Reviews

Romantic comedy, melodrama. The author of this review intended to watch this picture in a cinema (fortunately, there was a rental in Russia, and even from March 8), but there was only one cinema, and the sessions were too late, so I had to abandon this idea, but the name was taken "on a pencil". And now he got to it - and was extremely disappointed from watching it. Apparently there is a God who looks after the author of this review, and does not allow him to spend money on an unworthy movie. And here is a brief opinion - A sad romcom from a famous director of historical cinema. In addition to the minuses, there were also several advantages in the picture, which are also worth noting. And this concludes the much-needed introduction and proceeds to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. Director - the famous Indian director Shekhar Kapoor shot the picture, who staged such good historical paintings as the dilogy about Elizabeth Henrikhovna Tudor ("Elizabeth" and "The Golden Age") and another good historical drama "Four Feathers". These are his most famous works, and it was the director's name that prompted the author of this review to watch his new work, especially since Kapoor has never shot romcoms. Well, the first pancake is lumpy. He does not know how to shoot paintings of this genre. The experiment turned out to be unsuccessful. Here he succeeds in historical paintings.

2. References to good romcoms and melodramas - the creators obviously watched them (as did most viewers), so these references are understandable. Here is the advice of the author of this review - it is better to review the listed romcoms instead.

So, the disadvantages: 1. The script is a banal cliche that we have all seen in such films as "Real Love", "Bridget Jones's Diary", "With Love, Rosie" and so on. But do you know what made the banal cliche of the script in the above pictures work? The characters are correct. They were shown by real people who are close and understandable to all viewers. These characters have both advantages and disadvantages, they showed emotions on the screen and turned on their heads, did crazy things for the sake of their loved ones. The actors themselves showed this very love on the screen. All of this is not in today's picture. We were just shown an interracial union between an Englishwoman and a Pakistani. That is all. There is nothing but platitudes here. The ending is empty and guessable. There are not even any crazy actions here, and there is no point in talking about the chase. Even there is no "spark" between the actors, which must necessarily be there.

2. The actors do not play - except Emma Thompson (this is her best work, after the terrible in every possible sense "Cruella"). Lily James, Shazad Latif and others don't try at all. It seems to show relationships in different families, but there is a certain distance between them. They don't even have anything to say to each other. Can you imagine such a family? It's hard to believe. It is clear that the actors are just working off the fee, no more.

3. There is no atmosphere - the author of the review is not talking about filming in Lahore (Pakistan) and London, he is talking about well-chosen music, famous compositions, serious dramatic scenes (there are only two good ones for the whole picture, and everything in them rests on the characters of the second and third plans), the sadness of the main characters from longing for each other. Yes, these are also cliches, but they work if the cliche is used correctly (this is not observed here). Thus, the creators themselves brought down their romcom without creating a stable pillar on which this genre is based.

It turns out that there is really nothing to say about this picture. She's dull, she's boring, she doesn't cling to her characters. It is remembered only for its Pakistani flavor (which arouses suspicion, since the director is Indian, and you yourself know the extremely strained relations between these countries and peoples, remember three wars and many deadly incidents). But for the layman, the Pakistani flavor may be interesting.

The author of this review does not recommend this romcom for viewing, given that in this genre there are much more worthy pictures to watch. Shekhar Kapoor did not make a name for himself in this painting. This is an unequivocal failure for him.

Rating 5 out of 10!

An excellent Soviet military adventure film about the confrontation between Soviet sailors and a fascist submarine, which sinks all spotted ships without a flag on the eve of the Great Patriotic War. The difference in the mentality of Russian and German sailors is perfectly shown, the actors play just great. The tense confrontation between the Soviet and German captains was perfectly demonstrated. Ours won, but they deserved to win. Of course, the film is not without certain drawbacks, but this does not affect the overall result. Honor and glory to the Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet!

A score of 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!

Romantic comedy, melodrama. The film adaptation of the novel by the Irish writer Cecilia Ahern "Where the rainbow ends". And since the author of this review has not read the original book source, therefore, the film adaptation will be evaluated as an independent work. It will be hard to believe, but the author of this review has wanted to see this picture for more than seven years. Yes! And this happens in life, but up to this point it has not been possible to do it in any way. But the forced wait was worth it, and the viewing was a complete delight. The author of this review has not seen such a high-quality romantic comedy and melodrama for a long time. And here is a brief opinion - A high-quality, albeit passing, English romantic comedy. Despite the extremely good impressions (and mood), the author will indicate not only the advantages of this picture (which are absolutely deserved), but also the disadvantages (which can be considered rather quibbles in this case, since nothing is perfect). Therefore, let's finish with an emotional introduction (as it said: "Girls, I'm in shock"), and move on to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. The script - the picture tells us the story of Rosie Dunn and Alex Stewart, childhood friends who love each other, but do not dare to admit it, at the last moment unable to pronounce the right words. Life will shake both Rosie and Alex. They are waiting for casual relationships, unwanted pregnancies, pain and loss, new friends. But over the years, they have been inextricably attracted to each other. After all, there is not just love between them, it is a connection that only these two people understand. They feel it like no one else. There will be quarrels and reconciliations, and there will be a grand finale that will make you cry and therefore prepare a handkerchief before viewing, otherwise you will have to look for it at the most inopportune moment. The characters are spelled out well, they are shown as real people who can be empathized with, while they are not perfect, but they are so similar to the people that surround us (sometimes suspiciously similar). I am glad that there are no unnecessary scenes and stretched moments. The story has its end, and it is not a sin to revise it if desired.

2. The romantic line between Rosie and Alex - without the "spark" between the main characters, there would be no success of this picture. Lily Collins and Sam Claflin did their best here. They didn't just play love, they lived it on the screen. Yes, this may not be the best screen couple in the history of world cinema, but definitely not the worst. The actors did their best here. At the same time, this picture (like almost all romcoms) does not slide into "vanilla snot", but shows life as it is, with its unpredictable twists, unexpected finds and dreams that collide with this very life, and that all this sometimes leads to the most interesting results. Yes, the ending is classic for romcoms, but that's exactly what we expect from paintings of this genre. Once again, it is worth praising Lily Collins and Sam Claflin for playing love on screen.

3. Humor - there is a little bit of it here, and in this case this is the case from the category "it's good that a little bit", because all the jokes here shoot one hundred percent. One joke with a call from a frightened Rosie to Alex is worth something (who watched it will understand, in the opinion of the author of this review - the best joke in the whole picture). There were two or three more, and they worked perfectly on the image of the main characters and the atmosphere itself.

So, the cons: 1. Some physiological details - more precisely, one detail that was shown in close-up, and it was absolutely unnecessary. Modern cinema sins like this (which is why it is simply impossible to watch most of the current romcoms). There is only one moment, and it is a little unpleasant. At the same time, the author of this review does not scold the fact that the characters utter "bad" words, because it is spoken by young people and this is a romcom about life.

2. Puncturing an unpleasant character is so stupid and stupid that you are amazed. Maybe it moved the story in the right direction in the book, and in the film adaptation it also works, but it's too much to "burn" like that. The author agrees that this quibble is far-fetched, but nevertheless could not fail to mention it.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Rosie Dunn, played by Lily Collins, is a beautiful black-haired girl who dreams of becoming the head of her hotel. Alex's best friend, whom he understands like no one else. She made a lot of mistakes, but remained a dreamy girl who really misses Alex. Lily Collins was pleased here, but before that, the author of this review had only seen her in the comedy "Snow White: Revenge of the Dwarves", and here is a serious role. Clever Lily! Good girl!

2. Alex Stewart, played by Sam Claflin, is Rosie's best friend, for whom he has romantic feelings, and from the lack of communication with her he hits into all sorts of novels and relationships in order to drown out the pain of an empty heart. He also messed up a lot of firewood, and more than once wounded Rosie with words, for which he punished himself. Sam has "eaten a dog" in such roles, so this is a typical role for him (one picture "See you Later" is worth something, and "With love, Rosie" came out earlier, and he is already good here), so it remains only to praise Sam for the work done. Well done!

This picture will charge you with good emotions and give you an incentive to realize your dreams. This is a good movie that serves not just to brighten up the evening in the company of a loved one (or alone, if that happens), this movie gives guidance in life and does not forget about a couple of life lessons. Perhaps the author of this review got too emotional from watching this picture (or overdosed on "women's" films too much and now his head began to work differently), but he highly recommends watching it. And for the atmosphere, he advises you to watch it in the original in English with Russian subtitles. Moreover, the author overestimated the assessment due to the fact that this picture touched him to the quick, so it turned out that way.

A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!

An adventure, a historical drama. A direct continuation of the first film called "The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan", a review of which has already been made in the premiere month of the release of this movie on the wide screen in Russia. The second part was also planned to be rented in our great and vast, but did not take place, although the author of this review was extremely interested in watching the second part, where all the goodies were planned. And now, after watching, the author of the review comes to the conclusion - well, it's good that the second part was not released in Russia, because it would be extremely insulting to pay money for such a thing (even two hundred rubles). The second part was even more disappointing than the first. And here's a brief opinion for you - A shoddy conclusion to a Dumas-based dilogy. Despite the negative emotions after watching, the author of this review (in view of fairness) will tell you not only about the disadvantages (which are enough here), but also about the few advantages (which were found). This should conclude such an important introduction, and proceed to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. The atmosphere - as in the first part, it is good. France is on the verge of a new religious war. The kingdom is bursting at the seams, if the king and all patriotic forces do not restore order in the country and solve the problem with the Huguenots (first of all, by taking their main stronghold - the fortress and port of La Rochelle, and secondly by defeating the Huguenot movement), then France is threatened by the continuation of religious wars. This is being closely watched by England (represented by its first minister, the Duke of Buckingham), which is ready to intervene on the side of the Huguenots at any moment, which threatens a new hundred years' war between England and France. There are conspiracies everywhere, it is unclear who is a friend and who is an enemy, families are divided along religious lines. And four brave Musketeers live and serve in this mess. Guillaume Roussel's music (as in the first part) works great for the atmosphere. Not to mention the excellent scenery (obviously filmed in France). It is impossible to blame the creators for this.

2. Fights and battles - their staging pleases the eye, it is a pity that there is little blood, and they fence according to the rules of the nineteenth century (which of course was not the case in the first half of the seventeenth century). There is also a dynamic here, although no enchanting tricks have been noticed. Some episodes of the siege of La Rochelle pleased (although the arrival of the British squadron right under the walls of La Rochelle is a pure myth, since the British fought on the island of Re, where they were beaten by the French, after which they retreated, they did not reach La Rochelle). There are more similar scenes in this part, so the picture does not look as boring as the first one.

So, the cons: 1. The script - as in the first part, it is bad, only here everything became even worse, since only the names of the characters and a certain line of confrontation between the Musketeers and Richelieu remained from the book source of Alexandre Dumas, but here everything became even worse, because the creators decided to mix the real and extremely interesting history of France, namely the end of the religious warriors (which have plagued France for more than a century, preventing it from living and developing in peace) and the book story of Dumas - the result was deplorable. And the hint of a sequel in the finale is a spit in the soul of fans of the book. In general, the existence of this dilogy is a mockery of them, because so many book characters have been removed, new and alien ones have been introduced. Yes, the creators have done a lot of things.

2. Problems with logic - the scriptwriters have gone so far aside that they have formed a whole bunch of logical holes where the script just sucks in. For example, fatal (especially at that time with that level of medicine) wounds that the characters safely withstand (like the Gascon from the beginning of the first part, who was hit in the heart, and then also in the side), guards and servants do not pay attention to the fact that their commanders or masters want to kill, the strange behavior of Athos when meeting My Lady. Yes, there are a lot of things here. It doesn't make sense to list everything, otherwise you can get stuck for a long time.

3. Costumes - almost everyone here walks like bums. Only Cardinal Richelieu, My Lady, Louis the Thirteenth and Queen Anne are not homeless. Neither the Musketeers nor the Cardinal's guards wear branded cloaks (which at that time were, like the "dapper" outfits that the Musketeers were required to wear, since they are the elite of the royal army), everyone wears a durugue, which was picked up from homeless people on the Paris pavement. Only Musketeers wear hats with huge parrot feathers (which was rare in those days, France was not yet conducting widespread colonization of new lands in the rest of the world). It looks extremely ridiculous.

4. The important Negro - yes, the old song is about the main thing. More negroes, more subpoena. I remember in the previous picture of this director called "Eiffel" there were no Negroes and colored people in general (for this the author of this review praised the director), and so the director decided to "correct himself" by adding a Negro, and not a simple Negro, but the "Prynets" from far Africa. I don't care that this character had a historical prototype (he lived sixty years before the events described), it's just that the fact itself is confusing - well, France did not lead a colonial policy yet, she was still dealing with the Huguenots at home, she was not up to colonization yet. Apparently, the creators of this dilogy decided to play along with the tolerant American public by introducing an important Negro into the script. This was not the case in the first part (because of this Negro, the final score decreased).

5. The Siege of La Rochelle - in the first part, we were teased that the siege would be large-scale and extremely important in the script, many viewers were waiting for it. The author of this review was already anticipating an excellent production, the battle for the island of Re, the battles in the bastions between the Huguenot troops and the army of the King of France, the construction of a dam, the intense attacks of the Huguenots from the fortress, the negotiations of the Huguenots with the Duke of Buckingham, the feat of two Frenchmen from the fort on the island of Re, and so on. And as a result, the siege is the backdrop for the scenario. They will show a couple of forts, the English fleet, the walls of La Rochelle themselves, and a diagram with figures of soldiers and cannons, and a sabotage of a detachment of the royal army. No one remembers about the bastion of Saint-Gervais. It's a shame, comrades, it's a shame to the extreme.

