Telling of Russian and Soviet culture-- and a hidden message!
This is an interesting story, based on true events. I must say the movie fails the typical standards of the trade: there are intense moments but without the classical build up, climax and conclusion.
It is truthful to the Russian/Soviet/Communist way of doing things although the time is 1985 when the "perestroika" was happening. The harshness of the system is clearly seen in the replacement captain. The unyielding nature of good people even in the face of the regime is shown by the younger captain.
However, I think there was a message in the movie that was hidden even from the actual authors, actors and directors. What you can see in the story is that Russians have this respect for authority beyond human reason. In other words the moral character of the man in authority is beyond question. Yes, there is some rebellion going on, but in the end it becomes clear that one is worthy not because they are morally good, but because they have power. This is a cultural and spiritual reality for other Slavic peoples and those where Eastern Orthodoxy and communism have been in place for centuries. I personally have little tolerance for such values. I cannot accept that there is inherent goodness in power over people, especially when used to assert power for the sake of power. As it will be seen in this movie, such assertion are rather brainless, as they serve no clear purpose, be it moral or utilitarian, but just the assertion of power over the "lower classes." This aspect may be too subtle for some viewers to appreciate, but for me this was the most important message of this film. It delivers in this regard, maybe even unbeknownst to the actual movie makers. That's why I gave it 5, otherwise it is a 4.
In a typical Eastern and European fashion there are moments where the viewer is left scratching his head wondering, and where did this come from? Or what is this sequence trying to tell me?
Cinematography is good, great pictures. If you watch the movie you won't be left feeling like you wasted your time. There is no disgusting language and profanity as in 80% of the Hollywood flicks. But this film is in no way a masterpiece.
One of the best movies I have seen. Gripping, clear, unpretentious story telling.
One of those films you can watch again.
Some of the scenes are heart wrenching. Others are just painful to watch and make you cringe.
There are scenes that are so shockingly heart-warming in the midst of chaos, suffering, disaster and death that you would not be able to hold back your tears.
Do not pay attention to the conceited blowhard nay-say reviewers and racially sensitive political activists trying to question the value and the impact of the movie. This film will shake you and will leave you with deep sense of satisfaction.
I will also mention he absolutely brilliant acting, and cinematography.
The parents of the main character are depicted as bigoted, sexist, Republicans by the woman. I am sparing some of the labels. That was more than enough to have an idea of what the political likings of the movie makers are. Why every mediocre Hollywood director or actor has to patronize the public with their political science nonsense?
The bullies are unlikely in their extreme behavior.
The main woman character's emotions, when reading the novel, are overly exaggerated.
The main male character is way, overly too weak, although this is supposed to be his millennial charm, maybe. He shows strength then the final moments his weakness borders on the pathetic. Or maybe doesn't even border, it is just pathetic.
Must say that this seemed like an enjoyable attempt at deeper movie making than the usual brainless mass production of Hollywood. But a bit outlandish ending, and abrupt.
Years ago I started watching this movie. Couldn't finish it as it was so brutally cynical, hopeless and pretentious. Just stopped in the middle or before then.
Recently I started watching it again. Obviously I had erased from my mind the memories of the self-gratifying obscenities, the documentary supposed angle of it, the gross, graphic, and unnecessary sexual content, and all the rest of the F-wording.
Well, same again. I remembered that I had watched this movie when I realized that I am going to quit watching, so dull and pretentious it seemed to me with all the nonsense that made it on the director's camera and in front of the weary eye of the viewer. That's when I realized: "Ah! Now I remember this movie! I could not keep on watching the flick so I quit!" Then I quit again.
And decided to write a review to explain this phenomenon. How frustrating a movie has to be to remember it only by the fact that you had not been able to bear to watch it in the first place?
There is one good point to it. At least these characters did not talk about their hemorrhoids. Well, I am not 100 per cent sure as I did not finish it. Maybe they did in the second half which I did not watch?
What can you expect from a director who churns out horror flick main movies titled The House of the Devil and who is trying to make a western? You got it right: a horrible western. It is that bad.
