Reviews

574 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Zamach stanu (1980)
10/10
Excellent Period Piece Drama
18 August 2019
I love Polish cinema of 50-80's - it was elegant, deep, decent, true to life, devoid of flashy effects and very much dwelling on realism. This epic movie tells us about May Coup of 1926 in Poland when Marshal Jozef Pilsudski seized the power from weak President and Prime Minister by the way of open aggression, fights in Warsa and slow steady progress in battles. The movie shows us a large gallery of politicians, military staff, bishops, civilians and soldiers caught in this bloody conflict. The battle itself is shown but as widely as the viewer may expect. No, the emphasis is made upon psychp;ogocal side, we see and feel the thoughts and fears of all those involved. The losing side is shown with great sympathy, especially common soldiers dying for some cause. Pilsudski is depicted as a cold, calculating officer with no hesitation and no remorse. Ryszard Filipski plays his part and does a great justice to a Polish hero. This is a very deep drama with much food for thought. Highly recommended
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tolkien (2019)
2/10
Rather Weak Attempt
16 August 2019
The third biopic in recent times, and again a very big disappointment. It would seem - well, this time everything should work out - the biography of the great writer John Ronald Roel Tolkien, so many details, so many things can be shown. And again, two hours of screen time, and the result is an incredibly slow, dreary and monotonous film, very casual and superficial, showing us either young John, his service in France in 1916, or courtship for Edith, his future wife. At times the film is well leveled, military scenes are shown very severely and accurately. The scenes in the theater, behind the scenes, or small (offensively short) fragments dedicated to the university period are also a succesl. And then - again, boring and very tepid pieces about four friends. Clearly, it's impossible to show everything. But how the creators of the film managed to ignore the figure of Clive Lewis in the script, is incomprehensible. The theme of Catholicism has been completely bypassed. There is not even a hint of the future ideas of the Lord of the Rings. The feeling of hurried and obviously crude script does not let go all the time By the way, the Tolkien family wholy refused to participate in the preparation of the script. What also speaks volumes against this work. My impression is that it is an unsuccessful attempt, but it will cure insomnia. Rating - 2 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rocketman (2019)
3/10
Rocketman as another failed biopic.
10 August 2019
Not so long ago, I wrote about the completely disastrous Bohemian Rhapsody, which showed us essentially a caricature of Freddie Mercury and the whole Queen group, and here on the screens is a new attempt to shoot a biography, this time - the story of the ups and downs of Sir Elton John. However, honestly speakings, I note that the filmmakers immediately warned everyone that "Rocketman" is not a biopic, but a musical fantasy based on the life of Reginald Dwight (after all, that's what Elton's name really is). What did we see as a result? Two hours (now people just forgot how to make short films) gallop on the biography of Elton from the time of his early childhood until 1983. What is most unpleasant, the mere musical came out, and I can't stand the musicals. And when all people around suddenly start to sing and dance - people in a cafe, a crowd on the street, visitors in a gay bar, it becomes very funny and even uncomfortable to sit through. But the filmmakers could not sustain all two hours in the musical format. The film either breaks down into surrealistic fantasies (a scene in the pool), then gallops through 15 years of Elton's career (a scene with a rotating piano), then sharply slows down and becomes almost dead in the languid dialogues of John and Bernie Taupin. Speaking of Bernie. He himself is shown very accurately, but the nature of his collaboration with Elton is completely distorted. And when actor Jamie Bell, playing Taupin, begins to sing, my ears start to bleed right away. But what about Taron Egerton, who plays Elton himself? Well, yes, he is very similar at times, especially in the scene with his mother in a restaurant, he sings ... well ... not bad, but he doesn't reach the level of John. And he overplays very much in drug scenes, in passion scenes with John Reid and in concert episodes. By the way, speaking of a gay topic - it is surprisingly minor in the film, there is, really not that much as one can expect. But the period of marriage to Renate Blauel is simply crumpled and slurred. Another big disappointment is the complete absence of the plotline of musicians in Elton's band.Very smart rockers played there, and their participation in the arrangements was crucial. And in the film they are just, as it were, some long-haired comrades in the dressing room , or standing on the stage with guitars and drums - and that's all. Then they simply evaporate and then again appear from nowhere. Well, the movie is not without actual errors, gentlemen. The presence of the guitarist at the early concerts was very funny (by then John had only himself, a drummer and a bass player in his band). It was very funny to hear the song of 1976 in 1970, and tunes of 1982 and 83 almost in 1969. And of course the most ridiculous