6. Acting - Constance was made a complete fool (although she was not one in the book), Richelieu is unclear what kind, and not a villain, but not a hero (in the book his image tends more to villainy, but in the name of France), My Lady (Eva Green, that says it all, she was my favorite an actress, but the role of Milady is not for her, she does not shine with guile here), Musketeers (faded shadows of book images, and actors play at random, of all only the Gascon tries and Athos, but he generally behaves strangely). The others here don't try at all. It hurts to look at this boredom.

The author of this review, as a person who read the book, was hurt to watch how French filmmakers ruined the great adventure novel by Dumas, his compatriot, by the way. Thank God, both parts of the dilogy failed miserably at the box office, and that's where they go. They perverted Dumas as much as possible. Shame and condemnation of this dilogy and all those who starred in it. The author of this review does not recommend this picture for viewing.

As for the whole dilogy, to watch or not, it is better to refrain, there are many paintings that are worthy of viewing, this dilogy is not one of them. If the first part was a dull gray, then the second was a complete disappointment.

Rating 4 out of 10!

A historical drama. After watching and reviewing such Russian patriotic paintings as "Thunder Gate" and "Breakthrough", fellow viewers advised to watch another series on a similar topic, which is called "I have the honor!"Moreover, he was highly praised by veterans of the Second Chechen War, which was still fresh in his memory at the time of filming the picture. And after watching this series, the author of this review can safely say that the series is not just worthy of watching, but is also one of the best works on this topic. I must honestly admit that the author of this review was so passionate about the script and emotions when watching it that he was overwhelmed that he could not highlight the disadvantages. Well, you can name one - budget, here all the effects and combat episodes are as intimate as possible and rather faded, especially against the background "Breakthrough" or "Thunder Gate". Therefore, the author of this review will focus in more detail on the advantages of this series.

So, here they are: 1. The scenario is the Second Chechen War. An honest, brave and noble Russian officer, paratrooper, Captain Sergei Chislov, is restoring order in Chechnya as part of a group of federal forces. He serves faithfully, honestly, but one case, because of which his group and he himself almost died due to the actions of a higher command, pisses him off, and he wants to leave the army by writing the appropriate paper. He is given a short vacation to St. Petersburg. And only there, after living for a few days in this glorious and majestic city, he will understand a lot and make the right decisions about his fate. In addition to the captain, the series will tell us several more stories of different characters, and from two sides, but it turned out better for the captain and senior lieutenant Pankevich. Four episodes fly by unnoticed, since almost all the characters are revealed and you can empathize with them, and wish our Russian guys and men to defeat Chechen terrorism and return home with victory (and so it happened). Plus, the series touches on the famous battle at height 776 (the sixth company of Pskov paratroopers against thousands of international Islamic terrorists, the paratroopers took an unequal battle and went into the sky forever). There are no sparkling dialogues here, but there are a lot of everyday situations. The series holds the bar high from start to finish.

Russian Russian Army 2. Allegories - Captain Chislov is not just the main character of the series, he also embodies a whole stratum of Russian officers who know what the "Motherland" is and love it selflessly, despite all the various bad things that happened (and are happening now) in the Russian state. It is thanks to such dedicated officers as Captain Chislov that we were able to win in Chechnya, we were able to win in Syria, and God willing, we will win in Novorossiya and Little Russia. It is by looking and learning from such officers that soldiers defeat any opponent. It is such officers who ensure the continuity of generations and do not allow the Russian army to sink to the bottom (although everything has happened in history).

3. Atmosphere - the series accurately reflects the realities of those years. Here you have betrayal, and the "capital roof" of terrorists, and business support, and interference in the internal affairs of Russia by "international observers", indifference or a complete lack of patriotism in Russian society (although patriots are shown, but there are not so many of them). This is also felt in Chechnya, where even the local population is not very happy about the presence of the Russian army, let alone the fact that the terrorists used local residents as informants. It's not worth talking about the brutality of terrorists and bandits (both mercenaries and Chechens), since the series focuses on this. Yes, there is a lot more here. If you list everything, then the review will turn out to be very long. Igor Kornelyuk's good music also works on the atmosphere.

4. Patriotism - the picture is saturated with love for Russia and full of hopes for the best (so far, alas, these hopes have not come true). When Russian boys died in the frame, no matter in battle or from vile enemy mines, it clicked in my heart, as it was in "Breakthrough" and "Thunder Gates", not to mention such a picture as "Purgatory". The characters in the series are Russian soldiers and officers, and those who support them and do not abandon them in difficult times. It is clear why this series is not shown on federal channels.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Captain Sergey Chislov, played by Alexander Lazarev Jr., is an honest and competent officer, whom soldiers love and respect very much, both in the army and in the "citizen" shows his best qualities. I immediately remember the wonderful Soviet film "Officers". So, Captain Chislov is a modern officer of the sample of the second Chechen war. He may say too much, but he will not leave the weak in trouble, and he will take the girl home, and punish the terrorists, and fulfill his duty. Alexander Lazarev Jr. Did his best here. This is his best role. Bravo!

2. Senior Lieutenant Lev Pankevich, performed by Alexander Frolov, is a combat starley who, with his fighters, "both into fire and into water," performs the combat task as efficiently as possible. Obviously, we are preparing to become a "second" Numerical, because we have a lot to learn from him. Alexander was very convincing. Well done!

3. Colonel Primakov, performed by Yuri Tsurilo, is a staff officer who issues tasks to the Chislov detachment. Unlike Yuri Tsurilo's other roles, where he mostly has hysterical generals, here he is shown to be an honest and fair commander who will fight to the last for his paratroopers, especially in front of his superiors. Bravo!

Sergei Astakhov is also remembered here in the role of Chislov's colleague.

It is worth repeating once again - it is extremely sad that people do not learn about such high-quality Russian TV series from federal TV, but only on the recommendation of grateful viewers and veterans of the second Chechen war, who praised the picture for its relative realism and reliability of events. The author of this review recommends this series for viewing!

Rating 8 out of 10!

A historical drama. When the author of this review found out about the release of this film, and even from Ridley Scott himself, he was delighted, especially since he loves the history of Napoleon and that time very much (maybe not his favorite historical era, but nevertheless). However, the first reviews were extremely negative (especially French ones), which was very alarming. Therefore, on the eve of the release of this film, two paintings "Napoleon" by Abel Hans and "Waterloo" were viewed Sergei Bondarchuk, in order to "plunge into the topic" and refresh his memory a little, and at the same time look at two different Napoleons from different eras. And after watching Ridley Scott's film film, the impressions are sharply negative. But the author of this review on "this" still wanted to go to the cinema, paying money for a ticket, but since this film was not rented in Russia, so I did not have to spend money (which is very pleasing), and I had to wait some time and take this film from a well-known source (after all, I did not pay To the Apple people for watching this movie on their service). And here is the brief opinion of the author of this review - A terrible in every sense and the most flawed picture about Napoleon. Despite the fact that the review will be full of analysis of the obvious shortcomings of this picture, attention should also be paid to the advantages (which are there, although there are few of them). And this should complete the introduction and move on to the analysis itself.

So, the advantages: 1. Costumes and decorations - what caused the least negative emotions in the author of this review were costumes and decorations. They were sewn expensively and quite richly (although not at all), but the uniforms look bright and distinguish the British and French, Austrians, Prussians and Russians. The latter are surprisingly few (but we'll talk about this below). Napoleon's imperial attire was especially well made. And the uniforms of the Austrian Emperor Franz II and the Russian Emperor Alexander the First are also nothing like that, they look good (although Alexander's uniform confuses with its arrangement of orders and ribbons). The scenery is also pleasing to the eye, although it is clear that everything was not filmed in France (unlike the painting by Abel Hans). But the graphics did a good job. It's nice to watch, at least Napoleon "carried" his uniforms, unlike some of the cast members.

2. Battle scenes - more precisely, not "battle scenes", but cuts of battles, of which there were only six (the Siege of Toulon in 1793, the Royalist rebellion in Paris in 1795, the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, the Battle of Borodino in 1812 and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815). They show blood, they show the horror of war, they show the war itself of that time, they showed especially well how guns shoot (although they hit painfully accurately and shoot painfully far, but these are trifles). Don't wait for details. More or less on a large scale and for a long time only Waterloo was shown, all the other battles - so, a bright advertisement for the long-released game "Napoleon Total War". But even these clippings were pleasant to watch (unlike everything else).

So, the disadvantages: 1. The script was written by a certain David Scarpa, who is practically unknown (then why was his name written on the main poster? It is unclear). So, the author of this review knows that Ridley Scott mounted a four-hour movie version (which no longer makes sense to watch), but the installation raises questions. The fact is that the painting shows us almost the entire life of the legendary Napoleon Bonaparte, literally from the siege and capture of Toulon in 1793 to his death on St. Helena in 1821. The picture literally flies at the speed of a hypersonic rocket through a series of the most famous events in the life of this legendary commander and politician, without context, without explanation, even with titles (although there are titles, but they are extremely few). The viewer does not have time to enjoy the hot Egypt, as he is abruptly jerked to Paris, then sharply Austerlitz, then Russia and so on. It is safe to say that David Scarpa did not do his job, for which he was paid at least good money. This is not a script - it is a set of vivid episodes that last terribly little. If people who are well-versed in history are confused in this scenario, then what about the ignorant? Who don't understand who all these people are at all. Did you know, for example, that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas (the father of the future French writer) was in the picture? So they didn't even explain it to us by the title. And about the "gorgeous" dialogues, the author of the review would rather keep silent (about the dead, either good or nothing).

2. Napoleon performed by Joaquin Phoenix - as the author of this review understands, Joaquin, after receiving an Oscar for the picture "The Joker" (which the author of the review did not watch, and is not going to do it), decided that he did not need to play now, let others try, and he "Oscar" does not allow this to be done. Not only is twenty-four-year-old Napoleon played by forty-nine-year-old Phoenix, but a makeup artist has never approached him during filming. Joaquin looks all his considerable years, and speaks monotonously all the time and with an unchanging face. And he does not forget about tantrums (hello, modern Russian film school!). Here, Napoleon is a nanny, whom for some reason everyone respects and even fears (although it is not clear why for the picture at all). Joaquin's Napoleon is very reminiscent of Prince Vladimir performed by Danilka Kozlovsky from the Russian painting "Viking" (did Joaquin really watch it? Too suspiciously much of the same was taken from there). I hope it's not worth saying that the real Napoleon was not like that! It was a real lump among European politicians and rulers. Only the coalition that united the largest and strongest powers of Europe at that time could cope with it (and even then, only on the SIXTH attempt). He was the BEST commander of his time, who won many battles, while often outnumbering his opponents. The French army under him was the BEST in Europe. Napoleon was a cunning and calculating politician (although he made mistakes), who skillfully used the contradictions of European monarchs for the benefit of France. Napoleon is a reformer of the French state. You can still talk about Napoleon for a long time, but in Ridley Scott's painting, which is named after the legendary Bonaparte, this very Bonaparte is not there. There is a nanny who is being bullied by everyone, but whom everyone respects, it is unclear why. And then there's a famous actor who DOESN'T TRY A BIT!

3. Disregard for history - I will give just a few examples (if you say everything, then the review will be extremely long). Let's start with Marie Antoinette and her disheveled hair - this could not have happened, and Napoleon was not present at her execution. Paul Barras could not offer the unknown artillery captain Bonaprart a plan for the siege of Toulon (who is Napoleon and who is Barras - one of the leaders of the Directory, that is, the government of the First French Republic). Napoleon left Egypt not because of Josephine's betrayal, but because he learned that now was the time to seize power in France, Napoleon and Josephine did not behave so frivolously, as shown here, the Russian troops at Austerlitz did not die en masse on the ice, as shown here. Wateloo happened by accident, in Napoleon's plan there was no such village initially, it just happened because of the battle of Quatre Bras. The Duke of Wellington could not behave like this at the Congress of Vienna in the presence of the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Etc. You understood the liberties and disregard for history as it is.

4. Context and cause-and-effect relationships - there was no place in the scenario for the Italian Company (which made General Bonaparte very famous), the War of the Third Coalition (which was defeated at Austerlitz), There is no Prussian Company, the battles of Placisch Eylau and Friedland. Russian Russian company of 1812 is practically absent (and the Russian emperor was generally shown to be a fool, although he was not like that), there is no war of the Sixth Coalition (it is also the Foreign campaign of the Russian army of 1813-1814), they did not really show a Hundred Days, the Battle of Carte Bras and Ligny. Yes, a lot of things. They even spared money for the credits. But without these events, an ignorant viewer will not understand why, for example, the Russian and French emperors met in Tilsit in 1807, and not after Austerlitz in 1805.

5. Napoleon and Josephine is the main stage line that stretches through the entire timekeeping here, and it is quite poor. Let's start with the dialogues between them, which are practically non-existent, and if they are, they will be envied by Tony Wiseau from the painting "Room". Let's not talk about the naked porn between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, who plays Josephine here. Please tell the creators, why were these scenes needed? Should young people be dragged to the cinema? It didn't work out that way. Such goodness can be found without you on a well-known source and absolutely for free. Vanessa Kirby resembles Josephine in the nude version, and she doesn't look like the real Josephine. Look at her portraits, they are there. There is no romance, much less love, between these two at all.