People who make horror flicks are generally, with few exceptions, not that right in the head. You can see the signs of weirdness all across this flick. Bad acting, bad story, ridiculous motivation of the characters. All fine for a 21-st century cheap scare but westerns cannot be done this way. Simply it won't go. Who uses the curse language of millennials' in the 19th century? Who cares if the director wants to be original? You just don't do this to westerns. People had very different values and demeanor back then. Even the criminals carried a sense of nobility due to the mores and the hard life they had to endure. The nervous wrecks of people in Ti West's rendition of a western were absolutely comical.
What made me really laugh was that the main character, who seemed to be normal to a certain point in time, very typical tough soldier-cowboy type, and was actually a maniacal animal lover. Complete idiot.
Why John Travolta and Ethan Hawk decided to take part in this caricature remains a mystery to me. Maybe short on cash.
Bad movie, a horror to the western genre. Ti West should not have gone western.
I am not a film critic. I do not pretend to be. Nor do I care. When I watch a movie I expect either entertainment or an interesting original artistic view into the human soul or mankind's history. Bottom line: it has to be fun or memorable to be worth watching. Otherwise it is a waste of time at best and poison the mind at worst.
This film is neither fun, nor memorable. It is a waste of time and a bitter pill.
This film is a tortured effort for a deep drama-thriller and is a massive fail. Its attempt to create some form of a moral is ludicrous. People with unhinged and nasty fantasies wrote it and put it together. No offense to Alvarez but I have no respect for his work. While keeping up with the secrets of the trade the characters are unrealistic, unsympathetic, and the "glamorous" ending, which contains a twist, does not make sense. You will be on the edge of your seat not because of suspense but because of disgust. As in all ridiculous contemporary films out of Hollywood, which makes 95% of them vulgar and deprave sexuality seems to be the way to entertain.
There were no good guys -- all bunch of criminal scumbags. The chick's cheesy dream to go surfing in California with her sister is just too cliché and ridiculous. I just could not sympathize with any of the characters. Art is the ability to compress in two hours a story which will show you life and will make you ponder. Forget about it with this flick. You'll be happy that it's over and sorry that you started it.
If you want to watch a film of high artistic quality, totally unpretentious, based on true events, watch Gruz 200 (Cargo 200, 2007, director Alexei Balabanov). No Hollywood gimmicks and an absolute horror. With absolutely minimalist use of gore. Watch and compare.
I wish there was something good about this movie so I can write a spoiler. It is plain awful. Terrible people, doing terrible things to other terrible people.
The plot is pretentious and stupid at the same time. Sleazebags steal money from other sleaze-bags, so they can provide a setup for a lot of F-word and many variations, repetitions, and the derivatives of the curse word. The language gets so bad, that it becomes unbearable. Who talks like that? Even if they do, why do we need to be slapped in the face with the flood of profanity? And people pay money to be subject to this?!
This is a bad movie, so bad that I consider it one of the unimportant signs that we are coming to the end of the world.
Do not waste your precious time. I couldn't not finish it and just walked away.
It follows you right here. The stupidity and sickness of this flick follows you wherever you go. The flick is insane. Just nuts. Complete bananas. This an inexplicable, inessential nonsense.
If you decide to force yourself to get engrossed in the improbable story you will come across some scary moments. But the sick and perverted scenes readily compensate for any thrill by leaving you unnecessarily disgusted. Teenage debauchery combined with sick fantasies and a senseless, moronic plot. If boredom and retardation could be combined in a perfect combination this sorry flick is the standard. Get ready to waste your time and money. Or not, if you follow my advice: avoid at all cost. I want my money back and I am sorry for each and every cent spent to support this loser project.
Why if it were aliens skewering people with outer space tentacles all would be in horror ecstasy, but if it is a film based on themes from the greatest Book ever written, it is all of a sudden "Christian propaganda?"
Foolish alien and zombie propaganda dished out in massive doses is OK, but a thoughtful feature presentation of the end times is not OK? For sure this movie is many, many times better than the airplane disaster action Left Behind with Nicholas Cage.
The acting is good, the camera is shaking but not annoying, and the mood is somber and frightening. The film may not convert you to God but will definitely make you think in much more proper terms about "the end of the world" than any zombification flick.
