Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ash (2025)
Not a bad movie, but no more
The plot has some psychological depth, but the purple-pink color grading with those dark scenes where you can barely see anything seems to mostly hide the flaws in set design and VFX. The cinematography is decent, sometimes creative. The ending is trashy though - I mean, performing brain surgery through a temple scratch? That's just ridiculous. No real ideas or deeper meaning here, just a sci-fi flick. Not bad for a rapper-turned-director.
I was hoping for a psychological detective story with mysterious disappearances that would pull you into this eerie atmosphere, but the director just focused on flashbacks and rehashing ideas from 'Life' (2017). Such a shame. The acting was solid though - I believed them. Eiza Gonzalez really showed she can handle dramatic highs and lows of human emotion. Aaron Paul did well with his role, but his character didn't actually influence anything or add meaning to the story.
Honestly, it was exhausting trying to watch and make out what's happening in that dark purple palette. I get that this visual style is the director's musical aesthetic and creative vision, but it just makes following the plot more tiring - this isn't a music video, it's supposed to be a movie.
The Electric State (2025)
Chopped-up something-a half-baked adventure, a half-baked drama, a half-baked comedy
This is not a review but rather a reaction to this melancholic cinematic comic that swallowed $320 million. It's a black hole that consumed not only dollars but also interesting ideas-such as loneliness and the loss of loved ones, how technology will change humanity, and how humanity manifests itself. Instead, we get sword-wielding 'nutcase' robots, robots in wheelchairs spitting out baseballs, Chris Pratt with his ridiculous wig, Stanley Tucci playing a stereotypical tech villain, and Giancarlo Esposito, whose dramatic talent was locked inside a small drone display, with his moral awakening unjustifiably illustrated.
Millie Bobby Brown, who through no fault of her own almost always overacts, because the script fails to develop the emotional connection with her on-screen brother, forcing her to painfully squeeze out sadness and suffering in front of a green screen without other actors, as all the robots were added in post-production. And all this vulgar tastelessness left the impression of a mediocre one-time watch.
Before watching, I hoped to relax, enjoy the adventures and humor, and I must admit, all of that was present in the middle of the film. I even caught myself thinking, 'Am I actually watching a good genre movie?' Yes, the second act is the most engaging, featuring bright adventures, a good sense of humor, unexpected plot twists, and the amusing duo of a smuggler and the robot 'Germ,' who saved a soldier's life, leading to their friendship. The brave sister searching for her brother while leading a giant walking head, the cold-blooded robot hunter pursuing the charming team of adventurers-all of this genuinely sparked interest and smiles. However, the beginning and the ending severely undermined this promising and vibrant adventure, which, in my subjective opinion, ultimately felt like a primitive, clichéd cinematic comic with simplified characters and underdeveloped ideas.
The film has one standout strength-its visual style, with its creepily cute robots. But the script is archaic, the characters are one-dimensional, and all the themes introduced in the film are left undeveloped. The creators forget about them, instead shoving caricature robots with swords riding around in wheelchairs at the audience. This is a cinematic cripple, with its sharp themes cut short and its characters just as underdeveloped. It's a big-budget theater of freakish metal scraps that feels like a kids' movie but not for kids-a paradoxical sensation. The film comes off as a mutilated, chopped-up Frankenstein with mismatched parts, creaking and wheezing but still showing signs of life. It exploits the audience's sense of compassion to force empathy, but it does so in a superficial and predictable way. Chris Pratt's hairstyle looks like a wig, so unnatural that you keep expecting it to start talking, jump off his head, and burst into hysterical laughter. Millie Bobby Brown, despite her efforts, comes off as fake, just like her emotional connection with Woody Norman. The film had a promising idea with huge potential for sci-fi and human drama, but it ends up feeling like a run-of-the-mill flick with a few saving graces: the original visuals, some rare and well-placed humor, and the most memorable character-the robot Germ.