A historical drama. A legendary picture and classic of world cinema, staged by the USA, Great Britain, Italy and the USSR, directed by the Soviet genius Sergei Bondarchuk, which the author of this review was able to watch entirely only now, on the eve of watching the painting "Napoleon" by Ridley Scott (already mentally preparing for the hat and cranberries), but we will not yet about sad things. For now, let's go back to those not too distant times, when the author of this review was young, stupid and did not know life as such, and still worked in the Soyuz store chain, and very often saw a DVD with this painting, but still did not dare to look at it (although he already loved historical paintings very much). Now he thinks that he shouldn't have appreciated this picture back then. But, as they say, "better late than never", therefore, here is a brief opinion for you - The best film adaptation of the legendary battle. There were both advantages in the picture (which are obvious, but they are worth talking about) and disadvantages (although they spoil the viewing experience, but they are worth mentioning). And this should end this introduction and proceed to the analysis.

So, the advantages: 1. The Battle of Waterloo - the painting is called "Waterloo", and this battle occupies a large part of it. The viewer will be shown a small backstory and will be shown in colors and emotionally the battle itself, which became the end of the great Napoleon's career, both military and political. The hundred days are over. Moreover, the creators did not err against the story, and showed the battle itself in sufficient detail. After "War and Peace", it was Sergei Bondarchuk who could make such a large-scale battle movie, which even now causes sincere admiration and respect for such high-quality work done. The maneuvers of the troops, the culminating moments of the battle, its main characters are perfectly shown, while both sides are considered in detail. No one else is in the cinema (and probably never again) He will not be able to show this battle like Sergei Bondarchuk did here. My respects to the masters of the past.

2. Costumes and decorations - here again it is worth praising, but this time to the costumers and those specialists who selected the area for filming and buildings, because it all looks so authentic that the viewer is literally transported to that time and as if he were in the center of those historical events. And the extras are here, just a sea. At least several hundred people are involved in the battle itself, and if we take panoramic shots, there are even more of them there. And all of them can be distinguished (although they did not show the Dutch army that fought alongside the British forces of the Duke of Wellington).

3. The atmosphere - costumes, scenery, magnificent music by the Italian composer Nino Rotta ("The Godfather"), acting by world-famous celebrities, well-written characters - all this perfectly immerses the viewer in that turbulent era. You look at the picture without stopping. It's worth a lot (especially now, in the age of the Second Evil Corporation).

4. Acting works - Christopher Plummer, Orson Welles, Jack Hawkins, Sergo Zakariadze, Evgeny Samoilov, Vladimir Druzhnikov, Oleg Vidov and so on. If we list all of them, and also together with the filmographies, then the review will turn out to be very big. Each of these actors is a value in itself, but here they came together in one picture, so you don't have to worry about acting.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Rod Steiger in the role of Napoleon - despite all the emotionality and charisma of the actor (and his skill in the profession), but he is not suitable for this role. Forgive the author of this review, but a slightly overweight Family does not resemble Napoleon of that time. Look at the portraits, read the memoirs of contemporaries of those events. Well, he doesn't look like anything. It is immediately obvious that this is an actor playing Napoleon.

2. Prolonged and unnecessary scenes - they could be shortened (the first thirty minutes) and leave the timing for the battle. Or show, for example, at least briefly the Battle of Carte Bras (in which Napoleon was able to push Wellington's army back to Waterloo, but not defeat it) and the Battle of Ligny (in which Napoleon managed to defeat the Prussian army of Field Marshal Blucher, but which managed to escape from him, which he will face already at Waterloo). These battles are only mentioned, although in the context of Waterloo they are extremely important.

3. The behavior of the Duke of Wellington is a pompous aristocrat, openly and without hesitation blames the soldiers' "rabble" for their origin. The author of this review should generally say that the real Duke of Wellington would never have dared to do such a thing, especially in this situation and knowing that his army consists of a third of recruits and Dutch allies and knowing full well about the strength and discipline of Napoleon's army? In general, either Christopher Plummer himself or director Sergei Bondarchuk contributed their "vision", and this did not benefit the picture.

Napoleon is also "afraid" of Wellington in the picture (which was complete nonsense, since they did not meet in battle until 1815), and sees Austria as the main enemy (which is ridiculous, because Russia and England represented a threat to him then, because the first has the best army in Europe, and the second - the world's best fleet).

Nevertheless, despite enormous efforts and a very large budget at that time (twenty-five million francs in prices of the late sixties), the picture failed miserably at the box office. I don't know for what reason. For the author of this review, people are very strange creatures. Sometimes he doesn't understand them. Well, what happened happened. And although the picture did not have commercial success, but after a while it gained cult status and now it deserves to be in the piggy bank of the "Classics of World Cinema".

A score of 9 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!

A historical drama. The author of this review simply could not pass by such classics of world cinema, because, as they say, "you need to know." Moreover, this is the earliest painting about the legendary Frenchman, which perfectly fits the word "epic". A five-hour silent film telling about the life of Napoleon (from studies to the beginning of the Italian company). The author of this review could not look at the picture from beginning to end in one sitting, but it was successfully managed in two sittings. And here's a brief opinion for you - A silent masterpiece of French cinema. Despite the favorable impression and pleasant emotions, the author of this review will consider both the obvious advantages of this historical drama and the disadvantages (which could not be dispensed with). And this should end the much-needed introduction and proceed directly to the analysis.

So, the advantages:

1. The scenario - the picture shows and tells the story of the formation of Napoleon Bonaparte, from a young brave boy who fights against church dogmas and especially zealous peers to the beginning of the famous Italian company (in which the troops of revolutionary France, the hungry, who were also numerically inferior, were able to completely smash the well-groomed and fed Austrian troops, and expel them from Italy and Brigadier General Bonaparte led them to victory). We will see the Great French bourgeois Revolution, its leaders (Robespierre, Danton, Marat, Saint Just). The creators of the painting also forgot about the romantic line of Napoleon and Josephine. And many more things were included in the script. It turned out to be an epic film production, which even now, in the age of digital technology, is able to amaze and even surprise. A lot of events have been included here. The Napoleonologists will be happy, and it will not be superfluous for the layman to look at it.

2. The image of Napoleon - we will be shown the same legendary personality that everyone has admired for more than three hundred years. Moreover, that the young Napoleon (Vladimir Rudenko), that the adult Napoleon (Albert Dieudonte) is equally good, because they look like the real Napoleon (fortunately, there are many portraits of this personality). We see the formation of the indomitable character of our hero, even his confrontation with his personal enemy Pozzo di Borgo (this conflict is not often found in films about Napoleon), his victories (the siege of Toulon, for example), cunning and resourcefulness during the years of Terror. And they also did not forget to show him as a man who loves Josephine, because the creators succeeded in these moments. And although this image was slightly overplayed (all the characters react to Napoleon as soon as they see him, as if he were you know Who). The author of this review has not seen the best Napoleon in the cinema yet (with the exception of a series of documentaries from Star Media, where the role of Napoleon was superbly performed by the wonderful and talented Russian actor Georgy Bulat).

3. Costumes and decorations - here you just need to "take off your hat" to the creators of the picture, because it was filmed in the twenties of the twentieth century, and it was done by real professionals of that time. There are just a lot of extras here, and authentic costumes were sewn for everyone. The decorations still amaze the eye (this is especially noticeable in the restored version). You can recognize both the French and the British by their uniforms, not to mention the casual clothes of that time. The picture was shot in France, which adds to the atmosphere when watching. And not to mention the battle scenes - for those years it was the pinnacle. And how often will the siege of Toulon be shown in sufficient detail in the cinema about Napoleon?

4. Innovations - some director's finds are worth something. Three films were shot at the same time, the cameras were mounted in various objects. The picture is not only black and white, but also colored (since color filters were used during filming). Yes, there are a lot of things like that. If you describe everything, you can get stuck here for a long time. It was a tremendous effort by many people.

5. The restored picture - except for two points (where the restorers either cheated, or the negatives could no longer be brought to the right state), then we have a reference work and a living manual on how to restore an old movie. Each frame looks as if it was shot only yesterday. And don't forget that the negatives of the painting are reels with thousands of meters of film. How much time did people spend so that we, the audience, could see this masterpiece of Abel Hans in an improved form? I highly recommend everyone to see it in its restored form. And although the text in this version has not been translated into Russian (because only English is there), it is quite simple to understand what is happening there, and the text is not complicated, even for those who are ignorant of foreign languages.

6. Music - without the great music of Carl Davis and Arthur Honegger, this epic would not be so great, because the music selected here greatly affects the atmosphere and creates emotional involvement in the viewer. Here you will find both classics and a variation of the famous "Marseillaise" and what not mixed here.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Liberties with the real story - Nelson never met Napoleon, there was no game at the beginning of the picture, Josephine rejected Napoleon's courtship for a long time, considering him a fool, Napoleon did not escape from Corsica with the French flag, and so on. I remembered the most vivid moments. Not to mention the obvious allegories (which worked in the picture, no fooling around). No wonder Abel Hans made a postscript in the credits that this is how he sees Napoleon. And we, lovers and professionals of history, can forgive Abel Hans for this, because his invention served to benefit the cinema, and only strengthened the image of the unshakeable Napoleon.

2. Excessive emotionality and overplaying is not so much a minus as the ordinariness of that time and silent films in general. At that time, not everyone was able to transmit sound, so all that remained was to exaggerate gestures, make faces and overplay a lot, so that the audience would look at you more than at others. Therefore, be prepared for this and treat it with understanding.

3. Commercial failure - monstrous monetary costs, hundreds of books about Napoleon read, the enormous work of many people, thousands of meters of film - and a grandiose box office failure. And considering that Abel Hans conceived the trilogy, the total timing of all the paintings would have been around fifteen o'clock - then we never saw it. This is extremely sad, because this is a very high-quality work that has become iconic. It is a pity that we will never see the full "Napoleon" by Abel Hans, although, judging by the quality of the first part, we would have been further awaited by such an epic, which was like the "Lord of the Rings" for the noughties.

My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

A historical drama. Another film adaptation of the famous Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when a group of radical English Catholics decided to destroy King James Henrikhovich the First Stuart and the entire parliament by blowing up a building where the king, parliamentarians and almost all the closest royal entourage should have been present on November fifth, 1605. But as everyone knows, the conspiracy was uncovered, and its participants were destroyed (who was lucky enough to die in battle, and who was brutally executed by the verdict of the royal court). The locomotive of the production of this series (in addition to the HBO channel) was the world-famous John the Sad Little Snow (according to Kit Harington's passport), who is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby, the leader of the conspirators, whose role is played by Kit himself. I admit, I did not have high hopes for this series, but watching it generally depressed me, because it was a complete failure. And here's my brief opinion for you - A dreary film adaptation of the famous Catholic assassination attempt. There were both pros (which are not many) and cons (which are definitely worth attention) in the series, so I finish this introductory word and proceed to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. Costumes, scenery - I admit, this was almost the only reason why I did not fall asleep completely while watching this series (and also the story, but more on that later). We just worked with the costumes (although they do not "sit" on all the characters). Maybe it was in a hurry, but only three characters were able to "carry" their clothes - Catesby, Fox and Cecil. Even the king in his clothes is not very pleasing to the eye (although it is clear that the clothes are expensive and well made). In general, the costumes are similar to the historical era being shown. The scenery was also pleasing, and I'm not even talking about the contrast between the palace and the dwelling, although impoverished, but still a lord. London, provincial England look very atmospheric. At the same time, the series does not feel like a chamber, although we are not shown very many rooms.

2. Music - local musical compositions create the atmosphere of England at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Appropriate music plays in tense scenes. Of course, not Hans Zimmer, nor John Williams, nor Ennio Marricone, but for an average dull historical series it will do.

So, the cons: 1. The political version - the failure of the conspiracy here was decided to be associated with the political intrigues of England and Spain, who wanted to conclude a peace treaty with each other (since finances sang romances in both countries, and the war had been going on since 1585). And it seems even logical. But there is one point that ruins this version - the fact is that the peace treaty between the countries was signed in 1604, and not in 1605, as it was presented in this series. Even more, I will tell you - the origins of the conspiracy are still unknown. There is an assumption that the rebel Robert Catesby was his locomotive, but this is only an assumption. The political version itself is simply meaningless.

2. Strong discrepancies with the real story - I will tell you only about some facts: Robert Catesby's estate was taken away long before the Gunpowder plot (he lost it for participating in a conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth Henrikhovna the First Tudor, it's even surprising that he was left alive) and in the series he has an estate, the circumstances of Guy Fawkes' arrest were somewhat different (he did not arrange a stabbing with guards) Father Garnet (already sitting in the Tower) actively wrote letters in invisible ink (they are in the National Archives of Great Britain) and there is nothing like that in the series, Catesby and his remaining supporters were not killed almost instantly after the failure of the conspiracy, but withstood a ten-hour siege of the house where they locked themselves in, Anna Vox spent some time in prison for indirectly assisting the Gunpowder conspiracy, and in the series she escaped this fate. And these are just some of the facts that immediately catch your eye. If you dig around properly, you can find even more of this. When you watch historical movies, never completely trust everything shown, never!

3. Kit Harington - let's start with the fact that Kit never learned how to play, he was John Snow, and he remained so (especially since this series was filmed in between seasons of "Game of Thrones"). But that's half the trouble, the fact is that Keith portrayed his ancestor Robert Catesby as a whiner and a slob with zero charisma. It seems that's how he sees his ancestor. It looks ridiculous, because Robert Catesby (if it was he who was the locomotive of the conspiracy) was able to gather a group of people and organize a conspiracy. Only a man with at least military experience and unquestionable authority could achieve this. A wimp and a slob (as he is shown in this series) would never be able to pull this off. Who would even go after such a thing? Especially in those turbulent times? Yes, the articles of the editors of the most famous Russian website dedicated to cinema should never be believed, never!