thing was to think up that Reginald took his last name from John Lennon, and not from singer Long John Baldry. Well, yes, why go into the details of who this Baldry is, when the Beatles are here, and everyone knows them. Well, then why isn't there a concert sequebce featuring John Lennon? After all, he performed very cool there on the same stage with Elton. What we get at the end line is a very chaotic and slim fantasy on Elton's excesses, the entire plotline with studio work is almost completely removed, concerts are shown on the surface level, albums are mentioned very briefly, and as a result, young viewers will have a lot of mess in mtheir heads after watching this movie. My rating is 3 out of 10, only for the music and Egerton's efforts to sing. Well,a dn also for the classy depiction of the Bernie Tapin's part. Watch this movie once and forget.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another Movie Which Failed The Test Of Time
24 July 2019
Johnny Depp is a great actor and man, could he possible fail. But herem bleak plot, along with vague twists and highly predictable turns made this old movie a very flawed effort, Another flop here is a very weak performancew of Lena Olin, as she does almost nothing here except for floating and smiling wryly. Other characters are not veru persuasive, too. Apart from very blatant goofs as for handling old books, and excessive smoking, the whole idea seems laughable and at times void. It also smacks of total boredom that Depp vivdly possesses while on the limelight. The story? Well, no spoilers here, sure, but it is so clear from minute 15 that the rest of this short (thanks God) film saves it from utter failure
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Sorta Fairy Tale
27 April 2019
Seemed like a huge success - the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900 could have been a vast promise for a film studio, considering also a star cast with likes of Ava Gardner and Charlton Heston. Large set-ups, virtually thousands of background actors, large money certainly being invested, and on top of that - an interesting plot. True? No, The very beginning makes the whole movie a miserable flop. Despite being about China and about Chinese, it shows us very few real Chinese people. Instead, we are fed with bunch of yellowfaces, very caucasian actors trying to look Oriental but just looking very grotesque and silly. As a whole, the movie smacks of being a very brightly colored fairy tale with predictable cliffhangers, bland dialog, laughable baddies and very heroic good guys. Ava? Gee, forget, she asa Russian Baroness, is the worst element here, being pretentious, fluffed-up, dour and simply weak. Heston? Nope. He is a typical, to the point of cringe, good cowboy laddie with heroic posture and stupid lines. The British Ambassador, played by David Niven, is a slightly better attampt, but all is ruined by saccharine maudlin family scenes and over-the-top emotions. Russians, Germans, Japanese, French - they all seem to be third-rate carucatures from an old magazine. Battle scenes are a little bit more captivating, only to be ruined by lousy editing. Generally speaking, a very weak and very unnatural take, with very little history and a hige chunk of goofs and details peppered everywhere.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Guardians (2017)
1/10
In A Word, Worst
9 March 2019
This is a very silly attempt of modern Russian cinema about superhoeroes. I wouldn't go long into deyals, just mention - this is a derivative, third-rate, worst sort of a terrible humorless pseudo-heroic scrap idiocy which will make you laugh your head off. We saw it all and why pay money on a flick with campy dialog, bad acting, repeated trite plot and hardly believable characters when we can see all the better in US versions. It's probably the nadir of all sorts and a shameful lambast of a lost slight potential.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bombast Piece Of Sheer Junk
9 March 2019
Marc Bolan was a true glam star, a great singer, excellent guitarist an a very outstanding song writer. He created so many genre-defining albums that to see him n film and on stage wou;d've been a wild dream. Was it? Nope, sadly. Incredible fact is that no matter how cool Bolan was alive, on a silver screen he is plain boring whiff, his antics are laughable and his band is sturdy but nowhere beyond being jist plain. The worst aspect of this film is the non-concert parts with Bolan being jusr a buffoon. Ring Starr helps a bit as well as tremendous Elton John but they fail to save this movie from a more of mediocre haze
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Predator (2018)
8/10
Pretty Dynamic
4 February 2019
This is a very fine movie, add everything -er to any characteristics - this movie will be bigger, faster, gories, funnier, crazier, louder, and all. Yes, it is very fast and the plot unwinds very quickly in front of our very eyes. The movie runs very fast, and clever funny dialog is changed with very cruel fights. The predator is also bigger and much more fierce, and that makes it more engaging. The casting is also very well selected, and everybody works decently, so if you seek a fast paced enjoyment, go for it. Two warnings, though - 1. too many f-words, way too many. And 2. many plot twists are highly predictable. Anyway, wel done
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nonsence
26 January 2019