Funny Games (2007)
The academic tyranny of violence
49 minutes of the film-that's my limit, and here's why: A boring exposition, eggs as a meaningless image on which the plot is built. Everything boils down to a stream of sadism and humiliation, none of which sparks the slightest interest in their causes. The viewer is presented with a fact: here they are-two sadistic abusers, whose cruelty, with every plot twist, fills the space with cynical revenge, piercing the fourth wall. Why break it? (When the anti-hero turns to the camera and addresses the viewer.) The answer is obvious: it's a caricatured mockery of the genre, but the story relies on simple torture. This is a nerve-wracking theater of madness, where lunatics, freed from straitjackets, satisfy their senseless desires for the sake of an experiment devoid of innovation. The sole purpose of this experiment is to shock and create the illusion of alternative cinema, built on banal cruelty 'just because.' The author vainly tries to expose bourgeois ugliness but instead portrays an ordinary family without proving their vices. Immersed in hatred for the rich, he fails to find arguments for why they should be hated. Maybe these people became wealthy through hard work? Who knows! The author instills hatred for an unfortunate family because of their love for golf-isn't that absurd? How can you hate people for a hobby that doesn't harm others? This academic tyranny of violence doesn't demand arguments; it's content with the imagination and will of the author, who strives to demonstrate absolute power. For what? For the pleasure of torment? Or is it shock value for the sake of shock value, a critique of cruelty drowned in its own meaninglessness?
Skjelvet (2018)
The main character is a tuning fork reflecting the dynamics of development
The film was well shot, and the cameraman faithfully fulfilled his task, but the script causes mixed feelings: a long exposition with an obvious tightening of the intrigue and an awkward narration about the hero's family are tiring, and family relations are presented only as a superficial excuse for the development of the plot. The hero himself is a banal stereotype of a "strange character with a sad face." He does not arouse interest, he is devoid of psychological depth and the possibility of internal association, remaining only an alarming shadow, the character is completely not filled with a human appearance - it's just a tuning fork reflecting the dynamics of development. The drama develops according to standard tragic patterns, using the simplest techniques of the traditional structure: a premonition of disaster, a personal drama, an investigation that the hero witnesses, a struggle with circumstances in order to save the family - all this is banal, drawn out, mundane, sometimes primitive. I still haven't been able to watch it to the end.
Heretic (2024)
Religion as a tool of control
The film is a psychological thriller focused on a discussion about religion and faith, without an abundance of blood and violence, but with a tense atmosphere. The film centers on the erudite antihero Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who manipulates two Mormon missionaries, Sisters Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Paxton (Chloe East), who are invited to his house to question their faith. The theological discussion is gradually turning into a dangerous psychological trap, forcing the heroines to choose between faith and apostasy. The film explores themes of faith, control and influence, drawing parallels between religion, music and games. The finale of the painting is open, leaving room for the continuation of the story. The main question of the film is: "Why do we believe in what we believe in?"
A psychological thriller that will not be interesting to everyone, since the film will not have pools of blood and scattered body parts all over the set. There will be blood, but not in the amount and intensity that the target audience is used to. Most of the picture is occupied by the exposition and the study of the main theme - religion controls the life of a believer, religion as a force governing the life of a believer.
In this picture, the protagonist will be an erudite antihero who is convinced of his rightness, who, as he thinks, has fundamental proof and weighty tools for destroying systemic attitudes and objectively general ideas that he opposes and argues with, in other words, a real heretic. This is a chamber, intriguing, sometimes shocking, sometimes intense thriller consisting of dialogues that turn into sharp debates, where fierce arguments can cost the lives of two heroines.
The film focuses not so much on tension and fear, but on the gray matter of the viewer's brain, without neglecting the chosen genre. The film subtly and tastefully plays on nerves, intriguing with the mysterious plan of the charming sociopath Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who, like a puppeteer, manipulates victims in an improvised theater of chilling proof of a new religion, which will be witnessed by two young Mormon women chosen by him, or, more correctly, missionary sisters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East), whom he invited to his house ostensibly for a more detailed acquaintance with the holy Gospel. Unexpected revelations await them.
The missionaries do not even imagine that he will preach and convert them to his faith. The theological discussion with Mr. Reed about faith and beliefs, about life and death, the existence of the divine essence, gradually turns into an attempt to destroy the entire belief system of girls with sharp questions about the nature of their faith. Why do they even believe in their heavenly father? Do they really believe or are they just following religious guidelines? Why do people generally tend to believe in what they believe in? Just because someone told them so? What if the religion of the two missionaries is an idea that was instilled in them just to control their minds?
