been introduced. Yes, the creators have done a lot of things.
2. Problems with logic - the scriptwriters have gone so far aside that they have formed a whole bunch of logical holes where the script just sucks in. For example, fatal (especially at that time with that level of medicine) wounds that the characters safely withstand (like the Gascon from the beginning of the first part, who was hit in the heart, and then also in the side), guards and servants do not pay attention to the fact that their commanders or masters want to kill, the strange behavior of Athos when meeting My Lady. Yes, there are a lot of things here. It doesn't make sense to list everything, otherwise you can get stuck for a long time.
3. Costumes - almost everyone here walks like bums. Only Cardinal Richelieu, My Lady, Louis the Thirteenth and Queen Anne are not homeless. Neither the Musketeers nor the Cardinal's guards wear branded cloaks (which at that time were, like the "dapper" outfits that the Musketeers were required to wear, since they are the elite of the royal army), everyone wears a durugue, which was picked up from homeless people on the Paris pavement. Only Musketeers wear hats with huge parrot feathers (which was rare in those days, France was not yet conducting widespread colonization of new lands in the rest of the world). It looks extremely ridiculous.
4. The important Negro - yes, the old song is about the main thing. More negroes, more subpoena. I remember in the previous picture of this director called "Eiffel" there were no Negroes and colored people in general (for this the author of this review praised the director), and so the director decided to "correct himself" by adding a Negro, and not a simple Negro, but the "Prynets" from far Africa. I don't care that this character had a historical prototype (he lived sixty years before the events described), it's just that the fact itself is confusing - well, France did not lead a colonial policy yet, she was still dealing with the Huguenots at home, she was not up to colonization yet. Apparently, the creators of this dilogy decided to play along with the tolerant American public by introducing an important Negro into the script. This was not the case in the first part (because of this Negro, the final score decreased).
5. The Siege of La Rochelle - in the first part, we were teased that the siege would be large-scale and extremely important in the script, many viewers were waiting for it. The author of this review was already anticipating an excellent production, the battle for the island of Re, the battles in the bastions between the Huguenot troops and the army of the King of France, the construction of a dam, the intense attacks of the Huguenots from the fortress, the negotiations of the Huguenots with the Duke of Buckingham, the feat of two Frenchmen from the fort on the island of Re, and so on. And as a result, the siege is the backdrop for the scenario. They will show a couple of forts, the English fleet, the walls of La Rochelle themselves, and a diagram with figures of soldiers and cannons, and a sabotage of a detachment of the royal army. No one remembers about the bastion of Saint-Gervais. It's a shame, comrades, it's a shame to the extreme.
6. Acting - Constance was made a complete fool (although she was not one in the book), Richelieu is unclear what kind, and not a villain, but not a hero (in the book his image tends more to villainy, but in the name of France), My Lady (Eva Green, that says it all, she was my favorite an actress, but the role of Milady is not for her, she does not shine with guile here), Musketeers (faded shadows of book images, and actors play at random, of all only the Gascon tries and Athos, but he generally behaves strangely). The others here don't try at all. It hurts to look at this boredom.
The author of this review, as a person who read the book, was hurt to watch how French filmmakers ruined the great adventure novel by Dumas, his compatriot, by the way. Thank God, both parts of the dilogy failed miserably at the box office, and that's where they go. They perverted Dumas as much as possible. Shame and condemnation of this dilogy and all those who starred in it. The author of this review does not recommend this picture for viewing.
As for the whole dilogy, to watch or not, it is better to refrain, there are many paintings that are worthy of viewing, this dilogy is not one of them. If the first part was a dull gray, then the second was a complete disappointment.
Rating 4 out of 10!
Chest imeyu!.. (2004)
The life and service of Captain Chislov or One of the best TV series about the Second Chechen War
A historical drama. After watching and reviewing such Russian patriotic paintings as "Thunder Gate" and "Breakthrough", fellow viewers advised to watch another series on a similar topic, which is called "I have the honor!"Moreover, he was highly praised by veterans of the Second Chechen War, which was still fresh in his memory at the time of filming the picture. And after watching this series, the author of this review can safely say that the series is not just worthy of watching, but is also one of the best works on this topic. I must honestly admit that the author of this review was so passionate about the script and emotions when watching it that he was overwhelmed that he could not highlight the disadvantages. Well, you can name one - budget, here all the effects and combat episodes are as intimate as possible and rather faded, especially against the background "Breakthrough" or "Thunder Gate". Therefore, the author of this review will focus in more detail on the advantages of this series.
So, here they are:
1. The scenario is the Second Chechen War. An honest, brave and noble Russian officer, paratrooper, Captain Sergei Chislov, is restoring order in Chechnya as part of a group of federal forces. He serves faithfully, honestly, but one case, because of which his group and he himself almost died due to the actions of a higher command, pisses him off, and he wants to leave the army by writing the appropriate paper. He is given a short vacation to St. Petersburg. And only there, after living for a few days in this glorious and majestic city, he will understand a lot and make the right decisions about his fate. In addition to the captain, the series will tell us several more stories of different characters, and from two sides, but it turned out better for the captain and senior lieutenant Pankevich. Four episodes fly by unnoticed, since almost all the characters are revealed and you can empathize with them, and wish our Russian guys and men to defeat Chechen terrorism and return home with victory (and so it happened). Plus, the series touches on the famous battle at height 776 (the sixth company of Pskov paratroopers against thousands of international Islamic terrorists, the paratroopers took an unequal battle and went into the sky forever). There are no sparkling dialogues here, but there are a lot of everyday situations. The series holds the bar high from start to finish.
Russian Russian Army 2. Allegories - Captain Chislov is not just the main character of the series, he also embodies a whole stratum of Russian officers who know what the "Motherland" is and love it selflessly, despite all the various bad things that happened (and are happening now) in the Russian state. It is thanks to such dedicated officers as Captain Chislov that we were able to win in Chechnya, we were able to win in Syria, and God willing, we will win in Novorossiya and Little Russia. It is by looking and learning from such officers that soldiers defeat any opponent. It is such officers who ensure the continuity of generations and do not allow the Russian army to sink to the bottom (although everything has happened in history).
3. Atmosphere - the series accurately reflects the realities of those years. Here you have betrayal, and the "capital roof" of terrorists, and business support, and interference in the internal affairs of Russia by "international observers", indifference or a complete lack of patriotism in Russian society (although patriots are shown, but there are not so many of them). This is also felt in Chechnya, where even the local population is not very happy about the presence of the Russian army, let alone the fact that the terrorists used local residents as informants. It's not worth talking about the brutality of terrorists and bandits (both mercenaries and Chechens), since the series focuses on this. Yes, there is a lot more here. If you list everything, then the review will turn out to be very long. Igor Kornelyuk's good music also works on the atmosphere.