I am not sure how closely they followed the biblical teaching in Revelation. For example the locust-like beings of Revelation 9, mentioned in the movie, will sting and cause such pain that people will want to die. See verse 6: "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them." Yet in the movie one of the characters was stung in direct reference to this verse and did not experience the same reaction.
Secondly, the creatures were after the wrong people, just the opposite to what the Bible says in Revelation 9:4. This is a serious error. But hey, this is fiction and "entertainment" after all.
10 out of 10 for acting, story, pace, directing, camera and moral of story. A gem that follows the film industry guidelines but in a much better and original way. Watch this film, no matter if you believe in God or not. You will not be sorry. It will make you think. It will surely scare you. It may even make you pray.
This movie is a blasphemy. It has nothing to do with the Bible, its character, its characters and message. This is a loonie Aronofsky sci-fi bull.
The rock people are ridiculous quasi-transformers, Noah's motivation is based on magic and not at all in relation to God. Noah behaves like a maniac, not like a righteous man with a high calling from God.
All in all it is a fairy tale, using some elements of the biblical story and the names of Noah and the biblical characters. Far fetched, outlandish and expensive despicable mockery of the true biblical story.
It is a scary flick alright - it registers that there is evil, it is personal, and it has supernatural powers. The movie properly shows the contemporary ridiculously exaggerated trust in medicine and "science" to the extent of being absolutely foolish about the reality of the spiritual world. That's the first half of the second star.
However, if you will be addressing supernatural powers of evil you must put God in the picture as well, and in his true light - the Almighty Ruler who reigns over evil and the devil through the Name of His Son and the work of His ministers. Not in this flick.
Instead the whole story is told from a perspective that misrepresents the New Testament treatment of unclean spirits and the devil. Evil wins in the end; the deliverance ministry (the exorcism) contains a lot of relevant aspects of the ways this prayer is done, and how demons behave, but contains also a lot of misrepresentations. Was this the director's take on the Catholic church or just simply he did not know there was a better way -- that will remain a secret.
The acting is believable, that's the other half of the second star.
I will quote David Wilkerson, a preacher who wrote in a book of his in 1973, the year this sorry production was released: "The movie The Exorcist was an attempt of satanic forces to ridicule and humiliate everything related to the blood of Christ." He got that right. So watch it and fill yourself with fear and demonic deception (as if it is lacking from the rest of today's brainless entertainment).
This movie is totally captivating. I had been so used to the rather cliché evangelistic films that when I watched it for the first time I had not put my expectations too high. But once you start watching it you simply can't get your eyes off the screen. This is Christian art at its best. The Scriptures do come alive as you follow the story. Jesus is real in this film, and so are all the other characters. This depiction of Jesus may be the closest to expressing the rich and glorious Person that He is. The depth of the Lord's emotion, commitment, wisdom, generosity, bravery, submission and love, as well as His teaching and ministry come across so clearly that there can be no doubt that this is Jesus Christ, the Lord.
This film will shake you to the core. I was impressed with the debates Jesus had with the Jews. He was displaying deep human emotion yet His authority as the Son of God ministering to people did come through very clearly as well. They reached the perfect balance to show the Son of Man as the Son of God. You cannot but see the love of God in "The Gospel of John."
Of course, Mel Gibson's "The Passion" has to be taken into account, as one of the top films on the subject, too. Yet, "The Passion" focuses only on the hours before and after Jesus' crucifixion, while this one goes through the whole Gospel of John.
I can see the Holy Spirit's hand all over this production. May God bless the director, actors, producers and the whole crew for putting their talent and work to retell the greatest story of all time in a way that is faithful to the Word and worth watching over and over.
Over the top cursing, drug abuse, dirty talk, dirty act, lying, cheating people out of their money, homosexual and regular orgies, sexual masochism, public masturbation, drunkenness, over 700 profanities and blasphemy; adultery, child endangerment, reckless driving, incest, international money laundering, low level bribery, prostitution and occasional fleeting tender or dramatic moment. A scumbag's rise and fall and return to despicable life of greed, conceit and moral void. Scorsese and DiCaprio revel with the revelers in this flick to show...actually for an unknown reason. There is no moral reference point in the film, rather a neutral excitement about the cunning of the main character. There is not one good or sympathetic person depicted in this film. All are scumbags with no hope or desire for any form of redemption, remorse or a lasting human feeling. Very dark and depressing movie; actually misanthropic. The macabre disregard of any value is well hidden behind dark or foul humor and a blur of debauchery, crime and excessive luxury.