4. Guy Fawkes - let's start with the fact that the actor looks completely different from the famous character. Was it really that hard to find the right actor? Or a high-quality makeup artist who would do everything right for you? So they also made a rabid ferret out of him, which, if given free rein, he would destroy all Protestants in England, although documents show that he was an ordinary perpetrator of the conspiracy, who panicked at the last moment (which led to the discovery of barrels of gunpowder) and that he was a Catholic. His image in this series has been exaggerated too much.

5. Catholics were exposed as martyrs - the series is actively trying to hammer into our heads the idea that English Catholics in the country were persecuted almost worse than Jews in mainland Europe. Which, to put it mildly, is not the case. And even more so whose cow would moo. Can you tell me how you Catholics, subjects of the English kings, burned all those who disagreed with you at the stake of the Inquisition? Can you tell us about the persecution of Jews? That you were a litter for the Popes of Rome? And now you've lost everything and you've received a reply from all those you've been chasing? You don't have to wait for sympathy. You are not followers of the "true" faith, but ordinary papists.

6. Dullness - if the first series is still quite dynamic and cheerful, then the second and third against its background seem to be a dull gray. And if the characters are also not hooked, then it's not a big deal at all. That's what happened here. When watching, I had no sympathy for the English Catholics, I was more impressed by King James Henrikhovich the First and his minister, Count Robert Cecil, who wanted to save England from economic collapse (it came later, but the consequences were much milder) and allow the country to live in peace. Against this background, the problem of a group of rebels does not matter.

The actors play at a very average level. The most memorable of them were Cecil and King James, who was played by One of the famous TV series "Xena - the Warrior Queen".

The result was not the best. A dull series that has only an indirect relationship to the story. This series is not worth watching at all, especially since there are other works on this topic in the world cinema. The atmosphere and music do not save the situation. The series is objectively bad.

My rating is 5 out of 10 and I do not recommend watching this series!

Musical, melodrama. I finally got to this, without a doubt, iconic picture and classics of French cinema, and even in the genre of "musical" (which I really love). Moreover, this year (2024) this picture has an anniversary - sixty years. And you know what? Even after so many years after its release, the picture remains very popular. And after watching it, I can say with confidence that it is absolutely deserved! She made a strong impression on me. And here's my brief opinion - A wonderful French musical of the sixties. Despite my delight, there were both pros and cons in the picture, which must certainly be told. Moreover, this picture is the forerunner of the magnificent musical "La La Land" (which I love with all my heart and periodically review). And this should end the much-needed introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, the pros: 1. The scenario - the picture tells us the love story of Guillaume the car mechanic and Genevieve the umbrella saleswoman, who passionately love each other and want to tie the knot, but the relatives of the lovers are not very happy about this, especially Genevieve's mother. The girl just manages to confess her feelings to her mother, as Guillaume reports the terrible news - he is being taken to the army, and straight to the front in Algeria (where the anti-colonial war of independence, which lasted from 1954 to 1962, is in full swing. Long live free Algeria!). Separation is difficult for the beautiful Genevieve, and then a respectable young man appears, whom my mother insists on. What will Genevieve choose? Feelings for Guillaume or a respectable young man? Yes, the script is simple and contains almost no intrigue. He just shows and tells a love story in the scenery of France in the second half of the fifties. Moreover, all the characters in the picture sing their lines. As such, there are no conversations here, which is why the picture is remembered. This story will appeal to both men and the beautiful half of humanity. The actors were superbly chosen for the roles. You believe them, although you can see that there is a lot of theatricality here, but you can put up with it.

2. Aesthetics - the picture is very bright and literally full of all the colors of the rainbow. Even the peeling entrance of the house where Guillaume lives also oozes this very brightness. Magnificent costumes, various decorations - it's a feast for the eyes and ears. It is clearly visible where Damien Chazelle drew inspiration for his magnificent painting "La La Land".

3. Music - my greatest respect to the French composer Michel Legrand for creating great music for this painting. How many feelings! How many emotions! And the composer was able to fit all this into literally several compositions, which, after familiarization, can never be forgotten. The title theme is especially beautiful.

4. The final - I will say right away - I am against the final choice of Genevieve, but at the same time it is presented in such a way that you can practically put up with it. Because life is life, and it very often makes its own adjustments to people's plans. Yes, those who watched "La La Land" will immediately guess what I'm talking about. Personally, I don't mind such finals (even in La La Land I agreed with him, and even wept at the injustice of what had happened).

So, the cons: 1. Genevieve's pregnancy - I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe in this circumstance, because in the picture it was clearly visible that this girl was very modest, and Guillaume, before marrying her, did not shine to be you know where and you know what. Of course, her pregnancy strongly affects the scenario, but still this circumstance looks implausible.

2. Guillaume's misfortune - this young guy did not deserve what happened to him upon his return to France. He fought in Algeria for two years, was wounded, was treated in a hospital, and when he arrived home, he learns what he learns. Yes, after that, if I were in his place, I don't know what I would do. At least he was angry at the cause of his misfortune. Yes, the picture will show his tossing and his grief, but too gently and very theatrically.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Genevieve, performed by Paintings by Deneuve, is a young umbrella saleswoman who works in her mother's store and meets with Guillaume, an auto mechanic, whom she loves very much, but life makes its own adjustments to the feelings of lovers. Of course, the paintings do not look like a sixteen-year-old girl in any way (as she appears in the script of the picture), but even this circumstance does not prevent you from enjoying the magnificent acting. This is how the "spark" feels between the characters. Feelings and passion are visible to the naked eye here. The young painting is just pleasing to the eye.

2. Guillaume, performed by Nino Castelnuovo, is an auto mechanic, an ordinary proletarian, in love with an umbrella saleswoman, who cannot live without her. It's a difficult path, after all, first love is a special feeling, but life is completely different. Nino was extremely convincing in this role. I felt even more for him than for Genevieve. Maybe because I'm a man, or maybe everything is so obvious from the script!

As already mentioned, I am against the final choice, but the finale of the picture still pleases the viewer and gives hope for the best, and even with great music.

The film won many awards (including the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film). She has a lot of fans and is still popular, which means that the picture has passed the test of time with confidence. That's how you need to make high-quality movies, not the way they do it now.

My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Adventure. An adaptation of the novels by English writer Patrick O'Brian about Captain Jack Aubrey (nicknamed "Lucky Jack") and his friend ship's doctor Stephen Maturin. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. What can I say - a movie from childhood. I remember watching it more than once when I was still a kid, because the sea always attracted me, and this picture was often shown on the box (I don't know how to deal with this case now, I haven't looked at this very box for a long time). And as a child, I really liked this picture, and now, having already reviewed it at a respectable age, and having gained knowledge, I can say that the picture is still good, although some disadvantages have emerged that simply cannot be ignored. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good American military adventure picture. It is necessary to analyze both the pros and cons of this picture, so we finish with an introduction.

So, the pros: 1. The scenario is 1805. There is another war between England and France. The latter is headed by Emperor Napoleon the First Bonaparte, who intends to conquer the whole world. His Majesty's frigate Sudden is serving in the Atlantic Ocean, which is being attacked by the newest French battleship Acheron. "Sudden" manages to evade pursuit, but an order was received from London to prevent the Acheron from entering the Pacific Ocean. Captain Jack Aubrey will have to complete a difficult task - to defeat the Acheron, despite the fact that Jack's ship is a frigate, and is already quite old. But cunning, experience and a loyal team will help Jack complete the task and return home with honor. If we do not take into account the obvious stupidities and outright blunders, then we have a pretty strong story of the confrontation between two ships and two captains (although the main focus is on Jack and "Sudden"). The genre of the picture can even be called a "thriller", because in many places it tickles the nerves of the audience, because we worry about the characters, because we know that the French ship Acheron is much stronger. The finale is both surprising and perplexing (but we'll talk about that later). The characters are revealed in sufficient detail so that the audience can empathize with them and hope for their victory. Dialogues are "alive" (unlike most modern film products, both domestic and foreign). The drama is at a good level. I am glad that the creators did not clutter up the picture with unnecessary details, but focused on the main story and a couple of auxiliary ones. The script of this picture does not exactly claim to be an Oscar, but it cannot be called a passer-by in any way. Nowadays, Western filmmakers are no longer able to master such a scenario.

2. Costumes, scenery - the picture was shot on the high seas and with the help of special equipment, in general, almost everything was shot on location - and this is good. Here you will find natural light, atmosphere, and immersion in the era. The costumes are also pleasing to the eye. The British naval uniforms did well. Most likely there are inaccuracies (and there cannot be), but I leave this to professional military historians who know much more than yours truly. It is a pity that they did not work with French naval uniforms in this way (although there are good encyclopedias and detailed illustrations), and in the picture the creators limited themselves to only some details. Despite the obvious flaws, I am inclined to praise the creators of the picture for a well-done job in this aspect. It's not a solid five, but they definitely deserve a four.

3. Maritime romance - despite the fact that the picture tells about the war at sea, about raging storms, about calm, and just about things that can alienate ordinary people from the sea. All this does not prevent you from showing the other side of the coin - the discovery of new lands, the journey itself, the sea brotherhood, overcoming your weaknesses, a sense of danger, responsibility for your country, and finally the desire to see your native home after a long sea voyage. Maybe I'm thinking like the last romantic, but that's how it looks. I love the romance of the sea, and in this picture it is reflected quite well.

So, the cons: 1. The basis of the script is the central story, which the picture tells and shows, took place, but not in 1805, but in the Anglo-American War of 1812, when the American frigate Constitution collided with the British frigate Guerriere (an American sank an Englishman as a result of the battle), but the producers decided to postpone the place and time of the action are much further south, so as not to cause bad exclamations from the American audience. Indeed, why stir up the past? After all, we need to take the picture all over the world, including England. However, this did not help much - there was a box office failure, although not very significant.

2. Questions to logic - why should the Acheron not be allowed to enter the Pacific Ocean in the opinion of the British Admiralty? What's the point of Acheron attacking whaling ships? The episode with the three boats that pull the ship "Sudden" is generally a laugh with laughter. I will also keep silent about the bottomless chest with the necessary things for the ship and the crew (apparently, damn magic) and so on. These are just the highlights that I have noticed. If you look closely, you can find a lot more of them.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Captain Jack Aubrey played by Russell Crowe - commander of the frigate "Sudden", a celebrity of the Royal Navy, who is known for not losing a single battle he participated in. He was a subordinate of Lord Horatio Nelson himself. We are loved by sailors and officers. Admittedly, Russell Crowe just masterfully performed this role. There is confidence and experience in his character, while he does not bury himself in himself, maintains good relations with Dr. Maturin. He can comfort you in a difficult moment, although at some moments it is clear that some of the things he had to do for the first time. Bravo!

2. Dr. Stephen Maturin, played by Paul Bettany, is a ship's doctor, and by nature is a researcher, a naturalist, obsessed with the study of new species of animals. A very talented doctor who can help in the most critical situation. At the same time, he is a friend of Captain Orbie. The doctor often likes to remind a friend of honor, so that he does not bury himself in the armor called "duty".

Billy Boyd, our favorite Pipin from the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, also starred here, although his role here is almost episodic (constantly flashing in the background).

I have to admit that the picture is tedious, but it does not slide into outright boredom. But the finale leaves ambivalent feelings - this is both surprise and dislike, because in the finale there is a hint of a sequel, which never happened, and will not happen, since the box office was very, very modest, consider it a failure. Apparently, the producers were so confident of success that they conceived an entire series. I admit, I am glad for the modest box office, because this is how you need to hit the pocket of greedy and overconfident producers in order to think ahead.

And yet, the painting has stood the test of time, and even now it looks quite good and spectacular. I am glad that I have reviewed it, and I am sure that I will review it with pleasure more than once.

My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

War drama, biography. The film adaptation of the book of the same name by the American Marine, Vietnam War veteran, who became a famous anti-war activist Ron Kovik, directed by the famous (and very respected by me) director Oliver Stone ("Scarface" with Al Pacino, "Platoon"). And since I have not read the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. For a long time I went around this picture "around and around" as they say, and once I decided to refresh my knowledge about the Vietnam War (at the same time learning new facts), then this picture became some help, and even Tom Cruise starred in the main role here (until he finally disappeared in the series of paintings "Mission Impossible"). And after watching it, I was pleasantly surprised, because I saw an excellent historical, military and biographical drama in the best traditions of this genre. You could even say that I watched a masterpiece. And here's a brief opinion for you - Oliver Stone's masterpiece anti-war drama. There were both advantages and disadvantages (few) in the picture. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture will tell us and show the life story of an ordinary American from a devout Catholic family, Ron Kovik, who was born on the Independence day of the United States, and before Vietnam was, like thousands of other young Americans, a sincere patriot of his country, who believed the American government, believed propaganda about allegedly "evil communists", and who After joining the Marine Corps, he went to Vietnam to "defend the free world from communism." There came an epiphany. It was in Vietnam that he faced the harsh truth, and when he returned home crippled, he saw that all his ideals were just lies. A few friends and colleagues help Ron understand that in this situation it remains only to fight for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, thereby joining the progressive anti-war public, which has been fighting the false government for several years, organizing demonstrations, meetings, pickets, although the police disperse and beat them for this. We will be shown the path of Ron's development from a patriot whose head is full of propaganda to an anti-war activist who fights against the government, trying to save the lives and psyche of thousands of young Americans. There are very wise thoughts in the dialogues. Pathos is present only in the first half of the picture, and then it is practically reduced to zero. The finale makes you happy for Ron, who was able to overcome his despair and incredible anger, and become a guiding light for many people.