4. Patriotism - the picture is saturated with love for Russia and full of hopes for the best (so far, alas, these hopes have not come true). When Russian boys died in the frame, no matter in battle or from vile enemy mines, it clicked in my heart, as it was in "Breakthrough" and "Thunder Gates", not to mention such a picture as "Purgatory". The characters in the series are Russian soldiers and officers, and those who support them and do not abandon them in difficult times. It is clear why this series is not shown on federal channels.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Captain Sergey Chislov, played by Alexander Lazarev Jr., is an honest and competent officer, whom soldiers love and respect very much, both in the army and in the "citizen" shows his best qualities. I immediately remember the wonderful Soviet film "Officers". So, Captain Chislov is a modern officer of the sample of the second Chechen war. He may say too much, but he will not leave the weak in trouble, and he will take the girl home, and punish the terrorists, and fulfill his duty. Alexander Lazarev Jr. Did his best here. This is his best role. Bravo!
2. Senior Lieutenant Lev Pankevich, performed by Alexander Frolov, is a combat starley who, with his fighters, "both into fire and into water," performs the combat task as efficiently as possible. Obviously, we are preparing to become a "second" Numerical, because we have a lot to learn from him. Alexander was very convincing. Well done!
3. Colonel Primakov, performed by Yuri Tsurilo, is a staff officer who issues tasks to the Chislov detachment. Unlike Yuri Tsurilo's other roles, where he mostly has hysterical generals, here he is shown to be an honest and fair commander who will fight to the last for his paratroopers, especially in front of his superiors. Bravo!
Sergei Astakhov is also remembered here in the role of Chislov's colleague.
It is worth repeating once again - it is extremely sad that people do not learn about such high-quality Russian TV series from federal TV, but only on the recommendation of grateful viewers and veterans of the second Chechen war, who praised the picture for its relative realism and reliability of events. The author of this review recommends this series for viewing!
Rating 8 out of 10!
Napoleon (2023)
A pseudo-historical nonsense from an old grandfather or a terrible in every sense and the most flawed picture about Napoleon
A historical drama. When the author of this review found out about the release of this film, and even from Ridley Scott himself, he was delighted, especially since he loves the history of Napoleon and that time very much (maybe not his favorite historical era, but nevertheless). However, the first reviews were extremely negative (especially French ones), which was very alarming. Therefore, on the eve of the release of this film, two paintings "Napoleon" by Abel Hans and "Waterloo" were viewed Sergei Bondarchuk, in order to "plunge into the topic" and refresh his memory a little, and at the same time look at two different Napoleons from different eras. And after watching Ridley Scott's film film, the impressions are sharply negative. But the author of this review on "this" still wanted to go to the cinema, paying money for a ticket, but since this film was not rented in Russia, so I did not have to spend money (which is very pleasing), and I had to wait some time and take this film from a well-known source (after all, I did not pay To the Apple people for watching this movie on their service). And here is the brief opinion of the author of this review - A terrible in every sense and the most flawed picture about Napoleon. Despite the fact that the review will be full of analysis of the obvious shortcomings of this picture, attention should also be paid to the advantages (which are there, although there are few of them). And this should complete the introduction and move on to the analysis itself.
So, the advantages:
1. Costumes and decorations - what caused the least negative emotions in the author of this review were costumes and decorations. They were sewn expensively and quite richly (although not at all), but the uniforms look bright and distinguish the British and French, Austrians, Prussians and Russians. The latter are surprisingly few (but we'll talk about this below). Napoleon's imperial attire was especially well made. And the uniforms of the Austrian Emperor Franz II and the Russian Emperor Alexander the First are also nothing like that, they look good (although Alexander's uniform confuses with its arrangement of orders and ribbons). The scenery is also pleasing to the eye, although it is clear that everything was not filmed in France (unlike the painting by Abel Hans). But the graphics did a good job. It's nice to watch, at least Napoleon "carried" his uniforms, unlike some of the cast members.
2. Battle scenes - more precisely, not "battle scenes", but cuts of battles, of which there were only six (the Siege of Toulon in 1793, the Royalist rebellion in Paris in 1795, the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, the Battle of Borodino in 1812 and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815). They show blood, they show the horror of war, they show the war itself of that time, they showed especially well how guns shoot (although they hit painfully accurately and shoot painfully far, but these are trifles). Don't wait for details. More or less on a large scale and for a long time only Waterloo was shown, all the other battles - so, a bright advertisement for the long-released game "Napoleon Total War". But even these clippings were pleasant to watch (unlike everything else).
So, the disadvantages:
1. The script was written by a certain David Scarpa, who is practically unknown (then why was his name written on the main poster? It is unclear). So, the author of this review knows that Ridley Scott mounted a four-hour movie version (which no longer makes sense to watch), but the installation raises questions. The fact is that the painting shows us almost the entire life of the legendary Napoleon Bonaparte, literally from the siege and capture of Toulon in 1793 to his death on St. Helena in 1821. The picture literally flies at the speed of a hypersonic rocket through a series of the most famous events in the life of this legendary commander and politician, without context, without explanation, even with titles (although there are titles, but they are extremely few). The viewer does not have time to enjoy the hot Egypt, as he is abruptly jerked to Paris, then sharply Austerlitz, then Russia and so on. It is safe to say that David Scarpa did not do his job, for which he was paid at least good money. This is not a script - it is a set of vivid episodes that last terribly little. If people who are well-versed in history are confused in this scenario, then what about the ignorant? Who don't understand who all these people are at all. Did you know, for example, that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas (the father of the future French writer) was in the picture? So they didn't even explain it to us by the title. And about the "gorgeous" dialogues, the author of the review would rather keep silent (about the dead, either good or nothing).
2. Napoleon performed by Joaquin Phoenix - as the author of this review understands, Joaquin, after receiving an Oscar for the picture "The Joker" (which the author of the review did not watch, and is not going to do it), decided that he did not need to play now, let others try, and he "Oscar" does not allow this to be done. Not only is twenty-four-year-old Napoleon played by forty-nine-year-old Phoenix, but a makeup artist has never approached him during filming. Joaquin looks all his considerable years, and speaks monotonously all the time and with an unchanging face. And he does not forget about tantrums (hello, modern Russian film school!). Here, Napoleon is a nanny, whom for some reason everyone respects and even fears (although it is not clear why for the picture at all). Joaquin's Napoleon is very reminiscent of Prince Vladimir performed by Danilka Kozlovsky from the Russian painting "Viking" (did Joaquin really watch it? Too suspiciously much of the same was taken from there). I hope it's not worth saying that the real Napoleon was not like that! It was a real lump among European politicians and rulers. Only the coalition that united the largest and strongest powers of Europe at that time could cope with it (and even then, only on the SIXTH attempt). He was the BEST commander of his time, who won many battles, while often outnumbering his opponents. The French army under him was the BEST in Europe. Napoleon was a cunning and calculating politician (although he made mistakes), who skillfully used the contradictions of European monarchs for the benefit of France. Napoleon is a reformer of the French state. You can still talk about Napoleon for a long time, but in Ridley Scott's painting, which is named after the legendary Bonaparte, this very Bonaparte is not there. There is a nanny who is being bullied by everyone, but whom everyone respects, it is unclear why. And then there's a famous actor who DOESN'T TRY A BIT!