The one thing that maybe deserves attention is the depiction of Belfort as a magnetic and captivating speaker, a preacher of mammon. He seemed to me more of a cult leader than a con man and a trader.
Whoever made this movie hates man with a fiendish craftiness. Also evident in the very last scene.
(Note: There are two very slight "spoilers" herein but not at all able to spoil your enjoyment of the film, maybe just the opposite).
I just don't get it why in the IMDb.com quotes from the movie they missed the best one:
CAPTAIN to Pirate: "Kenny, what do we have in the safe?...Thirty thousand dollars? ... In the safe we have thirty thousand dollars. It's yours."
PIRATE: "Thirty thousand dollars? What am I? Do I look like a beggar?!"
When you watch the movie you will know why this is the best quote.
In summary: they rarely make movies of quality like this anymore. Fast paced, well acted (impressive work by the Somali actors!), good camera work, no unnecessary F-words, not one.
It is over two hours but you will not notice how the time has passed. This is not some cheesy Hollywoodish made up hostage movie. It is based on a true story. The film is impartial, yet kind, in telling a story where one can even feel empathy for the pirates, the human side of their misery bringing misery to others by attacking ships and their crews. Yet, not for a second the over-the-top, annoying preachy leftism, so typical for Hollywood flicks.
Another question that I kept not finding an answer to was why are these crews unarmed when they cruise in such dangerous waters? Could not come up with any really reasonable answer.
Highly recommend it. You will not be sorry to have watched this movie.
Yet another feminist propaganda film. The women are clearly posed against the men by the script. They are portrayed innocent fun loving "girls", in their 30s though, who are out in the boonies for a sentimental getaway. Sentimental in the lesbian meaning of the word, too.
The men they meet in the bush are Afghan vets just back from the field. Dishonorable discharge. That should be the trick to show us the vets are the bad guys. Weirdly I thought the vets were the good guys who got cheated by the screen writer into losing the stand off. The ladies were quite unsympathetic as characters to begin with. One of them played one of the guys, her distant high school acquaintance, into a sexual foreplay then killed him in a described self-defense against being raped.
The vulgar-mouthed women had to fight the enraged soldiers. Thoroughly unrealistic that these city girls would overwhelm the seasoned soldiers. The scene with the nudity was supposed to depict not female vulnerability but female power. Oh, the awakening of sisterhood resolve! Wow. Then the holding of hands before attacking the last man standing was meant to move us to tears. Cheesy. Then the cussing heroines cut the throat of the poor vet.
I guess Black Rock plays well into the relentless cultural propaganda (of the last three decades actually) that women are good and men are evil. But women are strong and they will fight back. They will prevail. Onward to the gender class struggle. The reason for such view of mine is the fact that the three women and men were purposefully striped of any normal ties people usually have in this world - family. These two groups were MEANT to be as expendable as possible, without parents, wives or children, so they can fit the woman vs. man class struggle agenda, depicted as a violent encounter in the movie.
The question this film left me with was, Who cares?
I gladly give it a 10 star rating. It amazes me how many reviewers would get offended at the fact that the movie mentions God and Jesus, of course not as curse words, but while conveying a deep and true spiritual message.
These folks, most likely would have no problem with zombies, vampires, all sorts of stupid Hollywood inventions of sick minds, yet when the truth is placed in a feature film context they can't stomach it.
Even if there were some goofs - like the broken cell phone worked again, the gun salesman knew the main character's phone number, and the disappointing ending with "to be continued..." I still give this feature 10 stars. To those who say this is "Christian propaganda" we should inform them that they are no less brainwashed by the devil's propaganda and the Hollywood hogwash and pure anti-Christian propaganda.
The Hollywood features about homosexual relationships, for example, are nothing less than pro-homosexual propaganda. Tons of preachy Hollywood flicks are nothing less that HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED leftist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and pro-feminist propaganda. And of course, all the F-bombs have so polluted the minds of the above mentioned viewers that a film without curse words is seen as unworthy.