The 91st annual Oscar ceremony will be held soon, in the list of the main contenders for a number of awardsthere is Brian Singer film Bohemian Rhapsody. I deliberately endured a pause, waited until the first waves of delight and anger subside, carefully watched the movie in the original, all of more than two hours and now I would like to express my opinion on this biopic. Remember the 1991 Oliver Stone film called Doors - there was still thin Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison? After so many years, all the flaws of that picture become apparent. In the foreground, Jim himself, the other participants are registered superficially and as if passing by. Then, in 1991, Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore were somewhat offended by the fact that in the film about the group of the group itself there could have been more about themselves. And now the new biopic, now about the Queen group - one of my favorite and respected ones. I am 47 years old, and I found the period when the group still existed and released their later albums (1989 and 1991). Many of us watched the 1986 concert film Live in Budapest several times. We remember that real group, we saw Freddie on the screen and saw who he was. And those of us who started to study the team's biography thoughtfully understood that Queen is not only Freddie. This is Freddie, Brian, John and Roger. All four wrote songs and played on a variety of instruments. And when Mercury died, the group quickly turned into ... well, into a parody of itself. Arguably, one can argue, but all later releases with George Michael, Paul Rogers and now with Adam Lambert are, in essence, a quality hack. The Queen were from the same breed as the Beatles - remove at least one member, and everything will immediately collapse. Then Ione can argue, but what about the enthusiastic reaction of May and Taylor on the film with Ramey Malek? The answer is very simple - another chance to bask in the glow of past glory. Name at least one thing from the post-Mercury-post-Deacon Queen and so on the same scale as the records of 1973-1991. Do even try to recall. So. Singer film. What we got in the end? Enchanting nonsense for 120 minutes for the audience of the 21st century, having the most fragmented understanding of Freddie and the whole group. An objection can immediately be heard here - yes, but in 4 hours the whole history of the group cannot be shown. Well, and who prevented to focus on, say, two significant moments in the history of the group - the recording of the 1975 album A Night at the Opera and on the performance at the Live Aid concert in 1985? Instead, we saw a chaotic race through the long history of the team, with incredible jumps from 1973 to 75, from 1980 suddenly in 1977, and so on. I have not yet spoken about the grossly factual errors. Among the most egregious are, for example, John Deacon on bass as part of Smile, or selling a van to get money to record a debut disc, or a completely wild moment learning a We Will Rock You song in the year of 1980, although the thing itself was written and recorded in 1977 or John Deacon, suddenly singing in studio recordings. Well, okay, viewers in their mass don't give a damn about all these delights, probably. Well, maybe the actors were great then? Not so. Ramey Malek as Freddie is not even a joke, it is a pure farce brought to the point of absurdity. A slender young man with very noticeable artificial teeth mannerates and grimaces for two hours, trying to portray a singer who, even in the years of same-sex relationships, radiated masculinity and strength. Immediately, we see a certain vocalist, who had fallen into Smile from where (all Freddie's early musical projects were simply ignored) (and by the way, it was possible to spend more time on Tim Staffell,) just as quickly changing his relationship with a girl for romance with men, and then throwing up absurd parties ... and so on, swiftly and at the top, skipping important events and moments of biography. For some reason, it reminded me of the hackneyed cliché of a number of books and films about the path of a genius - lack of understanding of relatives, the way up, excesses, painful searches for themselves, psychological drama. And yes, all this is present in the "Rhapsody". Well, but what about the other members of the group? Actually, can they save the movie? No, they do not save. May is shown as such a good-natured brat with no special character traits, Taylor is d epicted as that kind of cutie, worn off with one of his songs and suddenly fiercely quarreling with Freddie, and Deacon just looks like occasionally talking furniture. Oh yeah, he's showing the song on the bass. Next thing on him - silence. The critics are absolutely right in one issue - Malek is trying very hard, but he overplays terribly, the beautiful picture does not carry any content with it. Instead of a truly interesting team history, we absorb a bright and mannered video clip with small pieces of facts. Clip feed for clip generation. And one more thing - Live Aid was undoubtedly important for the band in terms of reviving interest in their music. But in general, they could even asa solo event gather 130,000 spectators, as was the case in 1988 in Brazil, for example. What can be said in conclusion? Alas, the film was completely unsuccessful, in my opinion - a complete failure. I do not recommend watching at all, well, except for fun. My rating is 1 out of 10 (I give a point for the music of the group that sounds in the film).