3. Disregard for history - I will give just a few examples (if you say everything, then the review will be extremely long). Let's start with Marie Antoinette and her disheveled hair - this could not have happened, and Napoleon was not present at her execution. Paul Barras could not offer the unknown artillery captain Bonaprart a plan for the siege of Toulon (who is Napoleon and who is Barras - one of the leaders of the Directory, that is, the government of the First French Republic). Napoleon left Egypt not because of Josephine's betrayal, but because he learned that now was the time to seize power in France, Napoleon and Josephine did not behave so frivolously, as shown here, the Russian troops at Austerlitz did not die en masse on the ice, as shown here. Wateloo happened by accident, in Napoleon's plan there was no such village initially, it just happened because of the battle of Quatre Bras. The Duke of Wellington could not behave like this at the Congress of Vienna in the presence of the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Etc. You understood the liberties and disregard for history as it is.
4. Context and cause-and-effect relationships - there was no place in the scenario for the Italian Company (which made General Bonaparte very famous), the War of the Third Coalition (which was defeated at Austerlitz), There is no Prussian Company, the battles of Placisch Eylau and Friedland. Russian Russian company of 1812 is practically absent (and the Russian emperor was generally shown to be a fool, although he was not like that), there is no war of the Sixth Coalition (it is also the Foreign campaign of the Russian army of 1813-1814), they did not really show a Hundred Days, the Battle of Carte Bras and Ligny. Yes, a lot of things. They even spared money for the credits. But without these events, an ignorant viewer will not understand why, for example, the Russian and French emperors met in Tilsit in 1807, and not after Austerlitz in 1805.
5. Napoleon and Josephine is the main stage line that stretches through the entire timekeeping here, and it is quite poor. Let's start with the dialogues between them, which are practically non-existent, and if they are, they will be envied by Tony Wiseau from the painting "Room". Let's not talk about the naked porn between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, who plays Josephine here. Please tell the creators, why were these scenes needed? Should young people be dragged to the cinema? It didn't work out that way. Such goodness can be found without you on a well-known source and absolutely for free. Vanessa Kirby resembles Josephine in the nude version, and she doesn't look like the real Josephine. Look at her portraits, they are there. There is no romance, much less love, between these two at all.
Waterloo (1970)
How Bonaparte's Sun went Down or The best film adaptation of the legendary battle
A historical drama. A legendary picture and classic of world cinema, staged by the USA, Great Britain, Italy and the USSR, directed by the Soviet genius Sergei Bondarchuk, which the author of this review was able to watch entirely only now, on the eve of watching the painting "Napoleon" by Ridley Scott (already mentally preparing for the hat and cranberries), but we will not yet about sad things. For now, let's go back to those not too distant times, when the author of this review was young, stupid and did not know life as such, and still worked in the Soyuz store chain, and very often saw a DVD with this painting, but still did not dare to look at it (although he already loved historical paintings very much). Now he thinks that he shouldn't have appreciated this picture back then. But, as they say, "better late than never", therefore, here is a brief opinion for you - The best film adaptation of the legendary battle. There were both advantages in the picture (which are obvious, but they are worth talking about) and disadvantages (although they spoil the viewing experience, but they are worth mentioning). And this should end this introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. The Battle of Waterloo - the painting is called "Waterloo", and this battle occupies a large part of it. The viewer will be shown a small backstory and will be shown in colors and emotionally the battle itself, which became the end of the great Napoleon's career, both military and political. The hundred days are over. Moreover, the creators did not err against the story, and showed the battle itself in sufficient detail. After "War and Peace", it was Sergei Bondarchuk who could make such a large-scale battle movie, which even now causes sincere admiration and respect for such high-quality work done. The maneuvers of the troops, the culminating moments of the battle, its main characters are perfectly shown, while both sides are considered in detail. No one else is in the cinema (and probably never again) He will not be able to show this battle like Sergei Bondarchuk did here. My respects to the masters of the past.
2. Costumes and decorations - here again it is worth praising, but this time to the costumers and those specialists who selected the area for filming and buildings, because it all looks so authentic that the viewer is literally transported to that time and as if he were in the center of those historical events. And the extras are here, just a sea. At least several hundred people are involved in the battle itself, and if we take panoramic shots, there are even more of them there. And all of them can be distinguished (although they did not show the Dutch army that fought alongside the British forces of the Duke of Wellington).
3. The atmosphere - costumes, scenery, magnificent music by the Italian composer Nino Rotta ("The Godfather"), acting by world-famous celebrities, well-written characters - all this perfectly immerses the viewer in that turbulent era. You look at the picture without stopping. It's worth a lot (especially now, in the age of the Second Evil Corporation).
4. Acting works - Christopher Plummer, Orson Welles, Jack Hawkins, Sergo Zakariadze, Evgeny Samoilov, Vladimir Druzhnikov, Oleg Vidov and so on. If we list all of them, and also together with the filmographies, then the review will turn out to be very big. Each of these actors is a value in itself, but here they came together in one picture, so you don't have to worry about acting.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Rod Steiger in the role of Napoleon - despite all the emotionality and charisma of the actor (and his skill in the profession), but he is not suitable for this role. Forgive the author of this review, but a slightly overweight Family does not resemble Napoleon of that time. Look at the portraits, read the memoirs of contemporaries of those events. Well, he doesn't look like anything. It is immediately obvious that this is an actor playing Napoleon.
2. Prolonged and unnecessary scenes - they could be shortened (the first thirty minutes) and leave the timing for the battle. Or show, for example, at least briefly the Battle of Carte Bras (in which Napoleon was able to push Wellington's army back to Waterloo, but not defeat it) and the Battle of Ligny (in which Napoleon managed to defeat the Prussian army of Field Marshal Blucher, but which managed to escape from him, which he will face already at Waterloo). These battles are only mentioned, although in the context of Waterloo they are extremely important.
3. The behavior of the Duke of Wellington is a pompous aristocrat, openly and without hesitation blames the soldiers' "rabble" for their origin. The author of this review should generally say that the real Duke of Wellington would never have dared to do such a thing, especially in this situation and knowing that his army consists of a third of recruits and Dutch allies and knowing full well about the strength and discipline of Napoleon's army? In general, either Christopher Plummer himself or director Sergei Bondarchuk contributed their "vision", and this did not benefit the picture.
Napoleon is also "afraid" of Wellington in the picture (which was complete nonsense, since they did not meet in battle until 1815), and sees Austria as the main enemy (which is ridiculous, because Russia and England represented a threat to him then, because the first has the best army in Europe, and the second - the world's best fleet).
Nevertheless, despite enormous efforts and a very large budget at that time (twenty-five million francs in prices of the late sixties), the picture failed miserably at the box office. I don't know for what reason. For the author of this review, people are very strange creatures. Sometimes he doesn't understand them. Well, what happened happened. And although the picture did not have commercial success, but after a while it gained cult status and now it deserves to be in the piggy bank of the "Classics of World Cinema".
A score of 9 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!