This is a fascinating, witty discourse that resembles a college seminar on theology, in which the viewer learns about the common religious plot of many beliefs and movements, revealing to the viewer the stories of beliefs and their cross-influences.
The film draws a conceptual parallel between religion, music and board games in order to show how the same idea that shapes the worldview is borrowed and modified in the history of mankind. This movie will ask a lot of questions, and the viewer will have something to think about and discuss, but, of course, history will not forget to play on our nerves. A smug amateur theologian deftly lures girls into a psychological trap of doubt, drives them into an imaginary dead end, forcing them to lie, forcing them to make a choice between faith and apostasy, scaring them with his incomprehensible dark plan, and here the intense and mysterious action begins.
The choice of heroines will launch an intricate string of bloody events, and the intellectual seminar will turn into a chilling mystical thriller. This is a well-staged and directed movie with convincing acting and skillful camerawork. It's just a pity that the authors do not reveal the beliefs of the antihero, who has only scientific research and the evidence he found. We will not find out what his faith consists of, what its essence or philosophical justification is, he will not preach his laws and rules for the spiritual development of the world, and this is very lacking for the completeness of his mythical image of a heretic. His cold calculation and manic demonstration of a miracle turn into an emptiness that offers nothing: no solace, no warmth, his religion has nothing to fill its follower with.
But the conclusions, of course, are for you to make, this is my subjective opinion, and you should not take my word for it, you should not take anyone's word for it, and this is the most important statement of the film:
"Why do we believe in what we believe in? Just because someone told us so?"
The finale of the picture is open, all the participants will change, but the consequences require waiting for the continuation of the story. I would explain my point of view, but that would be a spoiler. If you like sharp topics, provocative content, philosophical dilemmas and unexpected plot twists, then this film will definitely be interesting to you. Enjoy watching and watch a good movie.
Gladiator II (2024)
The biggest disappointment of the year
The long-awaited sequel to the legendary film Gladiator has finally been released. I watched the new part, Gladiator 2, and I have to admit that this is the most lifeless film in Ridley Scott's career. After the first act, the desire to continue exploring this picture disappeared, but I still forced myself to watch to the end. The main character is a character devoid of depth, whose motives and character the director does not reveal, leading him only to the inevitable climax. Only naked revenge drives him, but it is not reflected in his soul, leaving no trace of emotions. At the beginning of the film, he loses his love and friend, but these losses remain without an emotional response, turning into just an excuse for his actions. Even meeting his mother, "Lucilla", does not touch his essence - he is a hero devoid of feelings.
Gladiator fights look unrealistic, memorized movements and patterns replace real power, making the spectacle a choreographic performance that is perceived as a circus performance. During the viewing, I caught myself thinking: "I'm wasting my time." Yes, I feel sorry for my watch, given to this painting. Once-standard staging and camerawork now seem intrusive and outdated. The only actor animating the screen is "Denzel Washington", who managed to give his image at least a little depth and meaning, saving what is happening.
The film is made of conventions, self-repetitions and absurdities. The plot crawls sluggishly, like an old mare dragging a cart uphill. Only at the end of the second act does animation replace despondency, and the story finally finds an echo of emotion, the climax of the second act is the best part of the picture, it gives the intended dramatic tension, but it does not last long: the finale turns into a bacchanal of scenario fantasy, as if from the pages of the yellow press. This finale is a symbol of the decline of the entire film industry.
Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (2024)
The movie is good, but there will also be a feeling of disappointment
It's hard not to notice that modern adaptations of classical works often tend to sacrifice depth and complexity for the sake of fast pace and entertainment. As a result, the special atmosphere and emotional depth inherent in the original texts are often lost. "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas is not just a twisted story of revenge with many bright twists, it is a reflection on life and how a person is transformed by circumstances and his own decisions. Alas, the new film adaptation, and this, of course, in my opinion, coped with the task of conveying this transformation - satisfactorily, but no more, leaving the characters at a simple and understandable level of archetypes.
Expectations did not come from an empty place, because many people read this fascinating tragedy of revenge and had hopes to see the development and deepening of the characters on a par with the original source. At the same time, the audience was offered a set of events that take place too quickly, as if on a high-speed cinema highway. Deep emotions, nuances of character, dramatic internal conflicts - all this was clearly not enough. But it is these details that make the work alive and truly memorable. Yes, undoubtedly, a thousand pages of a novel cannot be transferred into one film, but this is the power of creativity - the ability to revive images and give the viewer empathy. In the film, all this is there, but dosed, within the framework of the standard form of monosyllabic presentation.