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Quite Good But Not Perfect
20 January 2019
This movie is a far better attaempt at war darama than, say, Operation Finale of the same years. Here, we are treated to a pretty decent war spy drama about Mo Berg and his services to OSS during WWII. Paul Rudd did a good job, but sometimes he is a bit lame and thus does not convince wholly. Jeff Daniels is strong enough, but he also lacks his drama depth like one he showed in Gettysburg, Mark Strong may be the weakest link in this chain as he does not succeed to deliver a more persuasive character. Critics were quite right - this is a promising affairm but it fals short off its potential and seems more like parts of its sum than a cohesive fluent fluid movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
When A Promising Idea Just Doesn't Work
20 January 2019
It seemed a very noble and promising idea - to depict a valiant squad of Mossad agents kidnapping a Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. The cast also seemed to be awesomely strong, with great Ben KIngsley and Ocar Issacs playing two main opponents. The premise is good, the setting is buolic and perfect, with Argentinian landscape being shown so richly and vivdly. The idea is very serious and must have been executed pretty well. But then, sadly, many things went wrong. Painfully slow tempo, very heavy handed delivery, overimposure of weighty dialog, occacionally weaker twists and slighter depicted characters spoil the premise. Then, alas, then this awful last-moment-on-the-edge-of-your-seat trite cliche at the end spoils it even more. Steven Spielberg could have made this much better, but he has his Schindler's List, Roman Polanksi caould have been also a better job but he has his awesome Pianist... so here we witness a very messed up dubious affair of lesser level and worse merit. Pity, as the movie could have been a smash hit a huge triumph. Instead, what we get is a very flawed slowly plodding tractor
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One Of The Greatest Disaster Movies Ever Created
7 January 2019
Roland Emmerich is a very uneven film creator, he can make an outstanding movie with awesome plot and great characters, ansd then he can produce a flop. The Day After Tomorrow is an impeccable masterpiece where all the numerous elements have come perfectly well together. The cast, with Jake Gyllenhal and Dennis Quade at the lead, with also Emmy Rossum and Ian Holm at the helm, is very well selected. And each actor does a very decent job, with a whole array of deep and convincing characters to add to a bigger picture. What is great, we feel for them, sympathize, sufffer and rejoice with them all the time. Some critics bashed the scientific side of the plot, and I can say, this is not a scientific moviw, but the message is clear and vivid - albeit also livid - the climate changes very fast and Nature can pay very severely. The CGI are awesome and we nevr feel fooled or bought cheap, the immense sheer power of wild wanton nature in its fill menacing glory. The movie is long but bever slow or boring, it hilds you at the edge of your seat without getting too preachy or ploddy. Highly recommended
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marszalek Pilsudski (2001– )
5/10
Could Have Been A Tremendous Serial, Instead, Sadly, Turned Out Very Boring
11 November 2018
Mini series are a very risky affair - they can be either too swift and all on the surface, or very plodding and slow, dying in the process. This is what happened to this 2001 Polish serial about Polish national hero, Marshal Jozef Pilsudski. His life was a very captivating story - young struggles, exile in Russia, fight for Freedom, way to Liberty, stairway to Leadership, Triumphs and Tragedies, wars, old days and glorious remembering. Sadly, it did not work. 8 (not 7, as it is written on the main page of the serial) episodes drag and stutter and slumber along, very slowly and painfully boring. There are no battle scenes, no large scale footage, instead, we are treated to some old documentary footage, and the whole serial drowns and sinks and too many talks and too slow a tempo.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terribly Weak
5 November 2018