Napoléon vu par Abel Gance (1927)
The most epic Bonaparte or Silent masterpiece of French cinema
A historical drama. The author of this review simply could not pass by such classics of world cinema, because, as they say, "you need to know." Moreover, this is the earliest painting about the legendary Frenchman, which perfectly fits the word "epic". A five-hour silent film telling about the life of Napoleon (from studies to the beginning of the Italian company). The author of this review could not look at the picture from beginning to end in one sitting, but it was successfully managed in two sittings. And here's a brief opinion for you - A silent masterpiece of French cinema. Despite the favorable impression and pleasant emotions, the author of this review will consider both the obvious advantages of this historical drama and the disadvantages (which could not be dispensed with). And this should end the much-needed introduction and proceed directly to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. The scenario - the picture shows and tells the story of the formation of Napoleon Bonaparte, from a young brave boy who fights against church dogmas and especially zealous peers to the beginning of the famous Italian company (in which the troops of revolutionary France, the hungry, who were also numerically inferior, were able to completely smash the well-groomed and fed Austrian troops, and expel them from Italy and Brigadier General Bonaparte led them to victory). We will see the Great French bourgeois Revolution, its leaders (Robespierre, Danton, Marat, Saint Just). The creators of the painting also forgot about the romantic line of Napoleon and Josephine. And many more things were included in the script. It turned out to be an epic film production, which even now, in the age of digital technology, is able to amaze and even surprise. A lot of events have been included here. The Napoleonologists will be happy, and it will not be superfluous for the layman to look at it.
2. The image of Napoleon - we will be shown the same legendary personality that everyone has admired for more than three hundred years. Moreover, that the young Napoleon (Vladimir Rudenko), that the adult Napoleon (Albert Dieudonte) is equally good, because they look like the real Napoleon (fortunately, there are many portraits of this personality). We see the formation of the indomitable character of our hero, even his confrontation with his personal enemy Pozzo di Borgo (this conflict is not often found in films about Napoleon), his victories (the siege of Toulon, for example), cunning and resourcefulness during the years of Terror. And they also did not forget to show him as a man who loves Josephine, because the creators succeeded in these moments. And although this image was slightly overplayed (all the characters react to Napoleon as soon as they see him, as if he were you know Who). The author of this review has not seen the best Napoleon in the cinema yet (with the exception of a series of documentaries from Star Media, where the role of Napoleon was superbly performed by the wonderful and talented Russian actor Georgy Bulat).
3. Costumes and decorations - here you just need to "take off your hat" to the creators of the picture, because it was filmed in the twenties of the twentieth century, and it was done by real professionals of that time. There are just a lot of extras here, and authentic costumes were sewn for everyone. The decorations still amaze the eye (this is especially noticeable in the restored version). You can recognize both the French and the British by their uniforms, not to mention the casual clothes of that time. The picture was shot in France, which adds to the atmosphere when watching. And not to mention the battle scenes - for those years it was the pinnacle. And how often will the siege of Toulon be shown in sufficient detail in the cinema about Napoleon?
4. Innovations - some director's finds are worth something. Three films were shot at the same time, the cameras were mounted in various objects. The picture is not only black and white, but also colored (since color filters were used during filming). Yes, there are a lot of things like that. If you describe everything, you can get stuck here for a long time. It was a tremendous effort by many people.
5. The restored picture - except for two points (where the restorers either cheated, or the negatives could no longer be brought to the right state), then we have a reference work and a living manual on how to restore an old movie. Each frame looks as if it was shot only yesterday. And don't forget that the negatives of the painting are reels with thousands of meters of film. How much time did people spend so that we, the audience, could see this masterpiece of Abel Hans in an improved form? I highly recommend everyone to see it in its restored form. And although the text in this version has not been translated into Russian (because only English is there), it is quite simple to understand what is happening there, and the text is not complicated, even for those who are ignorant of foreign languages.
6. Music - without the great music of Carl Davis and Arthur Honegger, this epic would not be so great, because the music selected here greatly affects the atmosphere and creates emotional involvement in the viewer. Here you will find both classics and a variation of the famous "Marseillaise" and what not mixed here.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Liberties with the real story - Nelson never met Napoleon, there was no game at the beginning of the picture, Josephine rejected Napoleon's courtship for a long time, considering him a fool, Napoleon did not escape from Corsica with the French flag, and so on. I remembered the most vivid moments. Not to mention the obvious allegories (which worked in the picture, no fooling around). No wonder Abel Hans made a postscript in the credits that this is how he sees Napoleon. And we, lovers and professionals of history, can forgive Abel Hans for this, because his invention served to benefit the cinema, and only strengthened the image of the unshakeable Napoleon.
2. Excessive emotionality and overplaying is not so much a minus as the ordinariness of that time and silent films in general. At that time, not everyone was able to transmit sound, so all that remained was to exaggerate gestures, make faces and overplay a lot, so that the audience would look at you more than at others. Therefore, be prepared for this and treat it with understanding.
3. Commercial failure - monstrous monetary costs, hundreds of books about Napoleon read, the enormous work of many people, thousands of meters of film - and a grandiose box office failure. And considering that Abel Hans conceived the trilogy, the total timing of all the paintings would have been around fifteen o'clock - then we never saw it. This is extremely sad, because this is a very high-quality work that has become iconic. It is a pity that we will never see the full "Napoleon" by Abel Hans, although, judging by the quality of the first part, we would have been further awaited by such an epic, which was like the "Lord of the Rings" for the noughties.
My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
Gunpowder (2017)
How did a young girl arrange a conspiracy or a sad film adaptation of the famous Catholic assassination attempt
A historical drama. Another film adaptation of the famous Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when a group of radical English Catholics decided to destroy King James Henrikhovich the First Stuart and the entire parliament by blowing up a building where the king, parliamentarians and almost all the closest royal entourage should have been present on November fifth, 1605. But as everyone knows, the conspiracy was uncovered, and its participants were destroyed (who was lucky enough to die in battle, and who was brutally executed by the verdict of the royal court). The locomotive of the production of this series (in addition to the HBO channel) was the world-famous John the Sad Little Snow (according to Kit Harington's passport), who is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby, the leader of the conspirators, whose role is played by Kit himself. I admit, I did not have high hopes for this series, but watching it generally depressed me, because it was a complete failure. And here's my brief opinion for you - A dreary film adaptation of the famous Catholic assassination attempt. There were both pros (which are not many) and cons (which are definitely worth attention) in the series, so I finish this introductory word and proceed to the analysis.
So, the pros:
1. Costumes, scenery - I admit, this was almost the only reason why I did not fall asleep completely while watching this series (and also the story, but more on that later). We just worked with the costumes (although they do not "sit" on all the characters). Maybe it was in a hurry, but only three characters were able to "carry" their clothes - Catesby, Fox and Cecil. Even the king in his clothes is not very pleasing to the eye (although it is clear that the clothes are expensive and well made). In general, the costumes are similar to the historical era being shown. The scenery was also pleasing, and I'm not even talking about the contrast between the palace and the dwelling, although impoverished, but still a lord. London, provincial England look very atmospheric. At the same time, the series does not feel like a chamber, although we are not shown very many rooms.
2. Music - local musical compositions create the atmosphere of England at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Appropriate music plays in tense scenes. Of course, not Hans Zimmer, nor John Williams, nor Ennio Marricone, but for an average dull historical series it will do.