2. Atmosphere - the painting covers the period from the fifties to the mid-seventies of the last century. Famous music, the conflict of generations, the cold war between two superpowers, American propaganda and the harsh truth of the Vietnam War, in which the star stripes did not fight in the full sense of the word, but simply brutalized poor Vietnamese, and in the way the fascists brutalized during the Great Patriotic War (for Americans, the Vietnamese were "Indians", savages with which you can do anything). The magnificent music of John Williams only enhances this atmosphere.

3. Ron Kovik - the main character himself is another advantage of this picture, which causes sympathy, although not from the very beginning (as it was with me, for example). He is played by the famous Tom Cruise, who embodied the image of Ron so well that the latter even gave him one of his military awards for Vietnam. Yes, they will not show us Ron's whole life, but they will focus on the most important segments in which the hero began to change and realize many things that he had never thought about before. Yes, in the painting, ot often swears rudely, yes, some physiological processes are shown, but all this does not repel (as in most paintings, especially in new Russians), but rather gives color to the hero. Ron's emotions on the screen looked sincere, and Tom's credit for that.

So, the disadvantages: 1. The episode in Vietnam - no one would have called for medical help for wounded Vietnamese. It was nonsense. Even if this episode is entirely taken from Ron's book, it is unlikely. As already mentioned, the Vietnamese were not considered human beings in the eyes and imagination of Americans. No one would have saved them (as a result, they were not).

2. The story of Donna's childhood friend - after a certain point, she simply disappears from the narrative, as if she is not important here at all. This is strange, considering how much attention was focused on her and her liking for Ron before that.

At the time of writing this review, Ron Kovik is alive and continues his public activities. God grant him health and strength in this necessary matter. After all, as long as capitalism exists, ready to send the children of the poor and middle class to slaughter in all parts of the globe in order to profit from the war, then people like Ron Kovik, who are fighting against this soulless machine in the name of humanity, will also be relevant. And this picture will be relevant. This work received two Academy Awards (and both are absolutely deserved), and there were six nominations and also all deserved.

I remember seeing this note in the comments: "This film should be done at school." And you know, I totally agree with that. This needs to be studied and analyzed at school so that the younger generation knows in advance what capitalism leads to and can think. Oliver Stone can only applaud for such an excellent job. And for a better atmosphere, I highly recommend watching the picture in English with Russian subtitles (I did exactly that).

My rating is 10 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing! Even despite the inaccuracies and liberties with the biography of Ron Kovik.

Drama. The most famous film adaptation of the tragedy of the same name by the great English playwright William Shakespeare. I read the play itself, although for a long time, but the most important thing is very much etched into my memory, so I will compare the film adaptation with the original source. This picture was recommended to me for viewing, and by a person who, to put it mildly, understands world cinema. And for this recommendation, I thank him from the bottom of my heart. It's been a long time since I've seen such a high-quality picture that makes you think about a lot. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good film adaptation of Shakespeare's not-so-famous play. And despite my delight, there were both expressive advantages and obvious disadvantages in the picture. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture tells the story of the Venetian merchant Christian Antonio and the old Jewish pawnbroker Shylock, to whom the former owed a large sum of money. And when it comes time to pay the bills, Shylock wants only one thing - to take revenge on Antonio at all costs. Namely, to repay the debt by cutting a pound of meat from Anthony's body, since the merchant (like all Christians) hates and despises Jews who live in the ghetto (it was in Venice that it appeared for the first time in Europe). Along the way, the love story of the young Venetian Bassanio and the young beauty Portia is told. Both lines converge at one point one day in order to complete this story. What makes the picture memorable is that Shakespeare's dialogues remained untouched. I assure you that after watching this picture you will be impressed for a long time. And although the script is slightly changed compared to the original play, but everything else is done very well. Shakespeare is Shakespeare!

2. The conflict between Antonio and Shylock - in the original play, Shylock (and with him the Jews) are unrighteous people, and Antonio (and with him the Christians) are righteous. Shylock is represented almost all the time in black colors. And the contempt and censure of the Christians of the Jewish people is a God-pleasing and righteous deed. In the picture, not everything was made less unambiguous. We were shown (using the example of Shylock, Antonio and other heroes) how Christians despise Jews and then go to them for money or beg for mercy. And Shylock is also angry at Christians because of this contradiction, so he literally hates the whole world. He is ready to take revenge on Anthony in the most cruel way, and he is not interested in money. Everything ends predictably (laws are such a thing, and Venetian society is not on the side of Shylock and all Jews). Shylock is a tragic character here, as is Antonio. The creators of the painting show the very historical chauvinism that took place in the Republic of Venice at the end of the sixteenth century (and up to the twentieth). This is the historical truth, and it needs to be known. And in general, this theme is the main one in the picture, and in the play. It was extremely interesting to observe the development of events around this topic.

3. The love line of Bassanio and Portia is just classic Shakespeare, as we imagine him to be. Here you can see the influence of "Romeo and Juliet" (only without the tragic ending). Also spirituality, gentle looks, love from that very first glance, an instant willingness to sacrifice life for love. It's all there, too. And it's just brilliantly staged and played. There is that same "spark" between the characters, and the actors themselves have tried their best.

4. Costumes and decorations - it is clear that Venice acted as Venice, so you plunge into the atmosphere with your head. The costumes also inspire confidence (if there are minor errors in the details, it is still insignificant). It was well noticed that Jews were ordered to wear red hats on the streets of the city in order to distinguish them from other citizens (well, of course, no one will interfere with spitting in their face). And although the picture is quite intimate, the viewer still does not have the impression that he is simply being led from one room to another. Rather, we are shown the society of that time, which differs from the present (and it is difficult to say in which direction, good and bad).

So, the disadvantages: 1. Dressing Portia and Jessica is, of course, classic, but how could they not recognize this in court? I'm sorry, but it's quite easy to distinguish a woman from a man, figure, face, not to mention the voice (for us, men, it's quite low, and for women, on the contrary, it's high). That's what nature came up with, and it's not for us to argue with that. Of course, this action plays a key role in the picture, but it does not fit well with logic.

2. The tragedy of Shylock - the picture is based mainly on Shylock, played by mastodon Al Pacino, but of all the action of the picture, the most infrequent turns out to be Shylock, who lost everything, literally everything, and now it's a pity. After all, in the play of the great Shakespeare, Shylock "re-educates" into a good Christian, then here the creators made both sides of the conflict ambiguous, and still sided with Antonio (although he is to blame for the conflict). Here Shylock is disgraced, persecuted, deprived of everything and everything, but for what? For the truth! For being a Jew! For the hypocritical laws of the Republic of Venice! For usury! And do not think that I am a defender of the Jews, I rather notice the facts, because the hypocrisy in the picture is very well marked (and Shylock is shown as an aggressive Jew who hates Christians). I have no prejudice against any nation in general. But in this picture, it was Shylock that I felt sorry for. An old Jew who was deceived by the system and eventually deprived of everything.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Bassanio, played by Joseph Fiennes and Portia, played by Lynn Collins, are local "Romeo and Juliet" who play similar roles. Young lovers, ready to go into fire and water for each other, although they met only recently. There is that "spark" between Joseph and Lynn, without which love is dislike. The actors play well, there is nothing to complain about. Bravo!

2. Antonio, played by Jeremy Irons, is not the most successful merchant in Venice, openly despising Jews (like most of the townspeople), but for the sake of Bassanio's love for Portia, he makes a deal with the Jew Shylock. He is shown as a hypocrite, but already in the middle there is a tragic note in him. Jeremy, as always, played extremely convincingly. Well done!

3. Shylock, played by Al Pacino, is an old Jewish loan shark who sponsors Antonio, despite his attitude towards the Jewish people. A grumpy and vindictive old man who also loses everything as a result of this deal and the subsequent trial. Mastodon Al Pacino simply masterfully embodied the image of the famous Shakespearean character, adding his charisma and inimitable voice (which was heard through a Russian voiceover). Here you can say: "Bravo!"a lot of times. Regarding the character, everything has already been said above, so we will not repeat ourselves. Al Pacino did a great job!

Surprisingly, this picture failed miserably at the box office, which is even a shame, because it absolutely did not deserve it. Apparently, the audience did not understand the idea of the picture, or did not want to think. Who knows.

My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

A mystical thriller. The film adaptation of the novel by Nina Walcox Putnam and Richard Shyer. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. Because my favorite childhood adventure series is "The Mummy" Stephen Sommers, which I try to review periodically, so I decided to get acquainted with the very first picture, which gave rise to all subsequent "Mummies" in world cinema. And although the picture was shot as early as 1932, then, after watching it, I can safely say that many years later it is good, although not as perfect as some film critics or viewers claim. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good old mystical thriller. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture, which are also worth mentioning. And this should end the much-needed introduction and proceed to the analysis.

So, the advantages: 1. Scenario - since the twenties and thirties of the last century were harsh and very difficult, so in those days studios could not afford the luxury of wasting film on unnecessary scenes and frankly empty dialogues (not like now), the scenario of this picture is quite simple and understandable - in Egypt, English archaeologists find a strange a mummy, strange in many ways, because it looks terribly unpleasant, so also a casket with a curse written on it was buried with it. Of course, the forbidden fruit is sweet, and the young archaeologist could not resist opening this casket, and then, by an absurd coincidence, revived this mummy. Now Imhotep, the name of the revived mummy in ancient times, intends to return his beloved Princess Ankhesenamun from the afterlife, but for this already in the modern world (sample 1932) he needs to find the reincarnation of his beloved, which turns out to be the Englishwoman Helen Grosvenor, who is not indifferent to Frank Wemple. Yes, here the screenwriter mixed mysticism, the first experiments in the genre of "horror", adventure, and a kind of love triangle. And I can say that in general everything worked out, although not all the elements are well expressed. The characters are remembered, the entourage of Egypt is felt (and this despite the fact that the whole nature was filmed in the USA). The mystical atmosphere works as it should. The finale just turned out to be too fast and crumpled, as if the studio was in a hurry to release the picture as soon as possible. I enjoyed telling the story, it was interesting to watch it.

2. Boris Karloff as Imhotep - the magnificent Boris Karloff created a unique image of the animated monster Imhotep, who here also pretends to be a modern man, hiding under the name Ardet Bey. Boris's Imhotep keeps almost all the attention on himself here, because this image is both frightening and attractive. That look (those who looked will understand!), those slow movements, hidden desires and cold-blooded calculation. An actor's makeup alone is worth a lot. Back then, the technology was still primitive. All the plaster was real, it was applied for several hours, and at the same time it was necessary to move in all this. It's all going to be drawn on a computer now, but then there was no such luxury. You can't help but respect the greatest actor of his time for such hard work and such endurance. The clothes are also perfectly matched for the character.

3. Mystical atmosphere - what else can be deservedly praised for the picture is the atmosphere. Then the creators expected to scare the viewer more, but now the local scarecrows no longer work, but the very atmosphere of mysticism here is very good. The music, the picture, the actors - everyone is trying for this.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Cita Johan in the role of the Englishwoman Helen - here I judge purely externally and the impression that she made from the screen. We could have found an actress prettier for such a role, because here we have a classic "lady in distress" who needs to be saved. And if the face is still nothing, then here is the bikini area - a board with a board. Although, if you look closely, then the face can not be called very attractive. I understand that this is a taste, but my inner aesthete says that the Cita is not suitable for this role at all. And there is certainly no spark between her and Frank, or Imhotep.

2. Timing - it is too small, because there are traces of deleted episodes in the credits that would reveal the characters more, but they were not missed by American censorship (the Hayes Code), and at the moment they are considered lost. It's a pity!

3. The affectation of horror, and not only it - this is generally characteristic of old paintings, and the "Mummy" was no exception. And if in other paintings they tried not to overdo it (so you could close your eyes to it), then this will not work here, because this affectation screams about itself. The most striking moment is the animated Imhotep at the beginning of the picture. Something like this will happen more than once or twice during the entire timekeeping period.

I am glad that I was able to familiarize myself with this classic of world cinema, witnessed firsthand the magnificent acting of Boris Karloff, and learned how interest in "Mummies" originated in cinema. This painting is certainly not a masterpiece for all time (and even in the year of its release it was not), but it clearly deserved a good rating.

My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Pellum. The American film adaptation of the famous ancient Greek myth of Jason and the Argonauts, who went to the edge of the world to the Kingdom of Colchis for the Golden Fleece. I really did not expect to see such high-quality work in the vastness of world cinema. This is exactly the case here. I thought it would be bleakness, but in the end the picture turned out to be very good (although far from perfect). And here's my brief opinion for you - A Hollywood fantasy on the theme of a famous myth. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the advantages: 1. Adventure story - despite the fact that the script of this picture can be called "based on" a famous myth, in the end the story turned out to be interesting. Although it sags in the middle, watching the adventures of Jason and the Argonauts is quite interesting. After all, they are opposed by huge monsters, the forces of nature and the treachery of other people. In this campaign, the heroes will have to use all their skills in order to overcome all obstacles and reach their cherished goal. There are no clever dialogues, deep thoughts, but there are memorable characters and recognizable elements of the myth.

2. Special effects - they were breakthrough for 1963. There's so much brought in that you wonder how it all holds together. Giant Talos, rocks, hydra, skeletons - all this looks extremely convincing. Although a noticeable combined shooting sometimes spoils the overall impression. The creators did an extremely good job of increasing and decreasing people. Of course, now such special effects are no longer as exciting as they were then, but it is still necessary to note this fact, since the work has been done simply colossal. One scene with skeletons was done for four months, but in the picture it takes only three minutes.