So if you watched this movie be sure that it has most likely made a dent in your prejudices about God and Christ. That's why you're angry at it.
Finally, the makers of the film have the right to approach it and express themselves the way they want. IF all others can put on screen all forms of perversion it is a bit hypocritical to cry wolf when a movie puts out a wholesome theme; and the truth about God causes all the zombie-fans to have a conniption attack.
Bottom line: Get over it, and watch part 2. You may get saved.
In his previous film "Inglorious Basterds" Tarantino presents two worthy scenes - the one with the Nazi officer in the French farmer's house, and the one in the bar where the British and American spies are in German uniforms talking to a suspicious SS German officer and a shootout follows.
In the first mentioned scene the Nazi officer explains how one has to think like a rat in order to find "rats." The offensive reference is to Jewish families trying to escape Nazi extermination (whom the Nazi officer chases in the movie).
In that scene the Nazi officer, maybe inadvertently, describes himself as a rat, trying to play wise guy. So does Tarantino.
"Django" is actually proof that Tarantino is a talented Hollywood "rat" that feeds on popular trends packaged in politically correct radicalism. The mixture is gratuitous violence, popular concepts of "just revenge" and butchering of history and the importance of historical fact. Jews killing Nazis in "Inglorious..." Black man killing whites in "Django..." Tarantino is a torture-porn specialist, hiding behind badly disguised ridicule of the magnitude of human suffering in historical dramas like the Holocaust or the issue of slavery in America. One just has to remember his "Hostel" achievements and it all comes home.
The Tarantinonites can knock themselves out with Django - another trashy movie with a spice of genius in it, to excite the perverted tastes of Hollywood. Evil genius. That smells like a rat to me.
This on screen interpretation of Daniel Defoe's masterpiece is a mockery of the original. As typical of mainstream movie-making - the anti-Christian propaganda is badly veiled in artistic deviations from the book. Robinson's religious feelings are exaggerated and overblown. The pagan religion of Friday is presented as wiser and calmer. One cannot but sympathize with the wisdom and maturity of the cannibal. In the original Friday becomes a Christian and leaves the island with Robinson. Here Friday converts (almost) Robinson to the bliss of multiculturalism and diversity. In the book Friday lives, here he dies.
Otherwise the acting is good and believable - Brosnan and the man acting as Friday deliver. However, the ideological agenda of the Hollywood of the late 1990s spoils the fun.
Sick, disgusting and chaotic hellish nightmare. Mediocre too.
As I endured the abysmal film, I was wondering about all the effort and time and money invested into this piece of ... what shall I say...!? I wonder what was the "creative" process like for writers, directors, the poor actors and all the extras? What were they thinking as they took part in this grand mockery of a product of human creativity? They spent 30 mil on the stupid flick?
I reached the following conclusion: to be part of the making of this...let's call it a "horror flick"...one must be sick or insane. Or you can be part of it and then have deep trouble with you conscience, and your sleep.
Here is the spoiler: Sigourney Weaver has a minor part in it. But gets an ax in the head. The alien finally won.
I feel sorry for all the wretched souls who took part in this pornography and torture display of the derision of the human essence.
The flick is a hellish nightmare made to have people pay to be visually and emotionally tortured by it. Disgusting. Obviously the devil made them do it it.
Excellent and disturbingly honest depiction of the Soviet devastation of the soul
Gruz 200 is one of the most profound insights into the horror which the Soviet atheist and murderous era has delivered upon the Russian people and many other nations.
Balabanov shows this through an every-day human drama which seems to develop in very non-dramatic way. But while you think you're watching a boring movie about Russian daily comings and goings of some boring people, you don't realize you're drawn into a penetrating story, a drama of much greater magnitude and meaning. The film is so thick with emotion, and blunt about the senselessness of life under communism, this great and beastly utopia, that when you are into it you are taking it in as if it were a nail-biting thriller.
This is a true horror story. It is based on true events.
You will be haunted and may not be able to sleep well after you watch it. Dumb zombie movies will seem like a stupid Hollywood scary feast of fake blood and guts compared to Gruz 200. There is no blood in this movie though, at least not in any gratuitous way.