The film is not bad, but spoiling Dumas means being completely incompetent, and, to my joy, I can't blame anyone for that. But I expected more and I'm a little disappointed. The whole film was shot with a 24 mm wide-angle lens, and it was unnecessary: there are clearly not enough close-ups, especially when the actors play well. Despite the decent acting, the characters seem to be unsaid and aimless, reduced to simplified and stripped-down images.
During the viewing, I hoped to see a philosophical reassessment or depth of thought in the scene with "Abbé Faria", but, unfortunately, only the Soviet painting by Georgy Jungwald-Khilkevich with Alexei Petrenko as the abbot was able to prepare the viewer, lay the foundation for the climax, making them realize the suffering of the prisoners and catch the main question: "What are you up to Will you spend your life, for revenge or for good?". After this episode, it became clear that the story would quickly sweep through the pages of the fireproof manuscript, and so it turned out.
The connection with the epoch and with the literary echoes of the past, which give the original its special flavor and indescribable integrity, has disappeared. Perhaps this is a sign of the times. Modern technology allows you to create impressive visual effects, but no technique can replace the power of a story, the ability to convey a mood and invite the viewer into a deep understanding of life. One thing is for sure: trying to adapt classics is always a challenge that requires incredible skill and understanding of the text. This is a difficult task, and, alas, not everyone can overcome this path, but the task was done well, although there was a residue of disappointment.
Hellboy: The Crooked Man (2024)
Mind-blowing nonsense
From the very beginning, the film seems to warn: "Don't look at me!" In support of this thesis, an indestructible spider jumps out of the box epochally, which drops an entire rolling stock from the railway track. The story, continuing the ridiculous nonsense, demonstrates furry balls, a magic bone and a sacred shovel - it is on these three key points that the whole scenario is based. Despite the whole paradox of the witch theme, it is worth noting the efforts of the operator. If Hellboy had more sarcastic jokes, then this nonsense would be more fun, but, unfortunately, his lines are short and he smokes as if he had a box of cigarettes with him.
Pamyo (2024)
The film is able to charm with its unique nonsense
For all fans of superstition and shamanism, this will be an epic experience. The main action will unfold in the crematorium, the most intense moment of which will be the adoption of an important decision - to "burn the coffin." The most epic element of the film will be shamanic dances, tambourines, green twigs and spells. The film was shot well, and the acting is decent, but the film is more suitable for impressionable magifrenics who will believe in an evil grandfather who is eager to take all his relatives to the next world. I didn't finish it, I can't do that. But the film has its own unique delusional charm, which allows everyone to discover a world where reality and fantasy exist side by side, in a continuous shamanic dance.
Strange Darling (2023)
The skill of juggling dramatic acts
The most interesting thing in this movie is a mad woman.
I don't know who found something clever in this movie - probably a violation of chronology.
Maybe a scene where two elderly hippies are cooking lunch?
Maybe how does a schizophrenic heroine find a bottle of vodka and cigarettes in the woods?
Maybe the smartest thing is to look at the long final camera plan?
The author relishes meaningless dialogues that are neither interesting to listen to nor watch.
This is an ordinary boring story of a schizophrenic, but so that the story does not seem ordinary, the author mixed up the acts - this is the most innovative or, as someone concluded, the smartest. It takes an effort of will to finish watching.
Blink Twice (2024)
Reflection of boredom
It's all banality and subtle irony. There is no psychology of motivation, but only superficial desires. A pop reflection of boredom and degradation, both of society and drama. In the final act, behind the mask of madness, we can admire the inner world of a jaded madman with an unprincipled Mephistopheles parody. Instead of intrigue, they are concerned "teenagers", and with such money they would have elite prostitutes every day. Boring, uninteresting, we could diversify the monotonous repetitive action with at least something. Slater and McLachlan serve their roles as mannequins, it is such roles that make interesting actors mediocre.
