Alexandra_Leaving Reviews

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Bravissimo!!!

[10/10 · 26 January 2005]

When I saw the "Phantom of the opera" for the first time I fell in love with it – the music, the singing, the story, the characters, the costumes, the decorations, everything was absolutely fantastic. The director managed to create an atmosphere of the theatrical musical in the film, all splendour and lustre. And the music – it is absolutely sublime in the full orchestral version.

I went to see the film 5 more times, dragging all my friends along. I have acquired the soundtrack on CD. I also acquired the original musical's soundtrack on CD performed by the London cast as I wanted to compare the two.

I think that someone who have never herd the original musical can probably enjoy the film more than someone who has loved the original version for years, as it could be difficult to embrace any changes in something you already like "just the way it is".

The two of the versions are quite different mostly in the interpretation of the character of Phantom. In the musical (Michael Crawford) sounds close to my old uncle George – a kind old guy with a very nice smooth voice. The Phantom played by Gerard Butler in the film is totally different -he is a very sexually attractive person (even with the mask and disfigured face) who is torn by the power of his passions. His voice is a perfect instrument to show all the turmoil which goes on in his soul– it is rough at one moment, and very soft at another. His voice is not what you call a "sweet" voice and this seems to cause a controversy, but his voice has a great affect on me – literally sending the shivers down my spine. I think that his acting is incredible – he makes me really feel that Phantom is a real person, not just a fruit of imagination.

Christine is played by Emmy Rossum in the film. Her character is young and vulnerable there and is opposite to slightly crazy in the musical. Emmy Rossum expresses exceptionally how Christine is tossed between her feelings for Raul and her feelings for Phantom and how she does not understand her feelings half of the time. Her voice is as pure as a crystal.

All supporting actors are exceptional, especially Ciarán Hinds/Simon Callow as Firmin/Andre pair and Mini Driver as Carlotte, so funny.

And the icing on a cake is the ending – very clever, beautiful and emotional.

If you like musicals - don't miss this film!!!!!!!!

Mystic River (2003)

Feel no-good movie

[4/10 · 16 January 2005]

If you like to feel that life is unfair and unjust, if you like to know that there is no hope – you will like this film.

The film shows three childhood friends which share a terrible experience in the past when one of them, Dave Boyle was abducted and abused. After twenty years, the friends are going separate ways – Jimmy is an ex-con trying to stay strait, Sean is a cop on the brink of break down and Dave is a looser. After Jimmy's daughter is murdered, the friends are brought together again.

I have read Dennis Lehane's novel about a year ago and I found his narrative extremely depressing. As I was reading the book I actually could feel my serotonin levels going down. So I could not bring myself to watch the film for a long time even after the Oscars. I finally watched it on DVD and there are good and bad things about it.

What I think makes me dislike the film is that the story's moral and ethical grounds are very confusing. The story shows the world in upside-down way where the "bad guy" is glamorised and the victim is portrayed as a very unattractive person. Whatever I think about Jimmy Markum I have to admit he is quite charismatic guy, where poor Dave Boyle just looked as if he deserved anything.

In a way the film's story is similar to the "Unforgiven" rather than "Shawshank redemption". The main tag line is that you can not change anything in your life, if you are a killer, you are a killer, and if you are a victim you are a victim.

The film is actually much less depressing than a book and there are even some funny dialogues in it. But I thought that some of the story lines were not very well explained. The main example is the ending. Because in the book the author actually gives the character's thoughts behind their front there is no question of where each of them stands at the end. The end is very black–and-white and in a way calling for the "Mystic river-2". In the film, if I have not read the book before, I would not understand what Sean's position is at the end. Also it seems that Sean's character is underdeveloped and poorly explained on a whole.

The cast is what made this film worthy watching. Sean Penn did a great job, but I think that he was much deeper in the "21 grams". The best actor in the film for me was Tim Robbins. His portrait of David Boyle was almost out of this world. I applaud this actor when he can take on such an unattractive character and portray it with dignity.

The opening scene of abduction sent chills down my spine – atmosphere was so thick you could cut it with the knife. The director/camera-man work is exceptional there.

Overall – 4/10

The Return (2003)

Special in every way

[10/10 · 13 January 2005]

I had seen many good reviews for this film but was reluctant at first to watch it as I thought it could be just one of the high art movies which seem to be made for the development of cinematography alone rather than enjoyment of the public and which I find hard to like even though I appreciate them.

I watched "The Return" on DVD and I truly think it is special and is very absorbing as well as highly intelligent. I just wish I went to see it in the cinema on the big screen when I had a chance, because the film's cinematography is exceptional and nature views play as big part in the film as actors themselves do. I can close my eyes and still see the lakes, the forest, the vast empty spaces. The film left me feeling elated and clean.

I loved the structure of the film, so different to the usual Hollywood movie: nothing is explained and you can think for yourselves. Also I could not guess the ending.

The story is simple – the father of two boys was absent for twelve years (he probably was in the prison camp - this is one of the places I can think of where you could be fed a poor diet of fish).The mother never told the boys the truth about him .The father comes back, wants his boys to accept him as the father figure and help them to learn how to survive in this world, but the misunderstanding and flaws in his character play their role.

Behind the story many spiritual (and other) layers hide.. One quote comes to mind – that the prophets are never accepted by their own people. Or other layer - Russia itself is often viewed as a parent for its people . The country had a terrible 70-80 years recently when it really was a big prison camp. Now some of the Russian people feel estranged, unloved and sometimes betrayed by their country.

It is pity that because the film was in Russian language with English subtitles, some meaning was "lost in translation". I am of the Russian origin and noticed some discrepancies in the subtitles. But it must be very difficult to translate the film like this as there are not many words in it and they often have second-layer meaning.

The director Andrei Zvyagintsev must be really congratulated on such a great debut, a masterpiece accomplished on a very low budget.

The casting is absolutely perfect – the child actors even look very much as their parents. Vanya looks like his mother, has a personality similar to her, is close to her, where Andrei looks like the father and has more of the father's tough personality. They both are exceptional actors, especially for their age. When you watch the film you don't see the acting, you see the real boys almost like they were filmed by a hidden camera.

Konstantin Lavronenko did a particular good job of depicting very complicated personality of the father. Everything is there – pain of the wasted years, love for the boys deeply hidden, scars that some very hard life path left and all this behind the tough facade.

I give this movie 10/10