The viewer would appreciate the optimistic ending. I would not call it a "happy ending."
Balabanov's genius is in his honesty. One who knows communism, its deceitfulness, its godlessness and the tremendous hatred for normalcy and honesty will appreciate this aspect of the director's approach.
I highly recommended this movie. Balabanov is a master story-teller, as one other reviewer appropriately noted - he is "heavy- handed" but his madness has a method. And that method delivers an unforgettable message, so does the cast.
I do not think I will be exaggerating, (basing my opinion on this and one more film of his) if I say that Balabanov may be compared to the great dissidents and authors that his nation has born from within their history laden with tyranny, cruelty and tragedy. He is presenting a picture which is so haunting because it is exposing the real face of a hateful and evil regime; therefore his message is optimistic and liberating.
Disgusting flick, cannot be watched without feeling nauseated. Waste of money, time, and brain-cells. Despicable human beings doing despicable acts on others. Low life entertainment - there is no plot or sense in this movie. The worst part is that it is pretentious enough to pose as a real film.
It is hard to decide what is more torturous -- the gratuitous and pornographic depictions of torture, or the consciousness that you are sitting and watching such a grotesque depictions of low human behavior. The motivation of the killers make no sense. No idea why they turn out to be seemingly nice guys but in fact they are serial killers.
The only interesting thing is the twist at the end. But it is also quite predictable -- it is the same as in all the horror flicks which emanate and glorify evil.
Full frontal male nudity -- a bonus feature in this sadistic piece of... Writing this review is to warn other viewers, otherwise it is not worth my time. Make sure you FF otherwise your time will be fully wasted. I did that but I still feel violated by the scenes I had to endure while skipping. Two thumbs down for the director, writer and the poor cast.
This film was slow, long and weird. If you have time to waste you might want to be fed a complex story, so complex that it becomes too wearisome to follow. The pace is so slow that you can be put to sleep easily. The story-telling was such that only if you were not bored enough to watch to the end would understand why things were the way they were. And then you would scratch your had: so what? To put it plainly one could not follow the story and sympathize with the characters enough to make watching this movie worthwhile.
The lesbian "husband and wife" couple topped the picture. I must say the only thing that was good and kept the film together was the acting. It was good all throughout.
Still the movie makers put some money and work into it so out of respect for their effort I give it 3 stars. But they might want to consider checking out other careers as well.
Great film. The plot makes sense, the dialog is real and funny, the characters are believable even though their exploits are not. Isn't this a good recipe for a two-hour action entertainment?
The stunts are amazing especially the one of Tom Cruise cruising along the glass windows of the tallest building in the world. There are some really funny lines and when hit the characters actually hurt (unlike Angelina Jolie movies where she is wounded but remains unscathed even when hundreds of elite forces attack her). Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is over two hours of action that will keep you at the end of your seat, biting your nails.
If Tom Cruise was trying to compete with, let's say, the Bond franchise, his Ethan Hunt wins by far.
Funny, Cruise's Russian is better than the one of his Russian friend in the movie, acted by a Serbian actor.
This film reveals Polanski's vengeful artistic response to the US, for its pursuit of his sexual escapades with minors. The CIA is the vicious secret arm of the scary American political and judicial rule of the world and the individual. That's the message.
The movie is well made but is pure anti-American propaganda made in the countries which are to be US allies -- France, UK, and Germany.
This is what one can find on the internet about Polanski appetite for sex with minors:
"In 1977, after a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor.To avoid sentencing, Polanski fled to his home in London, and then moved on to France the following day. In September 2009, Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities who asked for his extradition. However, in July 2010, the Swiss rejected that request and instead released him from custody and declared him a "free man." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski
Since he cannot openly propagate the "evils" of the American justice system and society, which would be too obvious and too crude, he chose to make the CIA the puppeteer of sinister control over British political life.
This film is the well covered outburst of rage of a man who got caught and who remains unrepentant about his sexual predator instincts toward children. One star is too much for this propaganda piece. If the facts were not twisted in such a decadent and repulsive way -- makes for a good thriller.