From: When We Go (2024)
15 minutes is my maximum
I reluctantly tried to watch episode 2, 15 minutes was enough for me. For me, this is a childish amateur performance by stupid adult uncles and aunts who have learned the tricks of "Lost" to deceive the viewer by stretching everything possible. The creators just enjoy the nonsense that they add on the go, coming up with incompetent, formulaic phrases like: stumbled - woke up... I'm not discouraging you from watching, watch if you like.
The third season convinced me that the creators are in a creative crisis and apart from a sentimental domestic drama they have nothing to offer the viewer. Characters who once aroused interest and curiosity have now become lifeless puppets, moving according to a script devoid of originality. Each new episode brings the same hackneyed cliches and monumentally predictable plot twists.
The dialogues have become flat and strained, and attempts to add drama look pathetic and inept. It is sad to see how a once promising project slides into a banal melodrama with obvious moves and stereotypical characters. Even the musical accompaniment, which used to create an atmosphere, now only serves as a background for indistinct and repetitive scenes.
Attempts to re-interest the viewer with unusual storylines and confusing mysteries look like pathetic attempts to cling to the remnants of former glory. Instead of creativity and originality, we see a pipeline of template solutions that do not in the least contribute to the development of the plot or the growth of characters.
However, if you are satisfied with all this, keep watching. Perhaps, among all these cliches and newly minted plot loops, there is something that will hook you. As they say, there are no companions for taste and color, and there will always be exceptions to every rule. Perhaps this series is not for me at all, but it can resonate in someone's soul, causing awe and interest where I see only a creative dead end.
From: Shatter (2024)
Will they eat the goat? This is a synopsis of the new series.
And what will the viewer have to spend their time on: a conflict in the toilet when a pregnant woman does not want to go out; a quarrel over a goat that a guy is going to eat; the whole harvest has gone bad, and residents have stolen leftovers; cows have escaped from the barn - that's what we should admire? Is this supposed to intrigue us? Did the film studio spend significant resources and time on this? It seems that the screenwriters were recruited from a correctional school. The third season is even worse than the previous ones. The duration of the series is 50 minutes, and the main events take place in just 5 minutes - the series is brazenly stretched due to banal domestic quarrels. Personally, it seems indecent to me to watch scandals over a clogged toilet and runaway cows.
The Penguin (2024)
I liked the acting of Colin Farrell
This is an interesting representative of the genre with a memorable image of the antihero.
The dark atmosphere immerses the viewer into the gloomy inner world of the antihero, who was brilliantly embodied on the screen by Colin Farrell. His character is complex and multifaceted: a lot of internal conflicts and contradictions are hidden behind a hard and cold facade. We see not only his cruel deeds, but also his moments of weakness, which makes him more human and understandable.
In general, the first two episodes are not bad, but I did not like the third one: the guy's parents are dying, and the creators do not show his suffering, the guy does not show emotions of loss; the plot slows down a lot, and we observe a slow and boring development about the "red drug". I noticed a scene in the third episode when a guy talks to a girl in the penguin's apartment - we were shown how to uncork the lid of a beer - for what? What for?
There is no desire to watch anymore, maybe you just need to wait it out, most likely it is, but maybe later somehow.
Slingshot (2024)
The film will not become a cult classic, but it deserves attention
The best part of this movie is the ending, which will deceive the viewer several times. Laurence Fishburne played his role, as always, perfectly. Casey Affleck did well, but I was never impressed by his performance, although this is just my personal subjective judgment. Yes, it's not easy to watch this movie to the end, and this is its main disadvantage, it was especially hard for me to watch Affleck's caramel flashbacks, but I still watched this movie - the film turned out to be quite good. Given the complexity of the plot and ambiguous characters, it is impossible not to mention the merits of the director. Visual style, musical accompaniment - all this works to create a unique closed atmosphere. The film may not become a cult classic, but it definitely deserves the attention of those who like thoughtful and ambiguous stories.
Longlegs (2024)
The stupidest "abracadabra" of antiheroes in monologues.