So, the cons:
1. The political version - the failure of the conspiracy here was decided to be associated with the political intrigues of England and Spain, who wanted to conclude a peace treaty with each other (since finances sang romances in both countries, and the war had been going on since 1585). And it seems even logical. But there is one point that ruins this version - the fact is that the peace treaty between the countries was signed in 1604, and not in 1605, as it was presented in this series. Even more, I will tell you - the origins of the conspiracy are still unknown. There is an assumption that the rebel Robert Catesby was his locomotive, but this is only an assumption. The political version itself is simply meaningless.
2. Strong discrepancies with the real story - I will tell you only about some facts: Robert Catesby's estate was taken away long before the Gunpowder plot (he lost it for participating in a conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth Henrikhovna the First Tudor, it's even surprising that he was left alive) and in the series he has an estate, the circumstances of Guy Fawkes' arrest were somewhat different (he did not arrange a stabbing with guards) Father Garnet (already sitting in the Tower) actively wrote letters in invisible ink (they are in the National Archives of Great Britain) and there is nothing like that in the series, Catesby and his remaining supporters were not killed almost instantly after the failure of the conspiracy, but withstood a ten-hour siege of the house where they locked themselves in, Anna Vox spent some time in prison for indirectly assisting the Gunpowder conspiracy, and in the series she escaped this fate. And these are just some of the facts that immediately catch your eye. If you dig around properly, you can find even more of this. When you watch historical movies, never completely trust everything shown, never!
3. Kit Harington - let's start with the fact that Kit never learned how to play, he was John Snow, and he remained so (especially since this series was filmed in between seasons of "Game of Thrones"). But that's half the trouble, the fact is that Keith portrayed his ancestor Robert Catesby as a whiner and a slob with zero charisma. It seems that's how he sees his ancestor. It looks ridiculous, because Robert Catesby (if it was he who was the locomotive of the conspiracy) was able to gather a group of people and organize a conspiracy. Only a man with at least military experience and unquestionable authority could achieve this. A wimp and a slob (as he is shown in this series) would never be able to pull this off. Who would even go after such a thing? Especially in those turbulent times? Yes, the articles of the editors of the most famous Russian website dedicated to cinema should never be believed, never!
4. Guy Fawkes - let's start with the fact that the actor looks completely different from the famous character. Was it really that hard to find the right actor? Or a high-quality makeup artist who would do everything right for you? So they also made a rabid ferret out of him, which, if given free rein, he would destroy all Protestants in England, although documents show that he was an ordinary perpetrator of the conspiracy, who panicked at the last moment (which led to the discovery of barrels of gunpowder) and that he was a Catholic. His image in this series has been exaggerated too much.
5. Catholics were exposed as martyrs - the series is actively trying to hammer into our heads the idea that English Catholics in the country were persecuted almost worse than Jews in mainland Europe. Which, to put it mildly, is not the case. And even more so whose cow would moo. Can you tell me how you Catholics, subjects of the English kings, burned all those who disagreed with you at the stake of the Inquisition? Can you tell us about the persecution of Jews? That you were a litter for the Popes of Rome? And now you've lost everything and you've received a reply from all those you've been chasing? You don't have to wait for sympathy. You are not followers of the "true" faith, but ordinary papists.
6. Dullness - if the first series is still quite dynamic and cheerful, then the second and third against its background seem to be a dull gray. And if the characters are also not hooked, then it's not a big deal at all. That's what happened here. When watching, I had no sympathy for the English Catholics, I was more impressed by King James Henrikhovich the First and his minister, Count Robert Cecil, who wanted to save England from economic collapse (it came later, but the consequences were much milder) and allow the country to live in peace. Against this background, the problem of a group of rebels does not matter.
The actors play at a very average level. The most memorable of them were Cecil and King James, who was played by One of the famous TV series "Xena - the Warrior Queen".
The result was not the best. A dull series that has only an indirect relationship to the story. This series is not worth watching at all, especially since there are other works on this topic in the world cinema. The atmosphere and music do not save the situation. The series is objectively bad.
My rating is 5 out of 10 and I do not recommend watching this series!
Les parapluies de Cherbourg (1964)
A beautiful French love story or a beautiful French musical of the sixties
Musical, melodrama. I finally got to this, without a doubt, iconic picture and classics of French cinema, and even in the genre of "musical" (which I really love). Moreover, this year (2024) this picture has an anniversary - sixty years. And you know what? Even after so many years after its release, the picture remains very popular. And after watching it, I can say with confidence that it is absolutely deserved! She made a strong impression on me. And here's my brief opinion - A wonderful French musical of the sixties. Despite my delight, there were both pros and cons in the picture, which must certainly be told. Moreover, this picture is the forerunner of the magnificent musical "La La Land" (which I love with all my heart and periodically review). And this should end the much-needed introduction and move on to the interesting.
So, the pros:
1. The scenario - the picture tells us the love story of Guillaume the car mechanic and Genevieve the umbrella saleswoman, who passionately love each other and want to tie the knot, but the relatives of the lovers are not very happy about this, especially Genevieve's mother. The girl just manages to confess her feelings to her mother, as Guillaume reports the terrible news - he is being taken to the army, and straight to the front in Algeria (where the anti-colonial war of independence, which lasted from 1954 to 1962, is in full swing. Long live free Algeria!). Separation is difficult for the beautiful Genevieve, and then a respectable young man appears, whom my mother insists on. What will Genevieve choose? Feelings for Guillaume or a respectable young man? Yes, the script is simple and contains almost no intrigue. He just shows and tells a love story in the scenery of France in the second half of the fifties. Moreover, all the characters in the picture sing their lines. As such, there are no conversations here, which is why the picture is remembered. This story will appeal to both men and the beautiful half of humanity. The actors were superbly chosen for the roles. You believe them, although you can see that there is a lot of theatricality here, but you can put up with it.
2. Aesthetics - the picture is very bright and literally full of all the colors of the rainbow. Even the peeling entrance of the house where Guillaume lives also oozes this very brightness. Magnificent costumes, various decorations - it's a feast for the eyes and ears. It is clearly visible where Damien Chazelle drew inspiration for his magnificent painting "La La Land".
3. Music - my greatest respect to the French composer Michel Legrand for creating great music for this painting. How many feelings! How many emotions! And the composer was able to fit all this into literally several compositions, which, after familiarization, can never be forgotten. The title theme is especially beautiful.
4. The final - I will say right away - I am against the final choice of Genevieve, but at the same time it is presented in such a way that you can practically put up with it. Because life is life, and it very often makes its own adjustments to people's plans. Yes, those who watched "La La Land" will immediately guess what I'm talking about. Personally, I don't mind such finals (even in La La Land I agreed with him, and even wept at the injustice of what had happened).
So, the cons:
1. Genevieve's pregnancy - I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe in this circumstance, because in the picture it was clearly visible that this girl was very modest, and Guillaume, before marrying her, did not shine to be you know where and you know what. Of course, her pregnancy strongly affects the scenario, but still this circumstance looks implausible.