3. The scenery - the Argo ship itself, as well as the entire environment, was chosen with love. The viewer seems to be transported to that time. And if the creators frankly screwed up with the costumes, then they tried their best with the decorations. It was extremely pleasant to watch.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Differences from the myth - the scenario, as already mentioned, follows the "motives" of the myth, and in some places moving away from it. For example, the ship "Argo" was helped to build by Athena (there is not even a mention of her in the picture), Medea was the daughter of the Colchian king (whereas in the picture she is just a priestess of the goddess Hecate), Acast died under other circumstances, and so on. If we list everything, then we will be stuck here for a long time.

2. Costumes - everything is bad with them, and if they coped with the Greek ones, then the Colchians look like natural underpants. This is already a pure fantasy of the creators. Was it really difficult to go to a museum and see what the peoples of that region of the world were wearing at that time? Or would going to a museum be burdensome for the budget?

3. A hint of continuation - of course, I understand that the creators could not tell and show the whole story of Jason in one picture, but why was it so abrupt to interrupt everything and drop a hint of continuation? After all, it did not happen in the end, and now we have an unfinished story that an uninitiated person in the myth simply will not understand, no matter how hard he tries.

The acting here is surprisingly average. You won't remember any of the actors, even if you want to, so I can't single out anyone.

My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing (even with the above disadvantages)!

Pellum. A free film adaptation of the famous poem "Iliad" by Homer. And very free. I found this picture completely by accident - and I did not expect that it would disappoint me so much, because it turned out to be such a boring sight that when watching it you can fall asleep at least five times, because it was necessary to try to suck out the entire emotional component of the picture. And the creators did their best! And here's my brief opinion for you - A tedious film adaptation of the Trojan War. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture (of which there are more). And that's it, we finish with the introduction and move on to the analysis.

So, the advantages: 1. Rossana Podesta in the role of Elena - externally, the actress is very good, just a beauty of beauties. And her dialogues are well written, and in general the character himself is well written, but where have the emotions gone? Why is the actress not trying at all? After all, there is all the data for this. Moreover, of all the characters, I want to watch her exclusively. And I'd rather keep silent about the love between her and Paris, there was no "spark" between them at all, although this is the basis of the script of this picture. There was a lot of potential and it was merged. Well done!

2. Music is the only person who did his job here efficiently, so it was the composer. Max Steiner wrote high-quality and good music for this picture. It may not claim to be a masterpiece for all time, but it deserves a good assessment.

So, the disadvantages: 1. The map - namely the inscription: "Turkey". What the hell is Turkey? Screenwriters? Ow? You are aware that the Turks will appear in this territory only in the Middle Ages. In the days of Ancient Greece, the Trojans lived in that territory, and further east was the Hittite kingdom. What kind of Turkey?

2. Fantasy costumes. Armor, its features and differences between the Trojans and the Greeks - all this is not there. So, they riveted it from what was there and gave it away as antiquity. Some of the armor looks similar because they were copied from ancient Greek vases. And it looks like Martian armor. I can't believe the word at all.

3. Decorations - the terrible goddess Athena, lifeless rooms of noble persons, deserted corridors of palaces. It's all this picture. Despite the presence of several panoramic views, and very well made, mostly the scenery is a rather depressing impression. And their style is very fabulous, unlike this historical period.

4. The inconsistency of the actors with their images - only King Menelaus is most suitable for the role. All the others are a rural setting of an ancient Greek tragedy, and with their own dialogues and their own sets and costumes. The actors are mostly bearded (although the Greeks mostly shaved their moustaches and beards). There is no charisma or authority behind the local rulers, and nothing at all is felt behind them.

You can still talk about this picture for a long time and talk about each of its problems, but the main thing has already been highlighted. The film deservedly failed at the box office, despite a couple of mass scenes and some special effects that are characteristic of the pellum genre. The painting was deservedly forgotten, and it was not worth even remembering about it.

My rating is 4 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Pellum. The last "classic" pellum of the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, which drew a certain line under this genre (to which they will return only in the early noughties). This pellum failed miserably at the box office. And after watching it, I can safely say that it is deserved. To see such a thing is to be a very interested person. And here's my brief opinion for you - An insanely boring pellum with good actors. Despite the emotions, it should be noted in this picture not only the monstrous disadvantages, but also a few advantages, which could not be avoided. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the pros: 1. Costumes and decorations - everything looks as they say "expensive and rich". Rome, the northern fortress of the empire, tunics, armor, helmets, weapons, shields and so on. These specialists have worked very well. Moreover, this pellum can be used as a didactic guide on the topic of Ancient Rome. The costumes "fit" the actors well, and it really pleases the eye. The scenery is large-scale. Rome gives the impression of being the capital of the civilized world.

2. Music is another element of this pellum that does not cause negative emotions. This is almost epic music written by our former compatriot Dmitry Temkin. I can't say that you will remember it for a long time, but it feels like it was written by a real professional in his field.

So, the cons: 1. The script - it resembles a kindergarten matinee, written by the participants of this action themselves. But the creators touched on such a difficult topic as the reason for the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire - the superpower of that time (in short, the analogue of modern America), but instead of a detailed disclosure of this topic, everything was simplified to the above-mentioned level. There is the "wise" Caesar, there is his treacherous son and faithful commander, who are almost brothers to each other, there is Caesar's beloved daughter, who is not indifferent to the commander, there is an external and internal factor (barbarians, kings of conquered peoples, governors of provinces). If you have watched the picture "Gladiator", then know that Ridley our Scott was inspired by this very boredom when creating his fairy tale (although this does not make "Gladiator" cease to be a masterpiece). It is absolutely uninteresting to follow the main characters. The dialogues are boring. The finale is predictable, but you still have to sit through it (which not every viewer will agree to).

2. Topic - such an interesting topic was taken and actually messed up out of the blue. Do you want to know the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire? There are several of them, for example, the change in the economic formation of Roman society, the contradictions of the Romans and the inhabitants of the conquered peoples, the ambitions of the Caesars (and sometimes their inability to rule), there were no brave and decisive leaders who would take responsibility for themselves (only this was well revealed in the picture), the migration crisis (the great migration of peoples), pride and the arrogance of the Romans themselves, and even the Romans themselves have changed. Of the brave and brave warriors who want to rule the world and are convinced that only Rome is a civilization, and all the others are barbarians who must either be conquered or destroyed. So these very Romans turned into pampered and capricious hedonists, who hundreds of years later were easily defeated by wild barbarians in animal skins. In this picture, only a couple of these reasons were revealed. There are actually more of them, just the above were on the surface. The picture with the disclosure of the topic coped very, very poorly.

3. Battles are boring and uninteresting. Even extras don't save the day. The creators have not heard about tactics and strategy at all. Roman legionnaires don't even use a "turtle". Well, that's too much.

4. Acting - Sophia Loren doesn't really try here (before that I saw her in only one picture "Nine", and there she tried), but here you don't really believe her. Alec Guinness (Obi Wan from the Star Wars trilogy of the eighties) here we play Marcus Aurelius - and he plays him badly, so badly that you wonder how one could play one of the wisest rulers of Rome. Stephen Boyd (Messala from the legendary pellum "Ben-Hur") does not reach the level of Russell Crowe here. He doesn't have the experience and respect of soldiers behind him. He's just not here. Christopher Plummer as Commodus is generally a disappointment. Moreover, Christopher is a good actor, there is no doubt about this in his other paintings, but here he is just a pale spot. Bad acting is bad directing.

5. Timing - not only does the picture not catch on with its characters, it is also monstrously prolonged to the point of indecency. And this is not a case of "Ben-Hur" or "Quo Vadis" in 1951, or "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor, when a long timekeeping allows you to show more events and reveal the background of the characters better. In our picture, three hours serve only to ensure that the viewer gets a good night's sleep while watching the picture with the "keenest interest". There are a lot of dialogues in the picture that lead nowhere. There is no humor, there are few battles, even a chariot race does not save anything. There is little action. Add here the "wooden" acting and flat characters, and in general the fabulousness of everything that is happening - and we get a tragedy for huge money at that time.

It is good that this painting is almost forgotten, because it does not represent a cultural value. As mentioned earlier, this is only a didactic guide to the history of Ancient Rome. This is the maximum for this pellum. Failure and disappointment.

My rating is 5 out of 10, and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!

Pellum. The fourth film adaptation of the novel of the same name by the famous Russian writer of Polish origin Henryk Sienkiewicz. And since I have not read the original book source (but I will definitely do it), I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. I came across this picture quite by accident, and after viewing it, I did not regret that I spent time on it. Although as a child I remember the advertisement for the last film adaptation of this novel, 2001, American-Polish, but I did not watch it (and even after watching the 1951 version, I do not want to). There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture. This should end this introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture tells us the story of the Roman commander Marcus Vicinius, who returned to Rome in triumph after a successful campaign of conquest against the barbarians. His uncle is the first advisor to the infamous Emperor Nero. Mark falls in love with a beautiful red-haired girl named Lygia, who turns out to be a Christian follower of a new faith that is rapidly spreading around the world. After all, the first century of our era is already underway. Two worlds collided - the old pagan one and the new one, where there is only one God. We are witnessing the decline and imminent demise of the Roman Empire, its insane emperor Nero, and we see the sermons of the apostles Peter and Paul and the widespread spread of the new Christian faith, and its persecutions (baiting by wild animals in the arena of the Colosseum are attached). And love, of course, because Mark and Lygia are the personification of two worlds, and just people with different views on the world who sincerely fell in love with each other, and this love is real. And the finale even surprised me a little, for which I thank him very much. Maybe this scenario does not claim to be a laurel wreath, but it is strong, logical, with interesting characters, vivid images, but if you are a Christian, then I do not know how you could miss this!

2. Aesthetics is pellum. This is exactly it - large-scale, epic, with a huge number of extras, grandiose decorations and bright costumes. That's why we love this genre. The picture is full of colors and makes the viewer look at this beauty without stopping. And although I came across a version far from the highest quality, but still, even so, I was glad to see all this beauty.

3. The confrontation of the old and new worlds is the main theme of the picture (as well as the book, I suppose), therefore, the timing here is not small (almost three hours, and it does not get boring), and it is interesting to watch. Yes, it was not possible to fully disclose the topic, which is sad. The creators only mark it with broad strokes, but they are also very memorable. The persecution of Christians by lions alone is worth something. And the meeting of Mark and Lygia after her disappearance is also good. But still a lot of details were left out.

4. Acting is beyond praise. But the best actor here was the Briton Peter Ustinov in the role of Nero. Although the real Nero did not wear a beard, and Peter did not look very much like Nero, but the type, behavior, character - everything screamed about great acting. Peter was hooked from the very first appearance in the frame. Bravo! Robert Taylor as Mark Vicinius and Deborah Kerr as Lygia were also good. There was that "spark" between them. I remember Finlay Curry well in the role of the Apostle Peter (I remember him from the important role of Balthazar from another pellum "Ben Hur"). Leo Genn was no less charismatic in the role of Petronius (Mark's uncle). Yes, everyone is good, there is not a single passing or hacky role.

5. Vivid and memorable scenes - for example, the fire in Rome that Nero set. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant part of the scenery had to be sacrificed for this. The persecution of Christians by lions is also remembered, especially the fearlessness of people who sing before they die. Well, the end of Nero is good (although he erred against history).

So, the disadvantages: 1. Discrepancies with history - Nero did not die exactly as shown in the picture, why did they not affect Seneca at all? They didn't really talk about the problems of Rome (and it was thanks to them that Christians became so popular, and turned from a sect of philosophers and fanatics into a world religion). The wonders of God here are special effects and ventriloquism. And that's just what I noticed. I am sure that experts will find more mistakes and shortcomings.

2. I didn't check it out - it's not even a flaw, but rather a subjective quibble. I'm not hooked on the local story. Yes, this is purely my problem. Maybe it's my communist views, maybe it's something else. But she didn't catch on, although the picture is good, you can't take that away from her.

I liked this film adaptation, so I don't see any point in watching other versions (because they are shorter in time, and added only blood and cruelty, which this film adaptation practically avoided). Christians will definitely like this picture, regardless of their denomination.

My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Historical drama (officially), farce (actually). The film adaptation of the play of the same name by the famous English writer and playwright, "The Second Shakespeare" by Bernard Shaw (whom I respect very much for his views and creativity), and since I have not read the original source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. I unearthed this ancient folio by accident, since Vivien Leigh herself starred in the main role here, and decided to take a look. But, it was the wrong decision. For some folios it is better never to dig up. Once again, I was convinced that not all old movies can be watched and praised. And here's my brief opinion - A stupid farce for a lot of money. Despite all the failure, there were not only disadvantages in the picture, but also some advantages, which are also worth telling. And this should be the end of this introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, the pros: 1. Actors "look good" in their roles - this is exactly what we are talking about. The actors look similar to the characters (except Rufio - he has a beard, whereas the Romans shaved their moustaches and beards at that time). Claude Reis as Caesar and Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra certainly dominate here, but all this charm subsides when they start talking, because after that the historical drama turns into the English equivalent of modern Russian "Bremen Town Musicians" (I'm talking about the film, not the Soviet cartoon).

2. Interesting thoughts in the dialogues - there are only three of them (dialogues in the sense), in which the creators of the picture (and the author of the script and the play Bernard Shaw) talk about wisdom and rule. And the thoughts are interesting, but the problem is that they made a very boring picture around it, which is difficult to watch without long breaks.

So, the cons: 1. Theatricality - in a bad way. The whole picture is not a feature film as we used to see and imagine it, but rather a Show play transferred to the screen, with theatrical pauses, minimalistic scenery and long monologues. If I want to watch a theatrical production, then suddenly I will go to the theater, and if I want to watch a movie, then suddenly I expect to see a movie, and not a theater play transferred unchanged, which is difficult to adapt for cinema. Not all directors succeed in this.

2. Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra is not the great Egyptian ruler who seduced Caesar and Anthony and strengthened Egypt during her reign, not to mention her love affairs. In this picture, she is not a symbol of a strong woman capable of ruling a large country. No, forget it, the local Cleopatra is a silly fool who was enthroned by a certain citizen Caesar, whom she did not even know. He teaches her to rule (and in the presence of the entire royal court and his people). The local Cleopatra is a spoiled, vindictive, beautiful girl who is easier to remove from the throne than to take away a candy from a child. What can I say, this role is not suitable for Vivien Lee at all. Vivien is not Elizabeth Taylor (who was able to show a strong woman capable of twirling men while remaining a woman). Cleopatra Vivien would not have lived to see Caesar arrive in Egypt, because royal children grow up very early, they automatically join the "big game", in which their lives are at stake. And in it you either win or die, literally. Vivien in Gone with the Wind and Waterloo Bridge was great, but she doesn't look good here.

3. Claude Rains as Caesar - the local Caesar loves Egyptian culture, behaves like your inveterate friend, is able to easily violate a foreign custom and behaves as if he had eaten immortality. I think it's not worth saying that the real Caesar had nothing to do with this one. Caesar was modernized and simplified by the screenwriter here as soon as he could, and this played a cruel joke on the picture. It's not even worth describing where Caesar is wrong, otherwise the review will take too long (and we don't want that).

4. Logic - it fell to the death of the brave here already in the first minutes of this narrative, mainly it concerns the historical part, although it also concerns the internal part. Especially amusing is the six-month siege that Caesar and Cleopatra "endured", along with servants and Roman legions, until they came to their aid. This is ridiculous. I had to look at the whole picture with my hand covering my face, but sometimes I had to look out, but only sometimes.

5. Drudgery - for all its disadvantages, this picture is also extremely mournful, which makes the situation simply catastrophic. Everything stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches. It takes two hours and seven minutes - and it's not interesting or useful to watch.

The picture for 1945 was the most expensive for England, but this did not save it from a grandiose box office failure (which it deserved). The painting was quickly forgotten. No wonder they say that some doors are better not to open.

My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!

Pellum. The directorial debut of the legendary Italian director Sergio Leone, made in the famous genre of "pellum" (a large-format, epic historical canvas on an ancient or biblical theme), which I learned about not so long ago. Of course, I couldn't help but be interested. And so the queue got to this painting, and I looked at it with interest. And here's my brief opinion - Sergio Leone's magnificent debut. Despite the fact that I liked the picture, in addition to its advantages, there were also disadvantages that slightly spoiled the overall impression. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture tells us the story of the Athenian hero Darius (let's talk about the names in the flaws), who arrived in Rhodes for a vacation at the invitation of his uncle. And at the same time, the ruler of the island, the tyrant Xerxes, in order to further exalt himself over his subjects (whom he oppresses), creates the famous statue of the god Helios, which went down in history as the Colossus of Rhodes (one of the wonders of the world). Along the way, we are told about the inhabitants of the island, who do not have a sweet life, and about a group of local resistance who want to overthrow the tyrant Xerxes and give the long-suffering inhabitants of Rhodes freedom. But to do this, you need to persuade Darius to join them, and he does not want this, because he came here just to relax. I admit, the script here is intriguing and makes sharp turns (although obvious). During the timing, we will have time to get acquainted with the inhabitants of Rhodes and its ruling elite, and the Colossus itself will play its role here. The dialogues are interesting (although full of theatricality), the characters are memorable, and the ending here is epic.

2. Scale - despite the fact that the whole action of the picture takes place on the island of Rhodes, there are enough extras and epic battles here. The streets are full of life, the soldiers of the tyrant Xerxes are faithfully serving, the rebels are fighting very effectively for freedom. I'm not talking about the finale - there is also enough epic, because the earthquake that caused unimaginable damage to Rhodes and brought down the Colossus was filmed live in those years. It looks great now and deserves special praise.

3. Colossus of Rhodes - this statue (with a big secret) has its own role in the script. The Colossus is both a separate character and a place around which all the main events take place, and its destruction in the finale symbolizes the fall of tyranny on the island. The creators fantasized here, providing the Colossus with various mechanisms, and its very appearance is also a fantasy, because not a single authentic image of this statue has reached us, so the screenwriters had reason to connect fantasy - and they successfully coped with it.

So, the disadvantages: 1. There is no exposition - the viewer does not understand who these people are and why we should empathize with the Athenian Darius. We were not provided with any brief introductory information, nor were the parties to the conflict visually identified. There is nothing at all. The picture rushes "off the bat" without explaining anything, and it will be like this until the very end. It's not a good thing to do to the audience.

2. Logic - why does an Athenian have a Persian name? Why do tyrant Rhodes's palaces look like Persian ones? Why is the rebel's body given to his acquaintances without asking logical questions? Why does the tyrant go into direct confrontation with Athens without releasing their envoy from the island? What are the Phoenicians dangerous about? And there are many more questions that the creators will not answer.

3. Tightness - the picture is slightly tightened. There are many long-term plans that do not reveal anything, but only serve to stretch the timekeeping. Some dialogues also serve this purpose. It's not critical, but it's boring to watch.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Darius, played by Rory Calhoun, is an Athenian hero, known far beyond its borders, who finds himself drawn into the Rhodes intrigues due to his character and attraction to women. Darius is shown to be a brave and skillful fighter who can command people, and honesty and decency mean a lot to him. Rory was great in this role, bravo!

2. Diala, performed by Lea Massari, is the daughter of the architect Colossus, who is clearly playing her political games. This girl is very interested in Darius, even flirting with him. At the same time, she always behaves somewhat detached, which does not allow the viewer to understand the motives of her actions. Lea has a contradictory image.

The picture is for one time. This is not "Ben-Hur", not "Cleopatra" in 1963, not "The Ten Commandments" in 1956, which I want to revise, because of the interesting story and vivid characters. Alas, there is no escaping the truth. But it's a tough job, definitely tough.

My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

A historical drama, pellum. The first (and best) film adaptation of the legendary battle of Thermopylae Passage in 480 BC. I watched this picture as a child with great pleasure, and more than once. I remember almost all the dialogues from it by heart, and this review was an excellent reason to review this high-quality work of the sixties of the last century. And I can say without concealment - the picture is still good, and still epic, and even against the background of the picture "300" from our Zack Snyder, it's generally a masterpiece. After all, a giant and a snot are not equal to each other. And here's my brief opinion for you - The legendary battle of the legendary Spartans. The painting has both expressive advantages and obvious disadvantages (it is impossible without them). And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.

So, the advantages: 1. Scenario - the picture, as the name implies, is dedicated to the feat of three hundred Spartans who covered themselves with unfading glory on the last day of the Battle of Thermopylae, when they refused to retreat, being warned of betrayal. And before that, there was the rest of the battle, in which the Persian troops under the command of King Xerxes the First himself tried for several days to dislodge the Greeks from the Thermopylae Passage, but to no avail. In addition, we will be shown the beginning of the war, the political games of the Athenian Themistocles, and even love found a place here. There's not a lot of it, and it's in the subject here, and they don't overdo it. And in general, in almost two hours we were able to tell and show this legendary battle. And the finale turned out to be epic. There are not enough stars from the sky, but he was able to tell and show the epic, which still looks extremely good.

2. There are a lot of battle scenes - extras here (even five thousand soldiers of the Greek army were invited for this, because they shot the picture in Greece). Therefore, the picture can be safely called epic. Yes, now the local fights don't look as naturalistic and spectacular as they did in the year of release, but nevertheless no one has done better yet (don't remember Snyder's film - it's a fantasy). Both the Persians and the Greeks resemble historical prototypes. They did a better job with the Greeks, but the Persians turned out to be different. It is clear that there was a historical consultant, and he was obeyed. The final battle of the Spartans turned out to be especially spectacular.

3. Atmosphere - thanks to the magnificent music of Manos Hadzidakis and excellent costumes and natural scenery, the audience is literally transported to that time and immediately takes the side of Greece. Yes, even now it works.

It's not worth talking about good acting. This is not modernity for you, well, you understand me. I will not swear in bad words here.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Discrepancies with history - here the "American view" was mixed with history. The Greeks here are exposed as "defenders of freedom" (although both the Spartans and the Athenians had slaves and there was tyranny), the Persian Empire is a state of slaves (which is not almost completely true). The number of Persians has been exaggerated almost tenfold. There were about seven thousand Greeks in the battle, not just three hundred Spartans and seven hundred Thespians. Xerxes was made a fool of, to whom only his subject, the Queen of Halicarnassus Artemisia, gives the right advice. The Spartans wore beards and long hair, which they combed before the battle, and in the picture they are all beardless and short-cropped. Leonid was about fifty years old at the time of the battle, and in the picture Leonid is thirty-five to forty years old. The Spartan formation looks extremely strange. And this is only what is immediately noticeable.

2. Americanism - it is directly visible, and rushing out of all the cracks. It sometimes makes you feel sick, because all the Greeks here talk about "freedom", about slavery, behave boldly at the sight of the Persians. The painting is clearly made for the American audience. Although in the USA the picture failed, and only in the USSR it became a real hit (it was watched by twenty-seven million viewers).

A little bit about the main characters: 1. King Leonid, played by Richard Egan, is one of the two rulers of Sparta. A brave and courageous warrior, an excellent commander and a reliable friend. It is presented too idealistic here. Despite this, Richard played the legendary king perfectly. Bravo!

2. Themistocles, played by Ralph Richardson, is a cunning Athenian politician who, through his efforts, achieved the unification of Greece during the war (later, however, after the victory he was expelled from Athens, and he found refuge with the Persians, but it doesn't matter). He was a friend of Leonid. It is a pity that the picture did not show the intrigues that he was undertaking at that time. But even so, Ralph looked quite convincing in the role of the legendary Themistocles. Bravo!

3. King Xerxes, played by David Farrar, is the ruler of the Persian empire, intending to conquer Greece by military force and become the ruler of the whole world. The picture shows not the smartest king, who is always rescued only by Queen Artemisia. David certainly coped well with the role, but the image of the king was not the most successful.

Despite all the disadvantages, this picture is a very strong historical drama, which is still good. It is definitely worthy of your attention and your time, and as a didactic material it is quite suitable for itself.

My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

A historical drama. The film adaptation of the historical novel of the same name by the English writer Rosemary Sutlkeef. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. I saw this picture for the first time a year after its release, when I worked as a salesman in the Soyuz store chain (I already loved all kinds of historical films back then), so I couldn't get past this historical drama. And then I liked the picture, and it still looks good (although now some disadvantages are noticeable). And here's my brief opinion - A good American historical drama. There were both advantages (which are obvious) and disadvantages in the picture (you can't do without them either). And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the analysis of interesting things.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture tells us the story of the Roman commander Marcus Flavius Aquilla, who, after training, was appointed commander of the Roman fort in Britain. He came here for a reason, but for a noble purpose - to return the banner (Eagle) of the Ninth Legion that died twenty years ago, in which his father served. As a result of the mutiny of the local population, Mark is wounded - and after that, a heroic resignation. But at the same time, he acquires first a slave, and then a friend of Escu - a local Briton. Now there is nothing stopping Mark from fulfilling the goal he set - to go to the north of Britain and return the Eagle. But this path will be difficult and dangerous, because the lands beyond Hadrian's Wall are wild and ferocious animals, many barbaric tribes that destroyed the Ninth Legion twenty years ago. If we do not take some moments and a certain historical freedom of the creators, then in the end we have an interesting and strong story, in the center of which is the lofty goal and friendship of two irreconcilable enemies, which are interesting to watch. Both characters are well revealed, their motivation is clear, and both are worthy of our attention. The ending is predictable, but it's still good. Yes, this is not the pinnacle of screenwriting, but very high-quality work (now this is no longer done, both in Russia and in the West).

2. Material culture - the creators have tried their best in this regard. The Romans did particularly well, with their proper armor (legionaries had lorica segmentata and imperial helmets, commanders had lorica musculata and matching helmets). Tunics are worn by various government officials, as well as casual clothes. But with the barbarians, not everything is so clear, because historical sources about that time are extremely scarce, so the creators connected fantasy. Only the picts are shown more or less well, but with the rest - an interesting question. The scenery is also pleasing to the eye. The Roman fort looks very decent. Uncle's villa, Hadrian's Wall - everything inspires confidence. And they shot most of the picture on location (which is also good).

3. Friendship of sworn enemies - Esca and Mark are very similar in terms of background. Both are sons of chiefs, both lost their families early, and both hate representatives of another culture. Although the theme of the Roman conquest is only indicated (but not really disclosed). Both have an understanding of duty and honor. Both heroes are worthy sons of their peoples. And their becoming heroes was well shown. And although the topic is hackneyed, it is well disclosed here.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Hollywood finale - the final phrases of Mark and Esky scream directly about Hollywood and precisely about the American understanding of history. More phrases about freedom and honor. In reality, Mark could not say such a thing in the presence of the governor of the province himself, and Esca would not have behaved so casually. The behavior as in the picture would be regarded as a challenge, which will certainly have consequences.

2. Tedious - the picture is slightly tedious, because it tells a rather intimate story, and in the middle it sags for as much as twenty minutes. This is tolerable.

3. Logic - the most obvious episode is when the heroes cross Hadrian's Wall. They just go through it. What is this? Where is the centurion? Where are the questions he should be asking? Where are the suspicions? Nonsense is nonsense. Well, the chase is certainly pleasing when the barbarians on foot easily catch up with our heroes who are riding horses. The wounded heroes do not interfere with fighting in any way, and so on.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Marcus Flavius Aquilla, played by Channing Tatum, is a young Roman commander who arrived in Britain to fulfill an important goal. Despite his youth, he shows himself as a worthy commander and charismatic leader, whom people will follow even to death. I admit, at first Tatum did not look very good in this role. But when the fight came, all doubts were dispelled - Tatum coped. Well done! And physical fitness is visible.

2. The esca performed by Jamie Bell is the son of the leader of one of the barbarian tribes, from whom the son has an unconquered spirit and the concept of honor. He helps Mark a lot in his search for the Eagle, despite the fact that he could have betrayed him a dozen times when he found himself in the north of Britain. Despite his frail appearance, he was able to prove himself no less a skilled fighter than Mark. And I was trying to remember where I had already seen that sly squint and shifty eyes, and then I remembered. James also played the main role of an American spy in the TV series "Turn: Spy of Washington" (watch this series, you will not regret it, it is extremely interesting). And James was convincing here, too.

The picture, despite all its advantages, failed miserably at the box office. Which is frustrating, because the creators really tried, but there was no commercial success. This is also good, because the finale of the picture clearly hinted at a sequel.

My rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

A historical action movie. I have already watched this picture once, namely in 2012, when I worked in the Soyuz store chain (there used to be such a network), because even then I loved historical cinema, and then I really liked this action movie. And so, eleven years later, I decided to review it again and write a review. And you know what - the picture is still good, and it's interesting to watch it (to a greater extent). And here's my brief opinion for you - A high-quality budget historical thriller. Despite the fact that I like this picture, I will note both its pros and cons (which were necessary). And that's where I finish this introduction and move on to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. Scenario - the film focuses on the history of Roman centurion Quintus Dius, and his difficult service on the northern borders of the Roman Empire (more precisely in Britain). The entire garrison in which he served was slaughtered by local barbarians - a wild tribe of warlike Picts (ancestors of the Scots). He is captured, from where he safely escapes and meets with the commander of the legendary Ninth Spanish Legion, who was ordered by the Roman governor to exterminate the ruthless Picts once and for all and restore order on the northern border of the Empire. But everything is not going exactly according to plan, and almost the whole picture we will watch the escape of Quintus and his Roman comrades from a group of Picts, led by the ruthless warrior Etain. The finale is predictable, but there is also an intrigue here, for which I thank the screenwriter and director Neil Marshall very much. The characters are memorable, charismatic, and interesting to watch. Historical surroundings play an important role here. In general, I can only praise the script.

2. Scenery and costumes - the picture was shot on location (to a greater extent), and in almost the same places that are in question in the picture, so the nature of Scotland here is very beautiful and very fascinating. But the costumes - the creators did their best here. Roman soldiers and commanders wear appropriate clothing and armor. Legionnaires have Empire-era helmets pulled back. But instead of the traditional segmentata lyrics at that time, some commanders (and Quintus Dius himself) wear chain mail. The Picts here also look very much like themselves (although there is enough of them, but it does not catch the eye). Moreover, both Romans and Picts were played by participants in historical reconstruction. Therefore, minor flaws can be forgiven.

3. The cruelty of war - the picture shows the ordinary cruelty of war, and on both sides. And the Romans slaughter the Picts, and the Picts of the Romans. The fights and battles themselves are full of blood, severed heads, limbs, and so on. These are rarely shown now. Because war is not about arranging figures on the map and beautiful marches. First of all, it is blood, pain, bowel movements (from all the openings of the human body), dirt, cruelty. This is not a romantic halo, this is hard work, fraught with deadly risks. The picture does not spoil us with large-scale battles (the budget does not allow), but the fights are fleeting and bloody.

4. The fate of the Ninth Legion - the disappearance of this unit still excites the minds of historians, writers, and publicists. And there is still no evidence of where he disappeared and what caused it. Screenwriter and director Neil Marshall (like me) adheres to a very popular and logical version - namely, that the Ninth Legion was destroyed in the lands of the Picts when it pursued them. Most likely, the Picts lured the Romans into an ambush in a dense forest - and killed everyone. There were many Picts, far more than four thousand Romans. Perhaps someday, archaeologists and historians will establish the site of the battle and find the remains of armor or weapons, and then this mystery will be solved. For now, this remains only a version.

5. The confrontation between Quintus and Etain are two strong warriors who lost everything in this war, and now they will only take revenge. Both are experienced warriors, each with their own strengths, ready to destroy each other, because only death can stop them. Most of the picture is devoted to this confrontation. Cunning, ingenuity, and whose malice is stronger will decide everything here. You look at this confrontation and you can't take your eyes off it.

So, the cons: 1. Logic - Quintus escapes from the Picts in only trousers and sandals, even a tunic does not cover his torso, and it's winter outside. How he didn't get frostbite is amazing. He's a tough warrior, of course, but he's not immortal. Why do Picts also flaunt an open torso? Did they also decide that they were immortal? What kind of hedgehog does a Numidian make in the Roman army? How does the Roman governor plan to hide the death of an entire legion? Were there damn four thousand people there? This is not a local militia unit, this is the famous Ninth Legion - created by Julius Caesar himself. Why is the Russian version of the legion commander called a "general"? There was no such rank in the Roman army, not in the period of the Republic, not in the period of the Empire.

2. Boring runaways - I admit, it was these very runaways that the creators turned out to be clearly boring. After all, logic is violated in them too.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Centurion Quintus Dius, played by Michael Fassbender, is a Roman commander, the son of a gladiator who fights all his life. In battle, he shows himself to be a brave and skillful fighter and commander who is ready to die for his soldiers. Michael was very convincing in this role, and external data played a significant role. Well done!

2. Etain, performed by Olga Kurylenko, is a warrior from the Pictish tribe, who as a result of the Roman conquest lost all her relatives (and at the same time the maiden part, and also the language), therefore truly hates the Romans and willingly destroys them. It should be recognized that our Russian and French actress coped with the role very successfully. But there is no brilliant acting.

It is very sad that this picture failed miserably at the box office, even despite its modest budget. This is certainly not pellum, but a good historical action film worthy of your attention, which is clearly made with soul and diligence. Moreover, they correctly showed here how to pull an arrow out of a wound (I don't remember the last time this was shown in a movie at all).

My well-deserved rating is 8 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Comedy. Well, here we are finishing with this series of paintings about the adventures of the famous Gauls Asterix and Obelix, and today we are waiting for the last (I really hope that it will be so), the fifth part of the series. And again I remember the old Russian proverb "We started for health - we finished for peace." Of course, I expected a failure, but what the creators have done with the series this time is beyond the limit. I was overcome by a real "Spanish shame". And here's my brief opinion - There was a knock from the bottom. There were pros and cons (of which there are much more) in this film collection. And with that, I will finish this introduction and move on to the analysis as soon as possible (in order to score this nightmare as quickly as possible).

So, the pros: 1. Graphically - what is most amazing, the effects themselves, and the picture itself remained at the level of 2012, and even the addition of animation did not improve the situation. There's not much to praise here, the creators just met the necessary minimum.

2. Decorations - and if there are full seams with the costumes, then the creators have tried their best in terms of decorations. Ancient China here inspires with its nature, and Armorica pleased (although there have been no qualitative changes since the fourth part).

So, the cons: 1. The script - and it doesn't seem to exist. Well, it's there. A Chinese princess arrives in a Gallic village (don't ask how she got there alive and well) with a request to help return her mother to the throne and end the civil war. Upon learning about this, Julius Caesar (whom his wife Cleopatra humiliates in front of everyone) decides to help the evil Chinese and conquer the rebellious kingdoms in order to become emperor of China himself (because then Cleopatra will understand how wrong she was about him). If such a scenario seems logical and funny to you, then congratulations to you - you are a typical consumer of this film slag. I'm not even talking about the fact that the move with Cleopatra was already in the second part (but it was performed logically there), but here there is no hint of such a thing. The characters are boring (yes, my stool is a more expressive personality), the dialogues are empty and serve only to stretch the timing. China itself was added only so that the picture could be released in Chinese (but it was not allowed there - ha ha!).

2. Logic - she didn't spend the night here. The characters behaved illogically (like Asterix, who no longer wants to use a magic drink here), and even until the very end there will be no hint of logic in their heads. Why does Caesar need China? How will he manage it? How many legions did he bring with him? And how the Empress gathered a million soldiers in the final in a short time (this is not a joke, she really gathered a million soldiers). And so on and so on. Endless questions that won't be answered.

3. Self-replays - the joke with the loser pirates got tired in the second part, but the creators repeated this joke as many as three times. I've already talked about the Cleopatra moment. And a lot more. If I describe this moment in detail, then the review will be very long.

4. Caesar - I thought that after Fabrice Luchini's Caesar there was nowhere to fall lower, but I was mistaken. It is possible (and even necessary) to fall. After all, Vincent Cassel plays Caesar here, and he does not play him in any way. This is not Caesar, this is a rag that Cleopatra wipes her feet on, and who is not respected by subordinates and allies.

5. Feminism - did you think that this would not happen? Oh, you shouldn't understand anything about today's tolerastic agenda. And although the Negro centurions or legionnaires were not brought, but they did not forget about the "strong and independent". And most importantly, where this is happening is in Rome and China - very conservative patriarchal societies.

6. Asterix and Obelix - leave the grandfathers alone at last! They've already fought! Send them into retirement and appoint a pension (oh, they will be invented only in the twentieth century, we ask for forgiveness). Both the actors and their characters do not want to play in this movie so much that they do not even try to hide it.

7. Humor - there is not a single joke, not a single funny situation. There's NOTHING here. There are only pathetic attempts at humor. Have you run out of screenwriters in France? Like in Hollywood? Is there really not a single talent? It's sad when there are no jokes in comedy.

Of course, this film production failed miserably at the box office. It will be better for everyone. I really hope that the producers will take into account the money spent and will no longer make films about Gauls. It originally didn't need any sequels. The first part was simple and concise. The second one was funny and funny. The third is a cheerful madhouse, but the fourth and fifth are a piece of a well-known brown substance.

Despite such pessimism, I wish you, fellow readers and cinema viewers, a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas! I wish you health, happiness and success in your endeavors!

My rating is 1 out of 10, and I do not recommend this movie for viewing!

Comedy. The film adaptation of children's comics by Rene Gosinni and Albert Uderzo and at the same time two cartoons "Asterix in Britain" (one of the best in the entire series) and "Asterix and the Vikings". Well, fellow viewers, here we have reached the fourth part of the famous series about the adventures of the indomitable Gauls. For the first time I watched this creation in the year of its release - and I didn't like it terribly, and now, reviewing it for this review, I realized why I specifically didn't like it then. It's just milking the series and just plain mediocrity. And here's my brief opinion - Going down to the bottom. There were both advantages (surprisingly) and disadvantages (of which, of course, there are more) in this film collection. And with that, I want to finish the introduction as soon as possible, and move on to the analysis of this film plot.

So, the advantages: 1. Graphinosto - in terms of special effects, this part has become much better than Asterix at the Olympic Games. It is clear that even more money was spent on the technical component. Moreover, all these effects look very harmonious here (and not blindly, as before). They are certainly not top class for 2012, but they are well done for their budget.

2. Costumes and decorations - and they were spent on them, and they spent quite a lot. The scenery is reminiscent of ancient Britain (although it is mixed with a modern touch), the costumes - well, it's just madness and a riot of colors. Some Britons with flags of modern Britain are worth something. More or less, only the Roman legions look good here.

That's all with the advantages.

So, the disadvantages: 1. The script - the very idea of mixing two cartoons into one work is no longer the best. And if the main scenario line about the adventures of Asterix and Obelix, who brought a barrel of magic drink to Britain in order to help their British relatives is even more or less normal, then the rest is already a fierce failure. There are no catchy characters, interesting dialogues either, acting is the level of the modern Russian acting school of pig and pebble (and I wasn't joking right now).

2. Logic - so what's going on with the audit from the Senate of Caesar's accounting? What's with the romance of Asterix and Obelix? Why didn't they reveal the topic of the wagon thief (although in the cartoon "Asterix in Britain" they coped with this). Why didn't they take Idefix with them (although he was present in the cartoon). Why can't the Romans take the queen's village in any way, because there are only wooden walls for defense? Did the Romans become stupid too? And there are a lot of questions that no one will give us an answer to. Logic! Ow! Where are you?

3. Caesar - and here the creators should be ashamed of such a Caesar, because Fabrice Luchini certainly does not fit this role. He looks appropriate in the role of kind uncles, to whom they leave their offspring for the weekend, but not Caesar - one of the greatest historical figures, and in this series - the cunning conqueror of Gaul and Britain. When watching it, you experience a real "Spanish shame".

4. Asterix - this role was played by Otis from the second part (who became famous as a very boring character), and here he played no better. His Asterix is a battered veteran of many battles who has been asking for retirement for a long time, but they do not give it to him. Compared to Clovis or Christian Clavier, Asterix here looks like a pale shadow of himself.

5. Humor - yes, there are hints of it here (after all, the whole series is a comedy), but everything is bad here. There were only two almost funny moments in the whole picture, and that's it. Moreover, the level of jokes here is clearly designed for preschool children. There is no irony, no sarcasm (except for one of his attempts), no playing up to modernity (almost none). There's not even anything to remember.

Of course, this work failed miserably both at home and at the global box office. But this did not stop the money-hungry producers, and in 2023 they decided to try themselves with the Chinese market, because the new part was called "Asterix and Obelix: Celestial Empire", and we will find out what happened there next time.

My rating is 4 out of 10, and I do not recommend this movie for viewing!