With a face like the main character's, she would have been suitable for the role of the character "girls from a mental hospital." Yes, of course, I'm being ironic, but not everyone can watch this emotionless, boring gray canvas. David Lynch has one episode of the TV series "Twin Peaks" more exciting. And what is in this movie at all? A primitive image of a thin punk with the ridiculous nickname "long-legged", who has not been doing anything for decades, but is only looking for families in which there is a girl with a birthday of 14. All these years, he has been building complex geographical schemes with their deaths. The antagonist is as boring as his grave pallor, however, the same can be said about the main character. The color scheme is not so much depressing as annoying and tiring - this is the case when there is nothing in the picture but an impenetrable gray void: no tension, no contrast, no expression - a gray mess that hurts the eyes. The denouement is even sillier: demonic dolls, magical spheres, crazy moms, and the stupidest "abracadabra" of antiheroes in monologues.
WarHunt (2022)
The film could have been more exciting
The film is not bad, the beginning is exciting: soldiers in a mysterious forest are looking for missing pilots. But then everything is not so smooth, although you can watch this movie.
The director is clearly in a hurry - maybe deadlines are running out or he himself is tired of this damp and cold forest: the prisoner appears and disappears without much meaning, his presence does not affect the plot; soldiers die quickly, without increasing tension and anxiety, the scenes are too short; changes in the commander are not explained, he changes at the request of the director; the final the skirmish is unremarkable, the witches attack in turn, if earlier they just instantly appeared out of nowhere, then in the final they die in turn.
The final plot twist may surprise and mislead, but why... probably only because of the viewer's reaction.
Cuckoo (2024)
The amorphous theater of the cuckoo's torment and sorrow
A curious movie, except for the basic idea of absolute nonsense. This amorphous theater of torment and sadness, which is capable of driving you crazy with its screeching delirium, tacitly declares the rights of a woman to her body. The main character, half boy, half girl, elegantly defends this idea with protest aggression. No, well, the monster in this picture, of course, can only be inspired in "chemical delirium", it only makes me laugh, although the director knows how to shoot and in some places it's even interesting. But in fact, I perceive the film as I called it. The finale is the most lively part of this crazy picture.
The Crow (2024)
I watched the movie, although the viewing was not smooth
It's not bad, you can see, there will be no atmosphere of the first "Raven", except that quite a bit - this is another story, a tragedy about self-sacrifice.
Skarsgard plays well, but it's hard to say the same about his girlfriend on stage. Watching it evokes mixed feelings from both the visuals and the script, but you can watch the rest. This is a normal movie, in which only the motive of the hero is justified, and everything else is simple, auxiliary means that do not inspire much confidence.
The connection with the phone is not very good: this notorious recording of the murder on a smartphone; the antagonist, whose goals are not clear, but he is very powerful; the love line of the hero, which justifies everything, but it is not very believable.
21 Bridges (2019)
A mediocre script that was superbly shot
The beginning was shot, I would say, cool, manly with a realistic shootout. In general, the whole film was shot first-class. But for people like me, the problem is only in the scenario: the criminal exceeds the speed limit and thereby helps the police in their capture, it gets worse - the witness generally reveals the identity of the would-be criminals to the detective - yes, that's so simple! And then it's a matter of technique - just a police thriller about corrupt cops. And, as always, in the final, the main corrupt official tells everything in good faith, that is, he gives confessions. The film is good, but because of such a cliched and formulaic script, everything turns into an ordinary, well-shot action movie.
Rebel Ridge (2024)
The film is fascinating and emotional
I will not disclose the details, because I consider the film a successful creation both for the director and for the audience, who are forced to swim in a sea of plastic films. Some viewers, of course, are comfortable staying in a humid dopamine euphoria, not perceiving anything else. For such people, the film will not be spectacular enough, sluggish, non-dynamic and unattractive.
But for me, and hopefully for you, this movie will be a great choice for evening viewing. This is a realistic police drama that deserves attention, and it's not a pity to spend time on it. The pace of the narrative slows down a little in the middle, but the interest in what is happening does not weaken. The film evokes an emotional reaction from both the events and the characters, whose images are remembered and reveal their characters to the viewer. The tragedy of the brother, which is mentioned in the film, can affect each of us and reminds us that such a thing can happen anywhere. In one form or another, many have faced arbitrariness or abuse of power, and such topics will always acutely point out the existing problems of society, form views, clarify and involve in discussion.
This view, this discussion, is contained in a simple and uncomplicated form of drama with elements of a thriller and an action-packed detective story - and this form works. All the elements of the action are organic and do not interfere with seeing the big picture, contrast and content.