2. Guillaume's misfortune - this young guy did not deserve what happened to him upon his return to France. He fought in Algeria for two years, was wounded, was treated in a hospital, and when he arrived home, he learns what he learns. Yes, after that, if I were in his place, I don't know what I would do. At least he was angry at the cause of his misfortune. Yes, the picture will show his tossing and his grief, but too gently and very theatrically.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Genevieve, performed by Paintings by Deneuve, is a young umbrella saleswoman who works in her mother's store and meets with Guillaume, an auto mechanic, whom she loves very much, but life makes its own adjustments to the feelings of lovers. Of course, the paintings do not look like a sixteen-year-old girl in any way (as she appears in the script of the picture), but even this circumstance does not prevent you from enjoying the magnificent acting. This is how the "spark" feels between the characters. Feelings and passion are visible to the naked eye here. The young painting is just pleasing to the eye.
2. Guillaume, performed by Nino Castelnuovo, is an auto mechanic, an ordinary proletarian, in love with an umbrella saleswoman, who cannot live without her. It's a difficult path, after all, first love is a special feeling, but life is completely different. Nino was extremely convincing in this role. I felt even more for him than for Genevieve. Maybe because I'm a man, or maybe everything is so obvious from the script!
As already mentioned, I am against the final choice, but the finale of the picture still pleases the viewer and gives hope for the best, and even with great music.
The film won many awards (including the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film). She has a lot of fans and is still popular, which means that the picture has passed the test of time with confidence. That's how you need to make high-quality movies, not the way they do it now.
My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
A duel of two ships or a Good American military adventure picture
Adventure. An adaptation of the novels by English writer Patrick O'Brian about Captain Jack Aubrey (nicknamed "Lucky Jack") and his friend ship's doctor Stephen Maturin. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. What can I say - a movie from childhood. I remember watching it more than once when I was still a kid, because the sea always attracted me, and this picture was often shown on the box (I don't know how to deal with this case now, I haven't looked at this very box for a long time). And as a child, I really liked this picture, and now, having already reviewed it at a respectable age, and having gained knowledge, I can say that the picture is still good, although some disadvantages have emerged that simply cannot be ignored. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good American military adventure picture. It is necessary to analyze both the pros and cons of this picture, so we finish with an introduction.
So, the pros:
1. The scenario is 1805. There is another war between England and France. The latter is headed by Emperor Napoleon the First Bonaparte, who intends to conquer the whole world. His Majesty's frigate Sudden is serving in the Atlantic Ocean, which is being attacked by the newest French battleship Acheron. "Sudden" manages to evade pursuit, but an order was received from London to prevent the Acheron from entering the Pacific Ocean. Captain Jack Aubrey will have to complete a difficult task - to defeat the Acheron, despite the fact that Jack's ship is a frigate, and is already quite old. But cunning, experience and a loyal team will help Jack complete the task and return home with honor. If we do not take into account the obvious stupidities and outright blunders, then we have a pretty strong story of the confrontation between two ships and two captains (although the main focus is on Jack and "Sudden"). The genre of the picture can even be called a "thriller", because in many places it tickles the nerves of the audience, because we worry about the characters, because we know that the French ship Acheron is much stronger. The finale is both surprising and perplexing (but we'll talk about that later). The characters are revealed in sufficient detail so that the audience can empathize with them and hope for their victory. Dialogues are "alive" (unlike most modern film products, both domestic and foreign). The drama is at a good level. I am glad that the creators did not clutter up the picture with unnecessary details, but focused on the main story and a couple of auxiliary ones. The script of this picture does not exactly claim to be an Oscar, but it cannot be called a passer-by in any way. Nowadays, Western filmmakers are no longer able to master such a scenario.
2. Costumes, scenery - the picture was shot on the high seas and with the help of special equipment, in general, almost everything was shot on location - and this is good. Here you will find natural light, atmosphere, and immersion in the era. The costumes are also pleasing to the eye. The British naval uniforms did well. Most likely there are inaccuracies (and there cannot be), but I leave this to professional military historians who know much more than yours truly. It is a pity that they did not work with French naval uniforms in this way (although there are good encyclopedias and detailed illustrations), and in the picture the creators limited themselves to only some details. Despite the obvious flaws, I am inclined to praise the creators of the picture for a well-done job in this aspect. It's not a solid five, but they definitely deserve a four.
3. Maritime romance - despite the fact that the picture tells about the war at sea, about raging storms, about calm, and just about things that can alienate ordinary people from the sea. All this does not prevent you from showing the other side of the coin - the discovery of new lands, the journey itself, the sea brotherhood, overcoming your weaknesses, a sense of danger, responsibility for your country, and finally the desire to see your native home after a long sea voyage. Maybe I'm thinking like the last romantic, but that's how it looks. I love the romance of the sea, and in this picture it is reflected quite well.
So, the cons:
1. The basis of the script is the central story, which the picture tells and shows, took place, but not in 1805, but in the Anglo-American War of 1812, when the American frigate Constitution collided with the British frigate Guerriere (an American sank an Englishman as a result of the battle), but the producers decided to postpone the place and time of the action are much further south, so as not to cause bad exclamations from the American audience. Indeed, why stir up the past? After all, we need to take the picture all over the world, including England. However, this did not help much - there was a box office failure, although not very significant.
2. Questions to logic - why should the Acheron not be allowed to enter the Pacific Ocean in the opinion of the British Admiralty? What's the point of Acheron attacking whaling ships? The episode with the three boats that pull the ship "Sudden" is generally a laugh with laughter. I will also keep silent about the bottomless chest with the necessary things for the ship and the crew (apparently, damn magic) and so on. These are just the highlights that I have noticed. If you look closely, you can find a lot more of them.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Captain Jack Aubrey played by Russell Crowe - commander of the frigate "Sudden", a celebrity of the Royal Navy, who is known for not losing a single battle he participated in. He was a subordinate of Lord Horatio Nelson himself. We are loved by sailors and officers. Admittedly, Russell Crowe just masterfully performed this role. There is confidence and experience in his character, while he does not bury himself in himself, maintains good relations with Dr. Maturin. He can comfort you in a difficult moment, although at some moments it is clear that some of the things he had to do for the first time. Bravo!
2. Dr. Stephen Maturin, played by Paul Bettany, is a ship's doctor, and by nature is a researcher, a naturalist, obsessed with the study of new species of animals. A very talented doctor who can help in the most critical situation. At the same time, he is a friend of Captain Orbie. The doctor often likes to remind a friend of honor, so that he does not bury himself in the armor called "duty".
Billy Boyd, our favorite Pipin from the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, also starred here, although his role here is almost episodic (constantly flashing in the background).
I have to admit that the picture is tedious, but it does not slide into outright boredom. But the finale leaves ambivalent feelings - this is both surprise and dislike, because in the finale there is a hint of a sequel, which never happened, and will not happen, since the box office was very, very modest, consider it a failure. Apparently, the producers were so confident of success that they conceived an entire series. I admit, I am glad for the modest box office, because this is how you need to hit the pocket of greedy and overconfident producers in order to think ahead.
And yet, the painting has stood the test of time, and even now it looks quite good and spectacular. I am glad that I have reviewed it, and I am sure that I will review it with pleasure more than once.
