Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Black Panther (2018)
Very expensive movie but very cheap screenplay (Unacceptable overrated critics reviews).
Immediately I will say - the film is average. After watching it, you leave the cinema with mixed feelings. Somewhere worked with a bang and at some moments, obvious hackwork.
The visual part is amazing with its capabilities. The Marvel filmmakers again and again prove to us that they are professionals in their field. The picture is so colorful and colorful that for a while it allows not paying attention to the plot. But when the magic of CGI releases you a little and you begin to think about what is happening, you come to no comforting conclusions. The plot is trivial. It is simple and straightforward. And to be precise, the film consists of several stories and all of them are simple. They go one by one, where one ends - another begins. It's hard to explain, but when you watch it, the opinion arises that the writers seem to have forgotten to twist the story lines and laid it all out like lasagna, layers.
A little more annoying deliberate fairy tale of what is happening. They try to explain it with super advanced technologies, but as for me, Marvel has clearly overdone it with gadgets. Adamantium appears here almost as a "manna from heaven". He is strong, and technological, and heals wounds, and shoots with a sound from a spear. In a word, "Fantasia". About the main character's costume, in general, I keep quiet, an iron man nervously smokes around the corner. Not only is it bulletproof and can accumulate energy so much more ... and is placed in a matchbox. Nothing less than what happens except magic. But the main claims are not to the plot and not to the fairy-tale.
The main claims to the main antagonist. There are two of them. And if the first one is an image of a standard villain, with material motivation and could serve as an unpretentious but suitable anti-hero, then about the second one, it's not so simple. In his address was addressed a whole bunch of positive reviews from critics and ordinary viewers, they say, see what is not a standard antagonist, with his "not on the level" formed vision of the world and completely logical argumentation of their actions. He tries to appear before us a multifaceted personality. And he, it seems, can, but .... This does not work. Looking at him, you subconsciously understand that a person who has passed through a bunch of military conflicts can not so reflect, can not act like that. We slip a 14 year old teen in the body of a pumped up guy. He behaves like an offender and a hysterical person, and at the end he becomes, trite, pathetic.
I am not film critic but for me critical point for this film 2 out of 10, but generally 5 out of 10.
Mistérios de Lisboa (2010)
Raul Ruiz and mystic 19th century Lisbon
Stylish and atmospheric costume drama.
The action takes us to Lisbon in the 19th century, where the fates, life and stories of several people are intertwined.
We have see the film of the cult Chilean director Raul Ruiz, who entire of conscious life make many author movies, for connoisseurs and aesthetes, with hidden meaning, filled with surreal and absurd images, but in his old age decided to aim at the adaptation of the historical adventure novel Castelo Branco, called Portuguese Balzac .
The film's action develops slowly and thoroughly, gradually dragging you into this whirlpool consisting of secrets, intrigues and fateful coincidences, adventures, violent passions, terrible revenge and insane love. And so minute by minute there is a complete immersion in the picture, because the secrets are always intriguing ...
It should be noted that the action in the film develops over several decades and covers a large number of characters and peoples (almost like G. G. Marquez), where almost every character has its own confusing story and secret, hidden very far away, which we will be told and revealed in the course of the film, hence the actual length of the film, divided into two parts.
I highly recommend to view. 9 out of 10.
Fanny och Alexander (1982)
Very long and strong movie.
This picture is in the spirit of magical realism, where the elements of mysticism are interwoven, which play a role in the search for the answers posed by the author about the existence of God, about the crisis of religion and the value of family and love. The author of the film does not usually put points, but shows the final situation.
This episode smooths out suspicion from the previous situation, there is no disharmonious sense of the possibility of tragic events and there is no optimistic mood at the same time. Everything is natural and everything can be.
The picture really deserves the "Oscar" in the category "Best Foreign Film" and for Ingmar Bergman it became the third gift from the Academy.
In the cinemas was a shortened version of the film little more than 3 hours, the full directors version is 4 series with a total time over 5 hours.
Strong and beautiful film from Ingmar Bergman, I recommend to view. 9 out of 10.
Danger Island (1992)
MUCH BETTER THAN LOST, GOOD MOVIE AND PERFECT HORROR.
Start of the movie similar with LOST (tv series) but after 15 minutes we can see the difference between tv series and feature movie (for me generally feature movies more serious, completed and better than tv series).
4.6 rating very very low for this movie and if you watch you can understand me. I highly recommend this good tv movie, especially if you like horrors.
For me very interesting and scary horror movie 9 out of 10.
Tarkovsky shot one of his best films, which, in my opinion, is quite capable of turning someone's world outlook.