For me, this film became a small celebration in a series of synthetic everyday life with "Romulus", "Borderlands", "Acolyte" and similar pasteurized movie farces. In the context of the plot, you can see a parallel with the artistic image embodied by David Morrell, but I would not compare the film with "Rambo", because this film is about de-escalation, and not the other way around, and the characters clearly speak about this in the film, so fans of bloody fighters will remain unsatisfied.
It's easy to empathize with the hero, you sympathize with him and get emotionally involved. The picture is about arbitrariness, about a tragedy that can overtake anyone, about innocent mistakes leading to troubles, and the consequences of a wrong choice that can affect people dear to you. Unfortunately, the personal drama of the characters does not plunge into deep waters, but it is enough to show complicity, reviving images in the subconscious.
The denouement of the film is very simple. I don't know how the structure of the work would change, but the film really lacks the rhetorical opposition of the hero to the antihero - whose role was superbly played by the aged Don Johnson, who is not the first time to transform into a servant of the law. Aaron Pierre, without embellishment, but realistically conveyed the image of a disciplined soldier who is guided by logic and rationality in finding a solution, taking concomitant losses.
The finale of the picture, in my opinion, should have been more pessimistic, with more vivid drama, with a more vivid staged action. But I do not think to reproach the author, because what he said makes sense and can find a response from a wide audience who is able to do a little more - to think and empathize. This is a low-budget film, and, apparently, this decision is dictated by financial opportunities.
It's a decent movie, and Jeremy Saulnier has proven himself to be a talented director and screenwriter with intelligence, which is rare nowadays.
The Watchers (2024)
Shot well, but not interesting
I liked the beginning of the film very much: pleasant compositional camera solutions that set up an internal dialogue. The development of the story did not fascinate, the plot twists are built naively, and what is happening is monotonous.
How can you build a bunker in a forest in which bloodthirsty creatures kill everyone every night, and cars break down, and anyone who enters this forest is immediately lost, and there are no roads along which you can bring construction materials.
The lost live in a bunker for months, do not wash, do not eat, do not drink and stand in front of the window every evening, admiring the terrible ancient creatures. What prevented these creatures from wandering who where? Nothing was in the way, they were in the forest, not on the island. You could turn a blind eye to all this if it was interesting, but in the middle of the movie you are already struggling with the desire not to watch.
Oddity (2024)
Not a stupid mystical story
The film is not stupid, by modern "standards" this is already a great achievement. It's very boring to watch before the climax, in my opinion, of course. The film is emotionless, this is a disadvantage of most modern paintings, it is downright a disease of modern culture at the dawn of synthetic artificial intelligence.
Tension succeeds only occasionally, no meanings and content, just a good unemotionally mystical story. The intrigue of the film is not immediately clear, but it is guessed, the movie is not bad, but it leaves a note of disappointment. There is no suspense in the film at all, and this is a big drawback for paintings of this genre.
Alien: Romulus (2024)
"Alien" in a cocoon and the space birth of an engineer
The movie did not arouse any emotions in me: no fear, no anxiety, and especially no empathy. I had no one to empathize with: neither the heroine, who suffered the whole picture with one facial expression from the oppression of the corporation and tried to survive on the station, nor the android, who tried to please the heroine with a childish grimace and constantly broke down. He constantly had to be wound up like a toy in order for him to continue functioning. This child's play with a spring in the neck has become some kind of obsession that reflects the creative confusion and shakiness of Disney.
The movie is a refined, emotionless theater with stuffed xenomorphs and rubber facehuggers bouncing like balls. All the actors are walking functions that do nothing but move through the plot, die like flies and do not carry any content. I can't call this a fascinating movie, it's just some kind of functional jumble of alternating events. None of what I saw excited me, I did not empathize with anyone. There is no soul in the film, no creativity, only an aesthetic pasteurized picture. Yes, this film does not need a director, this film would only need a few cameramen who would shoot according to the storyboard. Don't be angry, fans of Fede Alvarez: the director completely forgot about human emotions, he was so stuck trying to mask the plot hole that he couldn't think of anything better than bricking up a dead alien from the first part in a ton of mounting foam. This is really a fetish of a fantastic scale: an alien who was pierced with a giant harpoon, fried with a jet engine that dangled in the vacuum of space, managed to wrap himself in a giant cocoon! Who came up with this? A circle of young scouts? Or patients with obsessive disorder?