My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
The Hard Fate of Ron Kovik or Oliver Stone's Masterpiece Anti-War Drama
War drama, biography. The film adaptation of the book of the same name by the American Marine, Vietnam War veteran, who became a famous anti-war activist Ron Kovik, directed by the famous (and very respected by me) director Oliver Stone ("Scarface" with Al Pacino, "Platoon"). And since I have not read the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. For a long time I went around this picture "around and around" as they say, and once I decided to refresh my knowledge about the Vietnam War (at the same time learning new facts), then this picture became some help, and even Tom Cruise starred in the main role here (until he finally disappeared in the series of paintings "Mission Impossible"). And after watching it, I was pleasantly surprised, because I saw an excellent historical, military and biographical drama in the best traditions of this genre. You could even say that I watched a masterpiece. And here's a brief opinion for you - Oliver Stone's masterpiece anti-war drama. There were both advantages and disadvantages (few) in the picture. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.
So, the advantages:
1. The scenario - the picture will tell us and show the life story of an ordinary American from a devout Catholic family, Ron Kovik, who was born on the Independence day of the United States, and before Vietnam was, like thousands of other young Americans, a sincere patriot of his country, who believed the American government, believed propaganda about allegedly "evil communists", and who After joining the Marine Corps, he went to Vietnam to "defend the free world from communism." There came an epiphany. It was in Vietnam that he faced the harsh truth, and when he returned home crippled, he saw that all his ideals were just lies. A few friends and colleagues help Ron understand that in this situation it remains only to fight for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, thereby joining the progressive anti-war public, which has been fighting the false government for several years, organizing demonstrations, meetings, pickets, although the police disperse and beat them for this. We will be shown the path of Ron's development from a patriot whose head is full of propaganda to an anti-war activist who fights against the government, trying to save the lives and psyche of thousands of young Americans. There are very wise thoughts in the dialogues. Pathos is present only in the first half of the picture, and then it is practically reduced to zero. The finale makes you happy for Ron, who was able to overcome his despair and incredible anger, and become a guiding light for many people.
2. Atmosphere - the painting covers the period from the fifties to the mid-seventies of the last century. Famous music, the conflict of generations, the cold war between two superpowers, American propaganda and the harsh truth of the Vietnam War, in which the star stripes did not fight in the full sense of the word, but simply brutalized poor Vietnamese, and in the way the fascists brutalized during the Great Patriotic War (for Americans, the Vietnamese were "Indians", savages with which you can do anything). The magnificent music of John Williams only enhances this atmosphere.
3. Ron Kovik - the main character himself is another advantage of this picture, which causes sympathy, although not from the very beginning (as it was with me, for example). He is played by the famous Tom Cruise, who embodied the image of Ron so well that the latter even gave him one of his military awards for Vietnam. Yes, they will not show us Ron's whole life, but they will focus on the most important segments in which the hero began to change and realize many things that he had never thought about before. Yes, in the painting, ot often swears rudely, yes, some physiological processes are shown, but all this does not repel (as in most paintings, especially in new Russians), but rather gives color to the hero. Ron's emotions on the screen looked sincere, and Tom's credit for that.
So, the disadvantages:
1. The episode in Vietnam - no one would have called for medical help for wounded Vietnamese. It was nonsense. Even if this episode is entirely taken from Ron's book, it is unlikely. As already mentioned, the Vietnamese were not considered human beings in the eyes and imagination of Americans. No one would have saved them (as a result, they were not).
2. The story of Donna's childhood friend - after a certain point, she simply disappears from the narrative, as if she is not important here at all. This is strange, considering how much attention was focused on her and her liking for Ron before that.
At the time of writing this review, Ron Kovik is alive and continues his public activities. God grant him health and strength in this necessary matter. After all, as long as capitalism exists, ready to send the children of the poor and middle class to slaughter in all parts of the globe in order to profit from the war, then people like Ron Kovik, who are fighting against this soulless machine in the name of humanity, will also be relevant. And this picture will be relevant. This work received two Academy Awards (and both are absolutely deserved), and there were six nominations and also all deserved.
I remember seeing this note in the comments: "This film should be done at school." And you know, I totally agree with that. This needs to be studied and analyzed at school so that the younger generation knows in advance what capitalism leads to and can think. Oliver Stone can only applaud for such an excellent job. And for a better atmosphere, I highly recommend watching the picture in English with Russian subtitles (I did exactly that).
My rating is 10 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing! Even despite the inaccuracies and liberties with the biography of Ron Kovik.
The Merchant of Venice (2004)
A guide to inflating a Jew or a good-quality film adaptation of Shakespeare's not-so-famous play
Drama. The most famous film adaptation of the tragedy of the same name by the great English playwright William Shakespeare. I read the play itself, although for a long time, but the most important thing is very much etched into my memory, so I will compare the film adaptation with the original source. This picture was recommended to me for viewing, and by a person who, to put it mildly, understands world cinema. And for this recommendation, I thank him from the bottom of my heart. It's been a long time since I've seen such a high-quality picture that makes you think about a lot. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good film adaptation of Shakespeare's not-so-famous play. And despite my delight, there were both expressive advantages and obvious disadvantages in the picture. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.
So, the advantages:
1. The scenario - the picture tells the story of the Venetian merchant Christian Antonio and the old Jewish pawnbroker Shylock, to whom the former owed a large sum of money. And when it comes time to pay the bills, Shylock wants only one thing - to take revenge on Antonio at all costs. Namely, to repay the debt by cutting a pound of meat from Anthony's body, since the merchant (like all Christians) hates and despises Jews who live in the ghetto (it was in Venice that it appeared for the first time in Europe). Along the way, the love story of the young Venetian Bassanio and the young beauty Portia is told. Both lines converge at one point one day in order to complete this story. What makes the picture memorable is that Shakespeare's dialogues remained untouched. I assure you that after watching this picture you will be impressed for a long time. And although the script is slightly changed compared to the original play, but everything else is done very well. Shakespeare is Shakespeare!
2. The conflict between Antonio and Shylock - in the original play, Shylock (and with him the Jews) are unrighteous people, and Antonio (and with him the Christians) are righteous. Shylock is represented almost all the time in black colors. And the contempt and censure of the Christians of the Jewish people is a God-pleasing and righteous deed. In the picture, not everything was made less unambiguous. We were shown (using the example of Shylock, Antonio and other heroes) how Christians despise Jews and then go to them for money or beg for mercy. And Shylock is also angry at Christians because of this contradiction, so he literally hates the whole world. He is ready to take revenge on Anthony in the most cruel way, and he is not interested in money. Everything ends predictably (laws are such a thing, and Venetian society is not on the side of Shylock and all Jews). Shylock is a tragic character here, as is Antonio. The creators of the painting show the very historical chauvinism that took place in the Republic of Venice at the end of the sixteenth century (and up to the twentieth). This is the historical truth, and it needs to be known. And in general, this theme is the main one in the picture, and in the play. It was extremely interesting to observe the development of events around this topic.
3. The love line of Bassanio and Portia is just classic Shakespeare, as we imagine him to be. Here you can see the influence of "Romeo and Juliet" (only without the tragic ending). Also spirituality, gentle looks, love from that very first glance, an instant willingness to sacrifice life for love. It's all there, too. And it's just brilliantly staged and played. There is that same "spark" between the characters, and the actors themselves have tried their best.
