Ivan is old Russia: thick, dour, hard-working, often brutish; he misses Communism. He drives a taxi and one night meets Alexi, a new Russian, a musician, an alcoholic, irresponsible. Alexi ... See full summary »
Adequacy is relative. Vitalik, the main character of the movie, seems to be pretty normal. With a respectable office job, a comfy little dwelling and a personal couch doctor, Vitalik looks ... See full summary »
A polar station on a desolate island in the Arctic Ocean. Sergei, a seasoned meteorologist, and Pavel, a recent college graduate, are spending months in complete isolation on the once ... See full summary »
In 16th-century Russia in the grip of chaos, Ivan the Terrible strongly believes he is vested with a holy mission. Believing he can understand and interpret the signs, he sees the Last ... See full summary »
Old Prof. Preobrazhensky and his young colleague Dr. Bormental inserted the human's hypophysis into a dog's brain. Couple of weeks later the dog became "human looking". The main question is... See full summary »
The exhaustive description of this venture's outcome by anyone acquainted with the original could be provided with a slight paraphrase of the famous saying: "Story repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce".
However, it wouldn't be quite correct to identify the original movie as a tragedy. In fact, tragedy is not just a term used to make genre related distinctions but also a form of art which focuses on heroic - and inevitably doomed - struggle of a human being with something which is more powerful by definition (gods or fate in Ancient Greek tradition, for example). So the original was rather an unbelievably inspiring poem about some sort of Super Being for whom there is no such thing as fate outside his chosen path.
The protagonist of the late 80s cult movie is essentially a Nietzschean Superman (or Kubrick's Starchild - "2001: A Space Odyssey" certainly being in a way a dramatization of the German philosopher's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra") - someone who does not look for the truth in the world where there is none, but creates it himself and brings it into it through walking in an impeccable warrior-like manner that path of his own choosing.
Despite its unassuming plot and quasi-amateurish appearance the original is beautifully poetic and compelling - from the first seconds when the "Last Hero" is introduced, and up to its overwhelming finale, dubbed with the most impressive song of the band "Kino" the lead comes from, which manifests that there is nothing more powerful in existence than spirit.
Unfortunately, "Remix" is what it is - a remix. And it indeed turns the whole thing into a farce. The immaculately precise material of the original is 'supplemented' here - in quite an irrational attempt to bring it closer to the present day or rather to the average present-day moviegoer - with completely unnecessary and plainly pathetic visual, dialogue and plot gimmicks which makes you feel the same way as if you were listening to a moronic dance remix of U2's "Indian Summer Sky", for instance. New saturated colours are also added - and altogether destroy the sense of the period perfectly captured in the first movie.
On top of that the material is re-edited and the degree to which it ruins its integrity can only be compared to mutilated through attempts to make it more linear versions of Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time in America". So the poignant transparency of the genuine article happens to be substituted here with the gaudiness of its latest version. Which proves to be killing not only the form but the meaning as well.
I guess it wouldn't be an exaggeration to state that the original in question can be deemed, if not in terms of its cinematic accomplishments, but at least in terms of its message, perfectly adequately conveyed, however, through the simple means employed, probably one of the most significant pieces in this department of cinema - despite the fact that it's practically unknown to audiences worldwide. Sadly, all those additions and alterations simply reduce it to a pile of insubstantial rubbish.
3 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?