I would like to remember "Aliens" a little bit James Cameron, because the audience is still arguing which picture is better, the first one or Cameron's. So, I would like to remind you how Cameron built the plot. He didn't just send the heroes to the lair of monsters, he invented a surviving child, he motivated Ripley to take care of her, sacrifice himself to save her. And what is Alvarez doing? He is in a hurry to reveal the intrigue, does not reveal the character of the characters, comes up with superficial quarrels instead of deep conflicts. His station is deserted, there is only a stub of a poorly animated android, from which he makes an antagonist, glues a cheap scarecrow to the ceiling and highlights it with a hole so that it is impossible to see the cheapness of a foam doll, places facehuggers in uncontrolled incubators so that they run around the laboratory, accelerates the metabolism of monsters to seconds and enjoys metal dentures of a xenomorph watering his liters of fake slime, and someone thinks it's a good idea?
Before the premiere, I assumed that there would be engineers in the film, but what we were shown was some kind of cocaine hallucinogenic seizure of dying brain cells affected by a malignant tumor. We were shown a hybrid of an engineer and a human, which appeared as a result of the introduction of alien DNA into the body of a pregnant woman who did it voluntarily. Alvarez believed that any pregnant woman would inject an incomprehensible liquid into herself, that she was so irresponsible that she did not care about the child's health at all. The station is filled with predatory individuals who were raised by the staff of this laboratory, and she is injecting herself with a harmless black vitamin, which was invented by the same psycho scientists. This pregnant girl is a completely unnecessary character, she has no influence on the plot, except for the birth of an overgrown hybrid, she has no interesting dialogues, no personality, nothing - the whole movie makes her sick, and in the finale she gives birth to this miracle yudo.
Am I the only one who has cognitive dissonance with such data? Does anyone really take such nonsense seriously?
All this nonsense does not create a mysterious atmosphere in any way, does not create prerequisites for suspense.
Do you know why Alvarez decided that the heroes would not be able to find the necessary amount of fuel at the huge station? Yes, only because in the open final to immerse the heroine in suspended animation and leave a bold reference. As I said, this movie is a jumble of features.
Alvarez's xenomorphs began to flex and pose like models on the catwalk, they are no longer swift and deadly - they are now just as full-fledged
The characters are happy to pose as in a photo shoot. Am I the only one who is amused by this whole circus with wipers on the windows and with the only spaceship operated by sophomores? The space station is in orbit, and no one sees it point-blank - only our heroes are plowing through outer space, and the government of the planet and the corporation have withdrawn themselves and flew away to bask on the sunny azure shores. This is plot nonsense, which is sewn with white thread with patches of Ridley Scott's underpants.
Even the third film, which was not allowed to be shot by David Fincher and which was edited without his participation, looks more interesting and emotional.
The film has good scenery and pleasant toning of the image, good camerawork - I didn't see anything else good. The film has a very mediocre beginning: a foam cocoon; a heroine who had to suffer from the loss of her parents, from unbearably hard work, but we were not shown this. So she woke up, had breakfast and was already flying to the station. No obstacles, no obstacles - everything is fast and easy. Only they quarreled because of the android and then for fun, for half a second - it's just a childish conflict, and this scene can't even be called a conflict. The director does not feel at all and does not know how to evoke sympathy or empathy, and he clearly has problems with association. It is impossible for the viewer to compare his "I" with any of the characters.
I don't think the movie is bad, it's not bad or good - you know, it feels like you don't care. It's the same with this movie.
Borderlands (2024)
30 minutes of film is my maximum
A movie that pretends to be a game. Imagine that you are playing Borderlands for Lilith, but you cannot control her - it's the same thing. The aged, strong and independent Cate Blanchett waves her fists, tumbles, shoots endless rounds of ammunition, in general, everything is according to the laws of an interactive game, but the film is not a game. The script was adapted for a teenage audience and simplified everything so much that it is difficult to finish watching it... not everyone is able to watch it, or rather, not only everyone can watch it, few people succeed. I couldn't watch the rest of this movie, I wasn't interested, I wasn't having fun, everything was formulaic, self-repetition and borrowing.