Stalker - a unique film in its structure, not a verbatim adaptation of the famous novel Strugatsky brothers, but only a film based on the motives that allowed the directors to bring something to the known universe.
Undisputed pluses of the picture are: excellent cinematography, brilliantly selected acting and magnificent dialogues, some of which can be disassembled into quotes.
In my review, I will not discuss the meaning of this film, but only because, as I have noticed, everyone in this film can find something for themselves. The main issues raised in the film are: the question of faith, the question of the strength of the spirit of man, the question of how there can be interrelated science and faith and having moved into the picture from the Strugatsky brothers novel, the question of what people really want.
The story told by Tarkovsky surprises with the simplicity of the narrative. The trip to the Zone is presented as something practically, everyday. Despite this, the viewer quickly understands the basic concept of the story being told and begin to worry about the main characters.
For me of course 10 out of 10.
NOT FOR ALL.....
This is a completely ambiguous (although not exactly bad) movie, which personally inspired me to read the novels of the author of the idea and one of the co-authors of the scenario of postmodernist Don De Lillo.
I do not think that even because of Robert Pattinson "Cosmopolis" like all the fans of the vampire movie "Twilight" - this is a completely different kind and different style of the film. I would even say a little crazy and chaotic. Do you know what he looks like? On what is happening in each of us in the head ...
Each of us, when we are awake and not focused on something important and concrete, hundreds of thoughts, thoughts, memories sweep through our heads. If you take them to voice - then you'll surely roar in a psychiatric hospital, because no one in the world, except ourselves, is able to catch the interconnections of this "brain kaleidoscope." This is our inner universe, our cosmos, which for outsiders is never completely incomprehensible.
That's the hero of Pattinson - multi-billionaire Eric Packer - even those who know him well can not be fully understood. Of course, it is clear that he is devilishly bored, being unable to at least rejoice or grieve. Neither sex, nor frenzied profits, nor so mad losses, nor crazy and useless acquisitions for fantastic sums, nor even murder, can not excite him. And you want to worry ... And as a person who has not fought for a banal survival for a day in his life, did not live on wages, did not submit to anyone and (without having everything that can be bought for money) did not dream at all - how to "get him" its "rich inner world"? How can he learn to enjoy simple things - like good weather, the opportunity to buy new shoes or affectionate SMS from his beloved woman? Oh yes - he does not have such a thing and can not be. Love in an atmosphere of boredom and cold does not live ... The wife of Packer, incidentally, is just as unhappy self-centered. But even she became uncomfortable with him-not even two weeks after the wedding ... How can he be upset with simple things-like leaving a partner, losing money or damaging an expensive car, if he does not care about a partner in general (there are many others, and he does not need to win them) , losses will not drive him to live in a slum, and such machines he nemereno? However, it seems the last frame makes it clear that Eric finally succeeded in something to FEEL. Well done, ran into and achieved the goal ... And paid, as always, expensive.
So, about incomprehensibility - not satiated people can understand why Packer is bored. But how to understand how he can generally be bored with such and such opportunities?
Director David Cronenberg, in my opinion, greatly complicated himself the task - to shoot the event HISTORY in - mostly - a limited space (whether it is a submarine, a room or - in this case - a limousine) is extremely difficult. It would seem, well, that such - the rich man in a limousine rides and dumps the listener with sarcastic monologues. What's in this movie? But the movie! And cult star Robert Pattinson is very good here. Packer at the actor turned out clean, tough and infernally inviting. The role of a person who does not know how to be happy, in my opinion, he has worked flawlessly.
... By the way, this Cronenberg film with its desperate atmosphere reminded me of the novels of the Frenchman Serge Bruissolo, a great lover of exploring (and fascinatingly telling) the origins of the most strange and crazy human deeds.
NOT FOR ALL ..... 7 out of 10.
Chyornaya voda (2017)
Very good movie.
Three young people, Maxim, his girlfriend Polina and brother Petya, come to a seaside village, forgotten by all, where they buy a half-burnt ship standing in a factory by the forest. According to their idea, they will repair it and go on a round-the-world trip, well, or in case of emergency they will sell it. However, local residents interfere in their plans, who believe that the souls of those who died on this ship of people still live there and it is better not to disturb them. Guys do not believe in these tales and continue to conceive. However, unexpectedly disappears Pauline, and when she also unexpectedly appears, strange and frightening things begin to occur in the neighborhood of the village.
I watched the movie. Great. Not a horror movie. After watching, you involuntarily start to think about life, about people. The fact that not everything is as it seems at first glance. I liked the cast. Interesting, new faces.
I recommend viewing it. 8 out of 10.