You know, there are those amateur films made on a stringent budget, with very few actors, limited effects and a very naive montage. This is one of them. Made in Estonia, the movie is named Names Carved in Granite, and shows a group of young Eesti volunteering militiamen fighting the Red Army in 1918-1920. Despite being very much un- - meaning, undeveloped, unrealisticm unreal and unripe, the movie is very much so over - - overplayed, over-pathetic. Actors are very mediocre and overdo every step and line. Dialogs are laughable, and the battle scenes are just a merciless bunch of awful mess - in real battle, all those guys would've been shot immediatelly, not like in this tepid movie. It's very green, raw, naive and silly, Shallow attemps to make it a pstriotic call to arms add to general misery.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Repetitive And Obvious
4 November 2018
Yet another Finnish-Svedish war effort, this time another effort to depict heroic Finns and Svedes fighting those Russians. Could have worked but for obvious repetition of the same old trite cliches, same war depiction, same sound, same endless interchange of trench dialogs, battles, more trenches, more battles. Boring very soon. A bearded Soviet soldier was a very funny and unrealistic moment. They were never allowed to wear beards. Nope, never. Then, all those war scenes, wirh Russians attacking like a herd of cows so being slaughtered easily, while each Finn perishing is almost a miniature tragedy. No, not convincing. So, didn't persuade.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dry, Prosaic, Mundane And Very Boring
4 November 2018
TALI-IHANTALA is a Finnish-Swedish-Estonian film which tries to show the summer 0f 1944 episode when Finnish armies successfully fought Soviet ofensive in Suomi, OK, why not. No, it didn't land well. The film is a very dry, very prosaic, very boring, almost to the level of fake documentary style effort which leaves us bored, yawining and wanting. There are no real deep characters, no real dramas, no decent analysis of the conflict, It's as we're watching some sort of a truly amateur school project about war. There are explosions, tanks, guns and lots of peet smoke. But, beyond this, almost no real core left. Could be watched and then discarded.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1944 (2015)
3/10
Very Flawed Effort
4 November 2018
Estonians fought on both sides in WWII - this movie, named 1944, tried to pocture both sides. What came in te end is a very raw, flawed, half-baked and very naive effort, with a huge debt to Finnish war dramas, with too many scenes clealry taken from US war movies. Another flaw is a very obvious skint to the German side, where Estonians who chose German side are shown almost like tragic, misunderstood, cursed victims, whilst Soviet Estonians are little bit too shematic and vile. The airplane scene and te final shooting scene are too sacharine and too propaganda driven that they make you feel sick. They tried. They mostly failed.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Gripping And Powerful Finnish Anti-War Epic
4 November 2018
Tuntematon sotilas is a huge, almost 3-hour long war epic which depicts lives and fates of Finnish solders and officers during so-called Contuniation War between USSR and Finland in 1941-1944. The title means The Unlnown Soldier and it served to commemorate many lost lives of Finnish soldiers who died during this bloodbath. The movie does not portray just one main her, instead, there are many who fight as they can all through this hell on earth. We witness their suffering, pain, hopes, wounds, even deaths. The movie is especially powerful in delivering its crucial message that any war is a brutal, messy, bloody affair which is never fun, or adventure or blessing. This is a messy horrid cauldron of evil and malice. The movie is not devoid of its weaker moments. There are quite slight female characters with not enough depth or ersuasive features. Some senes are outright silly in their amateurish efforts. In many ways, Tuntematon sotilas reminds heavily of another war epic, Talvisota, or Winter War. That one cae earlier and here we see obvious borrowings from older one. Yes, and still, the movie does its job and does it well.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Irréversible (2002)
1/10
Worst Junk
31 October 2018
Abominable. Awful. Sicko. Trashz. Worst. Total junk. Total wate of film and effoert of all parties involved. Belucci or Cassel ß no matter. Everzthing here is a depraved piece of fetid feces. Awful slow torture of a film. No message, no meaning, no sense. Nothing. Void. Empty.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clip (2012)
1/10
Bleak And Blatanly Bland Broth
23 October 2018