4. Costumes and decorations - it is clear that Venice acted as Venice, so you plunge into the atmosphere with your head. The costumes also inspire confidence (if there are minor errors in the details, it is still insignificant). It was well noticed that Jews were ordered to wear red hats on the streets of the city in order to distinguish them from other citizens (well, of course, no one will interfere with spitting in their face). And although the picture is quite intimate, the viewer still does not have the impression that he is simply being led from one room to another. Rather, we are shown the society of that time, which differs from the present (and it is difficult to say in which direction, good and bad).
So, the disadvantages:
1. Dressing Portia and Jessica is, of course, classic, but how could they not recognize this in court? I'm sorry, but it's quite easy to distinguish a woman from a man, figure, face, not to mention the voice (for us, men, it's quite low, and for women, on the contrary, it's high). That's what nature came up with, and it's not for us to argue with that. Of course, this action plays a key role in the picture, but it does not fit well with logic.
2. The tragedy of Shylock - the picture is based mainly on Shylock, played by mastodon Al Pacino, but of all the action of the picture, the most infrequent turns out to be Shylock, who lost everything, literally everything, and now it's a pity. After all, in the play of the great Shakespeare, Shylock "re-educates" into a good Christian, then here the creators made both sides of the conflict ambiguous, and still sided with Antonio (although he is to blame for the conflict). Here Shylock is disgraced, persecuted, deprived of everything and everything, but for what? For the truth! For being a Jew! For the hypocritical laws of the Republic of Venice! For usury! And do not think that I am a defender of the Jews, I rather notice the facts, because the hypocrisy in the picture is very well marked (and Shylock is shown as an aggressive Jew who hates Christians). I have no prejudice against any nation in general. But in this picture, it was Shylock that I felt sorry for. An old Jew who was deceived by the system and eventually deprived of everything.
A little bit about the main characters:
1. Bassanio, played by Joseph Fiennes and Portia, played by Lynn Collins, are local "Romeo and Juliet" who play similar roles. Young lovers, ready to go into fire and water for each other, although they met only recently. There is that "spark" between Joseph and Lynn, without which love is dislike. The actors play well, there is nothing to complain about. Bravo!
2. Antonio, played by Jeremy Irons, is not the most successful merchant in Venice, openly despising Jews (like most of the townspeople), but for the sake of Bassanio's love for Portia, he makes a deal with the Jew Shylock. He is shown as a hypocrite, but already in the middle there is a tragic note in him. Jeremy, as always, played extremely convincingly. Well done!
3. Shylock, played by Al Pacino, is an old Jewish loan shark who sponsors Antonio, despite his attitude towards the Jewish people. A grumpy and vindictive old man who also loses everything as a result of this deal and the subsequent trial. Mastodon Al Pacino simply masterfully embodied the image of the famous Shakespearean character, adding his charisma and inimitable voice (which was heard through a Russian voiceover). Here you can say: "Bravo!"a lot of times. Regarding the character, everything has already been said above, so we will not repeat ourselves. Al Pacino did a great job!
Surprisingly, this picture failed miserably at the box office, which is even a shame, because it absolutely did not deserve it. Apparently, the audience did not understand the idea of the picture, or did not want to think. Who knows.
My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
The Mummy (1932)
The adventures of an animated corpse or a good old mystical thriller
A mystical thriller. The film adaptation of the novel by Nina Walcox Putnam and Richard Shyer. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. Because my favorite childhood adventure series is "The Mummy" Stephen Sommers, which I try to review periodically, so I decided to get acquainted with the very first picture, which gave rise to all subsequent "Mummies" in world cinema. And although the picture was shot as early as 1932, then, after watching it, I can safely say that many years later it is good, although not as perfect as some film critics or viewers claim. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good old mystical thriller. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture, which are also worth mentioning. And this should end the much-needed introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages:
1. Scenario - since the twenties and thirties of the last century were harsh and very difficult, so in those days studios could not afford the luxury of wasting film on unnecessary scenes and frankly empty dialogues (not like now), the scenario of this picture is quite simple and understandable - in Egypt, English archaeologists find a strange a mummy, strange in many ways, because it looks terribly unpleasant, so also a casket with a curse written on it was buried with it. Of course, the forbidden fruit is sweet, and the young archaeologist could not resist opening this casket, and then, by an absurd coincidence, revived this mummy. Now Imhotep, the name of the revived mummy in ancient times, intends to return his beloved Princess Ankhesenamun from the afterlife, but for this already in the modern world (sample 1932) he needs to find the reincarnation of his beloved, which turns out to be the Englishwoman Helen Grosvenor, who is not indifferent to Frank Wemple. Yes, here the screenwriter mixed mysticism, the first experiments in the genre of "horror", adventure, and a kind of love triangle. And I can say that in general everything worked out, although not all the elements are well expressed. The characters are remembered, the entourage of Egypt is felt (and this despite the fact that the whole nature was filmed in the USA). The mystical atmosphere works as it should. The finale just turned out to be too fast and crumpled, as if the studio was in a hurry to release the picture as soon as possible. I enjoyed telling the story, it was interesting to watch it.
2. Boris Karloff as Imhotep - the magnificent Boris Karloff created a unique image of the animated monster Imhotep, who here also pretends to be a modern man, hiding under the name Ardet Bey. Boris's Imhotep keeps almost all the attention on himself here, because this image is both frightening and attractive. That look (those who looked will understand!), those slow movements, hidden desires and cold-blooded calculation. An actor's makeup alone is worth a lot. Back then, the technology was still primitive. All the plaster was real, it was applied for several hours, and at the same time it was necessary to move in all this. It's all going to be drawn on a computer now, but then there was no such luxury. You can't help but respect the greatest actor of his time for such hard work and such endurance. The clothes are also perfectly matched for the character.
3. Mystical atmosphere - what else can be deservedly praised for the picture is the atmosphere. Then the creators expected to scare the viewer more, but now the local scarecrows no longer work, but the very atmosphere of mysticism here is very good. The music, the picture, the actors - everyone is trying for this.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Cita Johan in the role of the Englishwoman Helen - here I judge purely externally and the impression that she made from the screen. We could have found an actress prettier for such a role, because here we have a classic "lady in distress" who needs to be saved. And if the face is still nothing, then here is the bikini area - a board with a board. Although, if you look closely, then the face can not be called very attractive. I understand that this is a taste, but my inner aesthete says that the Cita is not suitable for this role at all. And there is certainly no spark between her and Frank, or Imhotep.
2. Timing - it is too small, because there are traces of deleted episodes in the credits that would reveal the characters more, but they were not missed by American censorship (the Hayes Code), and at the moment they are considered lost. It's a pity!
3. The affectation of horror, and not only it - this is generally characteristic of old paintings, and the "Mummy" was no exception. And if in other paintings they tried not to overdo it (so you could close your eyes to it), then this will not work here, because this affectation screams about itself. The most striking moment is the animated Imhotep at the beginning of the picture. Something like this will happen more than once or twice during the entire timekeeping period.
I am glad that I was able to familiarize myself with this classic of world cinema, witnessed firsthand the magnificent acting of Boris Karloff, and learned how interest in "Mummies" originated in cinema. This painting is certainly not a masterpiece for all time (and even in the year of its release it was not), but it clearly deserved a good rating.
My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!