CupPusta

Sokurov has definitely surpassed Herman's "It's Hard to Be a God". Definitely. (but not "Khrustalev, car" - well and that would be superfluous...) The use of VR and AI (in a way - because, it's not making Michael Jackson sing again, nor it's making ABBA young - but it's AI+VR to me) - was a brilliant solution. It merges feelings from "The Lord of the Rings" with those from Cocteau' "Testament of Orpheus". I would even add Murnau... So, it's dreamy, B&W, nonlogical, whimsical, fun - and with a second meaning... To boil all that in one charade - really takes a genius.

Putting Sokurov in one row not only with Herman, but Tarkovsky as well.

Enjoyable experince.

Teaching history, they say. Well, honestly, better watch Death of Stalin, once again. Recent usual movies (and this one is no exclusion in it usualness, unless you came to enjoy colorful (CGI/staged) view, some familiar actors' faces (being a fan gets no ban)) tend to be a package of professional work of the team - but, lacking the real deep drama, even with all that background music - they are neither a history taught, nor candidates for globes, palms or oscars. They are just technically well performed. Ah, not even a match to The Living Daylights (if you remember that one). So, if you have nothing else to do - go and watch it - doesn't shake your emotions, so you'll be safe to go home afterwards (instead of walking all night in a park, deep in your thoughts of life etc). So, 3 stars (for music, some familiar faces... and for Hotel Vitaly, naturally).

No plan is the (best) plan. No position is final. Every life is there to improvise, when the chance is. No fixed values, don't fool yourself. No fixed position (though, society place their limits - or gives opportunities) - it all can change unexpectedly at any given moment. No main roles - each life is a role in itself. So - what's the value? Well, whatever conservative it may sound (especially for a motion-picture like this one) - family values. That's your opportunities, your backup - add some lottery and improvisation - life depicted. Lot of points to the story told (and how), and to actors' play. Lots of points to all the different prospectives - as you see the unrolling event from all the eyes of all the engaged persons (it is a value that many of today RPG have - you can play as any of persons involved - and see from their point of view - and feel their values). I wouldn't call it a drama, neither a "social comedy" though. It isn't a detective story either. It's a very talented director's work, play-writer's as well (ah, he's the same one...). It's an amazing cast. And it's more than fairly valued/rewarded - with the "golden palm" and a lot of "oscars" (despite critics' grumble - what so many "oscars" given for...). That one surely goes into a world cinematic library - to be a modern classic.

An all-American space... Good; most probably, America was (finally) made great again, by an oldish (present day) Potus. Speaking of oldish, the movie is a parade of them all. Yes, in reality there is Musk at Boca-Chica, the full movie-hall of younger auditorium (at Saturday evening show-time) and a parade of "well-matured" stars on the screen. Since GRAVITY there was only GRAVITY. Yeah, the mentioned was also a technical "fun", but closer to reality and with a broader international view (well, yet again, after a decade, look at the present world (we're almost at war everywhere), so international is not the word now). Lengthy drama of a father-son relation (not so dramatic though, Brad should have used more onions), and a technical ha-ha, ha-ha and ha-ha. Therefore, "6" stars (to the stars... and the Stars). Should you watch it on Saturday afternoon? Firm YES; why not, still better than to watch nothing.

Whatever Mr.Bondarchuk was unable to perform in "War & Peace" (directed by him some years earlier - mainly because Leo Tolstoy's work was not about battles, but about life and its ideas and emotions), he has done at large in this piece. Battle is shown with an utmost gusto and scale... But, that's what you expect from that type of a movie - and that was achieved and done here. Napoleon's character fall out as a too bleak one, but, 100 days were a 100 days - a whole revival passed in front of one's eyes like a supersonic bullet. And that idea is mastered by film creators on a highest professional level. Still, I could not help myself from arriving periodic thought - I've seen this in "war & Peace", and I've seen that also, an that... But, the main theme is Waterloo Battle - and the Battle is shown like nowhere else. Add to this a handful of strong, picturesque and colorful characters, played very well, scale and views, shot like nowhere else - and you will definitely enjoy those couple of hours (forgetting they were shot in 1970...). Good work. I'll put it in a same row with present time "Dunkerque".

Well, in 60s there were spaghetti westerns a-plenty. Now, you have kebab action movies. Nothing new, but well done/played on that budget, plus good actors and a pair of stars. The rest is cooking. But the result is quite dynamic and watchable, I should admit. So, why not. Action is action, and that's what this film is.

If present official Russian teachings place country's great (military) victories into a foundation stone of this state - then this biopic is not for you. Count Leo Tolstoy (born aristocrat, former officer and gambler, but in his mature years one of worlds' greatest humanitarian) wrote several stories depicting the Great Empire's reality. In this reality, if you have to survive, you better turn into a shrewed bureaucrat (or a low rank cheater) - and let all your youth ideals go. Russian Empire is the state to die for - and it feasts on deaths to survive. Faults are covered, or blamed on lower class, (apparently faulted) victimized individuals whose life cost nothing laid into unmarked graves and over our borders are our enemies only - all those values are seen in later days as well (compare with those of Stalin, or from present time). Authors show us a mirror to see us present through our past. Widows, corruption - who cares... As long as our victories are with us, and Czar (the Father) is well and alive in his grandiose - the country stays. Take all that away - what will be left of it?...

This movie has a soul. One could write about Soviet (harsh) realities, but I won't. I was surprised, when an elderly pair (looked like 70+) arrived to watch the film - even some of 50+ Russian folks would criticize what is shown (but I hope they have their right not to watch it). For a younger people, this will be a good example to have a glimpse on Soviet life of 1980s. Takes a very talented director to make the actors act like this. I've got several recalls of "Assa" (one of the best movies of late 1980s), but this has got its own charms. So, I definitely recommend this one to watch. At least, for the memory of those, whom we loved.

The 1979 TV series were truly great. Not this one, however. What forces are pushing Mr Oldman up, I wonder... I thought he's absolute bottom is in Churchill; but no, Smiley in the 2011 movie is even more down. Who's great in a 2011 thing, is certainly John Hurt. That's a role, that's an acing! Others, I'd rather get dismissed, and replaced by ordinary street folks - still would be better. So, viewing not recommended, unless you're a primitive stupid yourself (pardon me! couldn't help). A one big NO-NO. Go and watch a 1979 product - it's better, professional, non-boring, good acting... and there's no Mr Oldman there.

Every happy family is same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in their own way. "Chekhov with a plus+", said my wife upon watching. You may be told that the director made a 'whoknowswhat' and reason is simple: the film is weak. Don't believe those critics. From feelings of contradiction or just because of justice, I will argue. This film is about simple, in what not outstanding people who too are able both to suffer, and to loivee, and to die, and to kill. Each of them cherishes a personal tiny dream; alas, there is no dream that does not contradict a relative and would not stand in someones' way. I wouldn't say who's part was best played among the actors. I close my eyes and see a real aging dad from the slums in Belushi, a real sweetie in Temple, and a real lady Macbeth in Winslet. A hell of a good acting! And a very juicy and tasty film to see. Movie operator turned Coney Island in a real Oz country, he plays in the stylized 1950s, pretends to be a traditional bore, and then suddenly bomb you with a shot from which you can not come to your senses. And a very said life story.

"The Death of Stalin," was like the "Khrustalev, get the car" by Alexey German. It's shot in the same manner. Comic-book, by the way, depicts the events tougher, but in general, the authors of the film managed to save more or less the same graphics and dynamics. It is clear why the official film is not up to the official authority - behind any showy greatness there are always small selfish intrigues, stupidity and fear - and, it does not rhyme with building the same showy greatness today, moreover, it hints at the same shameful outcome.

I won't talk about life lessons. Money is a risky thing. Big money, earned by putting in a (smaller) big money by making it rotate for your benefit - it's a visible clear risk. Like betting or gambling. So, if there are folks to "put in", there's always a nice guy to "take". Ponzi, of pyramid, or whatever one would call it, is a civilization lifelong issue. You want to believe, go on. OK, enough with moralizing. Acting is very good, oh, it's very-very good. Yes, am an admirer of RDN since God knows when, but the rest of the cast is a cast iron in themselves. Despite goofs etc, it's a tasty thing to watch. Like other tasty things, none of which last forever. Highly enjoyed it. Life's life. P.S.: then, why 8 out of 10?.. to take 2 out for moralizing; in the end, it's a real cost of (any) moralizing. Non, je ne regrette rien.

Yes, he was volatile and shaky, a contrary to his father. Yes, she was a capricious ambitious heart-breaker. And he (yet quite unprepared and not entirely grown-up) is going to be crowned. And he has to get royally married. A vaudeville story, on one side. But, Russian drama unfolds, even through a vaudeville. A character to make historic mistakes, unknowingly leading not only his life, but life of his family, the country, to a tragic end. A 300 years old Russian Empire fairy-tale to end in modern era. Who knows, if Nicholas would abdicate, and marry Mathilde, maybe history will be turned into a completely different direction... Director has brilliantly showed it; done by amazingly good casted characters (quite impressing is the role of Alexander the Third). And, it's a very nicely and colorfully shot movie. To me, it was a Saturday evening well spent - that's just a right story to enjoy on weekend.

Asphalt paved street. Modern windows. Modern housing on embankment. (Mostly) modern naval ships. Erghh... I told to myself on the first 15 minutes of the movie. With such a budget Mr.Nolan could do better - my thought continued. And then... it all came to me. 1st. It ain't your another war re-acting movie. It's not about that. It's not about armies moved like chess on the boards. No. 2nd. Read some history, give some thought. What d'you see at this spot of time? A change of an epoch. Fallen France, who's major ally, British Empire sends expedition troops to (conquer? stop?) a perfect German modern war machine. It's only Britain now. Nobody else. USSR is still busy dividing Poland and Baltic with Germany. US still have to live through Pearl Harbor disaster to get them into a major war. And UK is aching. Once grand Empire faces now a clear potential Channel dash - and a fight on the Isles themselves. 3rd. A demoralized army group. Yes, they're keeping perfect rows on the beach (very handy for bombing...). But, when it comes to man-to-man, it comes to 'you go, I survive (or I go, you survive, no other alternative). They are moved out, their evacuation ships are sunk, they are moved in again. It's fate. The feeling of fatality runs through 80 pct of the movie. 4th. The army has to be saved. Compulsory. Necessarily. Absolutely. Otherwise, who'll fight when it comes on the English shores?... And here, the 'British' idea unravels to its fullness. You don't save the Army only (though, saving such a number of man is an exceptional retreat operation). It's the Spirit. Spirit, being shown by the people, when the time is at "if not me (us), than who else?!". Those chaps on the beach HAVE to be saved. Even shattered and battered - but in the oncoming years of war to go, they will be a core - as we say in Russia, "a one beaten man costs as two unbeaten". ... And that was brilliantly shown by the movie creators. Through each individual eyes. Through simultaneous events - at sea, on shore, and in the air. The history is about survival. Or extinction. An historic achievement, on the way. When nothing else is viable - you have a moral to keep you going. VERDICT: a brilliant story about the moral. Dramatic. Personal. Painful. And true. ... PS. I praise all acting by all actors in this movie. It's pointless to discuss, who's 'britishness' is more here... But, Mark Rylance, in telling the essence of "There's no hiding from this, son,... We've got a job to do" - that goes deep into your mind. So damn well played!

Well, everybody fuss about the new star... My stepdaughter, getting her baccalaureate in theater critics couple of days ago, was appraising the author, and convinced me to watch this. In 2008, when the film was released, I've heard the name, but it passed me; so I thought, this time I'll definitely watch it. To be true, I've could well be done without. Recalling Guy Ritchie,s films, I've at least laughed watching them. This one left me absolutely idle. I am becoming old, perhaps. But tiny surface emotions don't touch, even with great dose of Irishness, brilliant actors and a lot of senseless shooting, "strong bloody violence, pervasive language and some drug use"... Rated this with a "2" just because of some compassion, though could put a rightful "1" mark.

I wasn't a real fan of Old Testament. Because I was born in Soviet times, and because I'm generally a sceptic. Not till the day I've seen this movie. Not only an epic, though scale of several scenes makes it, and it is of same value as "World & Peace" - i.e. utterly convincing. Though, acting of main characters could be a more deeper one - but this demands for a true believer, which a modern person could not be such... Still, I think it's a best piece representing Moses so far. One that I'd recommend to be used as a teaching material as well, throughout a civilized world. Many thanx to Ridley Scott and the crew. Simply wonderful.

Just returned from "Captain Phillips" movie (now on screens in Russia). A dramatic event. And, a certain truth of life; quite different as viewed from main character's side and from that of his antagonists. During last scenes barely sustained a blocked throat and tears that were ready to leak out... Although, the event in itself is of a usual kind, for certain geographic locations - and that's the truth of life. It just goes ordinarily like this - and even a good portion of US fleet is not a 'remedy' - it settles a single event, but does not change the overall trend. So, the general issue is still to overcome... Would recommend for watching, a great emotional experience.