Serbian cinema was a powerhouse back in the 90's. yes, it was. Then, in the year 2012 this flick came out. Called The Clip, it shows very derelict Serbian suburbia and the local inhabitants - several young girls and boys. School, okay. And then, absolutely eveything went totally wrong and askew. Wry, sick, palid, tepid, fetid, cringeworthy, vomiting mess follows. It givs no plot, no moral, no strong message and no revelation. Instead, what we see is a sick mess of wholly unnecessary porn scenes, which are so awful that they make one trow up. On top of that, it is poor acting, bleak surrounding and unsurmontable final. Terrible and low taste.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Speed (1994)
4/10
The One That Didn't Stand The Test Of Time
21 October 2018
This is a movie which gathered all the imaginable praise over the years. It seems nothing could be wrong in this flick - great actors - Hopper, Bullock, Reeves, Daniels, great script, great stunts, great suspense, great practical effects. Everything seemes just top notch, perfect and precise here. First viewing also seems to cement this belief - excellent thriller with lots of daredevil tricks and huge moments. Than, the time passes, another viewing comes. And... the movie seems to be a stock of trite jokes, not more than okay plot, unrealistic stunts, more than often silly twists and above all, laughable continuity. Nowadays, this bus chase bomb threat film is seen as a nice, but hugely outdated effort, belonging obviously to the past.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Painfully Boring
19 October 2018
All went wrong here in this awful slow boring flick - both Keanu and Winina delivered what seems to be the worst of the possible worsts. It is plain, blank, pointless, vapid, tasteless drag of no merit and of no result. What we witness is a real waste of all the time and all celluloid.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Mediocre Effort, Dubious Result, Sloppy Delivery, Sour Aftertaste
17 October 2018
Since I have Polish blood in my veins, thanks to my Dad's Mom, I am deeply interested in Polish Cinematography, and thus, watch lots of various Polish movies. As with every country, the results aren't all great. There are good and decent works, and then there are poor and rather lousy efforts. The 1920 Polish-Soviet War is an extremely interesting topic to cover, and there is already a very good (though not excellent, due to certain level of maudlin romantic stuff, as well as certain weakness of different characters' portrayal) movie named 1920. Bitwa Warszawska (Warsaw Battle of 1920), so why make another one? And even more, not a short movie, but a mammoth, 13-episode series made for TV. Yes, you name it - all the typical unberable TV series drawbacks - painfully slow tempo, bad acting way too often, bad camera work, that sick light, that awful serial pacing, you know what I mean. The result - very sloppy delivery about, yes, wartime events and love interest. There are several really terrible moments all throughout - like, battle scenes are laughable and pathetic, while depiction of Russians is, well, horrid to the level of amateurish idiocy. This movie could be watched. At your own discretion. But I would say, better not.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Offensive, Pathetic, Vile, Horrid, Wirst At All Aspects
13 October 2018
Why are these movies being made? Do we really need to witness brutality, rape, violence, gore, profanities, blood, stains, vile viciousness and mindless bog of blurred script? This movie is a true disgrace, qith little attampt of explaining why such atroctities ever happned, what the motives were behind those criminals, wjy it all went that direction. Instead, we witness camers enjoying unnecessary long shots of brutality and needless gore of cringeworthy proportions. We don'e even need to apply any logical approach here. Appaling shame and awful mess.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Appaling Idiocy
13 October 2018
Did anyone make anything out of this piece of sheer idiocy? Because, I did not. And I have watched lots of bad movies, but this one stands out. This one is plain A-w-f-u-l. Total waste of 90 minutes, a boozy drugged women objectification, with lots of women bodies depiction, clear appraisal of drug and criminal gang culture. What is more woeful, this tepid flick brings no solution, no moral, no lesson to learn. This is a fetid, abominable junk of the worst pungent kind.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed