Hui44

Review: part one. Farce Express will deliver an interesting, underground story straight to the withering sun of a controversial script and amateurish direction. PROS: the aesthetics of the animated film echoes the series of computer games Mass Effect (2007, 2010, 2012), animated cartoons Animatrix (2003), Fire and Ice (1983); An unconventional approach to «camera work», we were pleased with the third-person views and panoramas, in the modern era of dull, uniform plans, this immediately catches the eye and causes a favorable emotion, which is even more IMPORTANT - a better immersion in the atmosphere of the picture and an increased sense of verisimilitude for the viewer; At the right moments in the story, the artistic action on the screen accelerates, in a measured rhythm, and keeps the viewer in suspense; Spectacular chases and shootouts;In some cases, a deep atmosphere and high realism of what is happening on the screen are observed and felt; There is a limited number of beautiful and thoughtful design of buildings and vehicles; The balance between physical violence and eroticism is very French, and the scenes of murder and hedonism are carefully shown without the cynicism and shocking cruelty inherent in Anglo-Saxons and Asians; There are references to European philosophy, especially in the scene with the «Golden Unicorn», as an allusion to a hedonistic and degenerate society; The authors tried to make the main character through everyday scenes as natural and lively as possible; The plot forces us to analyze the mistakes of the main characters and draw conclusions; Towards the end of the story, natural, human, dramatic emotions are beautifully shown.CONS: weak musical accompaniment; The average level of graphics, sometimes degraded to primitiveness; A deliberately prolonged plot to fill in screen time, which causes boredom; The presence of annoying, banal cinematic cliches from science fiction; The overall low level of design;Technological anachronisms are often encountered, which are gradually disappearing in our time and are even more absurd in the rather distant future - in the year 2200. It hurts the viewer's eyes and strikes at the atmosphere of the animated film; The frequent presence of cinematic blunders (the heroine sees a reflection on an object that is turned sideways to her, but the protagonist standing in front of the object does not; video cameras are mentioned in the picture, in the form of eye pupils, thanks to which androids can see the surrounding reality, but they are absent during anatomical autopsy, so how do robots see?; a red box appears on the left from the heroine, near the stairs at the entrance to «The End» bar, although he had not been there before; an elevator appears from somewhere in the two-story store, which lifts passengers to high floors; an ordinary car CAN WITHSTAND a hit by a cruise, anti-tank missile with homing; protective foam miraculously does not pour passengers to death when heated; the same protective mechanism reacts differently (and absurdly) when the car door lock is damaged, but without damaging the car body, and so on); Emotional degradation of the main characters - the protagonists at the beginning of the story evoke more empathy than at the end; The frequent inconsistency of the plot and the scrapping of their own script rules; Improbability, falsity of everyday scenes and misunderstanding of the psychology of the characters due to the authors' small life experience; The main disadvantage is the general illogic, stupidity, dampness of the script and the destruction of the main plot plot on which the intrigue and tension of the whole story were based. Which causes the viewer to be disappointed and devalues the animated film Mars Express.

This is not the art of cinema, or even a film. This is cheap propaganda and a very crude settling of political scores, «seasoned» with a bawdy attitude towards women or, as it is fashionable to say in the liberal USA - **** main secret of the picture is so banal that it becomes clear at the very beginning of the story, from which the whole intrigue crumbles and the film becomes uninteresting. The story itself is very cliched and outrageously direct, like the interests of a cave troglodyte. Cinematograph moved away from such a topic, back in the early 1980s. Now it smacks of the spirit of cheap Latin American «soap operas». The film does not keep the viewer in suspense, the longer the screen time passes, the more boring the action **** detective abilities of the main character are almost equal to 0%, since he draws most of the information from hints left earlier or from «random» meetings with strangers, so conveniently prescribed by the authors in the script. The actions of the heroes are illogical. Frank Minna's at the beginning of the film contradicts the legacy of his character at the end of the story. Tony Vermonte is the most ridiculous, primitive and poorly scripted character. The secondary character Julia Minna is a meaningless character. Her story begins and does not end. It seems that in order to reduce screen time, her branch of the narrative was simply thrown into the trash. The whole explanation of her participation in the story boils down to a gentle dialogue between two other **** reason for the enmity between the main character and the main villain is «**** out of the finger». If the story had been placed in 1937 or 1947, it could have been understood. But in 1957, in which the events unfold, the main mystery of the film is NOT an obstacle to the achievement of the goal by the antagonist. There is no logical reason for a villain with full power over New York to resort to criminal violence, and even with the use of **** antagonist is shown at the beginning of the story as a domineering, purposeful, man suffering from a limp, but capable of charismatic actions with a well «suspended» language. Towards the end of the film, in order to link it with the image of Donald Trump, the antagonist turns at the whim of the screenwriters into an obese, clumsy, tongue-tied, rude, bawdy lout with gangster habits. The lameness disappears, it is banally forgotten (one of the many «blunders» of the painting). At the request of the director, the ENTIRE educated, intelligent and wealthy elite of New York City adheres to exploitative, selfish and racist views. Which is a «blood libel» and an outright lie, both to people who lived in 1957 and to their colleagues in 2019. The antagonist consolidates the forces of his supporters under the slogan (quote) «We are the ones who make America Great!» - a direct allusion to the Republican Party, President Trump and the slogan of millions of voters - the MAGA (Make America Great Again!). The de facto «Motherless Brooklyn» incites national and racial hostility on ideological grounds.Another disgusting example of Hollywood chauvinism is the distorted representation on the screen of people suffering from Tourette's syndrome. According to statistics from the USA itself, only 10% to 15% of people with the syndrome suffer from spontaneous profanity. However, in the film, this is shown as the ability of the main character, Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton), to vent hatred on people alien to him, which is covered by «mental health characteristics». This effect is especially noticeable and enhanced when the protagonist communicates with the female sex. Phrases of insult and allusion to the debauchery of Julia Minna, the call «kiss her, hurry up!» in the car, in relation to an unknown woman and a **** monkey scream «oh... big ****!» in relation to the brunette receptionist in the office. Who is wearing a thick cranberry-colored sweater and, if desired, it is difficult to see large breasts without using a freeze frame. All this, of course, will be justified by the screenwriters, as following the book of the same name and «Lionel's struggle with his inner demon», which materializes through Tourette's syndrome. But it is painfully similar to the contemptuous, consumerist attitude towards women based on the hooligan habits and a sense of self-superiority of Hollywood celebrities. The sexualization of women is understandable in brutal action movies, romance novels and teen comedies. Since the essence boils down to two things - the consent of the woman herself to emphasize her physical advantages or to her rejection of such an attitude and getting a character of the opposite sex into an awkward and unpleasant situation. In same film, the desire for **** physical contact between the main character and the women he likes is hypocritically justified by a rare and serious illness. Which makes it doubly disgusting.

5 points out of 10, the film is below average quality. A fresh idea and a good plot, spoiled by annoying cliches and mediocre directing. The game of the actors: 8 points - Mark Sinclair (Vin Diesel), surprised with a good game, which sharply contrasts with the same type and caricatured face from the «Fast and Furious» film series, the level of the game is not Riddick, but it looks plausible; 6 points - Johannes Johannesson, a typical unremarkable villain; 1 point - Eiza Gonzalez, de facto did not even play in the film, just read the text with her mouth and took the right poses as a model, 0% acting and charisma; 5 points - Sam Heughan, overplayed, looked implausible; the same with Toby Kebbell; 5 points - Talulah Riley, did not finish playing, looked weak and not convincing on the screen; 10 points - Guy Pearce, after all, the English classical acting school and a lot of creative experience make themselves felt; 10 points - Morris Lamorne, the best acting in terms of facial expressions and natural emotional reactions, even Guy Pearce was sometimes fake, BUT there is a huge minus - the character was chosen unsuccessfully, outraged and irritated the audience for most of the film. The plot was interesting for the first 30% of the film, it even kept the viewer in suspense in places and, most importantly, caused sympathy for the main character. From the beginning of the scene of the hunt for the last victim to the final battle with the villain, the plot has deteriorated very much, has become stupid, banal, crooked, cliched and incredibly boring. So much so that I had to first increase the viewing speed by 25%, and then by 50%. Jeff Wadlow and Eric Heisserer claim that the script was made in the same style, without a sharp author's gap, but something suggests that this is trick. Whoever was involved in the plot after Raymond Garrison's meeting with Nick Baris was clearly doing a soulless, unprofessional hack. Poor special effects, most of which are low-quality computer graphics, sending us «greetings» from the first half of the 2000s. Because of them, what is happening on the screen quickly turns into a «soap dish»The hand-to-hand combat scenes are set up disgustingly. To hide the lack of professionalism, the operator uses the LONG-TIRED «shaking camera» technique. Although, a well-staged martial arts scene that could provide the film with 30% success. In the category «The stupidest moment of the film», the pool scene won, where, due to the incompetent camerawork of Jacques Jouffret, the hero performed by Mark Sinclair «spellbound» looked at the underwater gymnastics of K.T. The absurdity was that the actress was much higher than the visual level of the protagonist, Mark Sinclair was given a stupid task to look «in the center and below», which made it turn out that the hero was «spiritually» looking at the swimmeress feet and the bottom of the swimming pool. The scene looked ridiculous and laughable. Verdict: despite the box office failure of the film and negative reviews from viewers (and film critics), the film Bloodshot is entitled to a Second Chance. Mark Sinclair, Sam Heughan and Morris Lamorn should be present in the second part, all the others can and should be replaced. The sequel clearly needs a DIFFERENT director and more talented screenwriters. Bloodshot 2 is unlikely to surpass Iron Man 1 (2008), but it has EVERY chance to overtake any film with Tom Holland, Aquaman, Venom and even finish with Deadpool and the Thor series of films according to critics and/or box office. It would be foolish to abandon such a project; with professional work, this film can become a Gold Vein.

The first thing that catches your eye is that this is not a documentary, but rather an author's film of the documentary genre. And it's hard to call it a «movie». Rather, it looks like a first-person military chronicle.There is no disclosure of the tragic event for the viewer. Episodes of people's grief are shown separately. The character of those on whose shoulders a difficult time has fallen is poorly revealed. Only one medic reveals his soul to the operator and calls a spade a spade.There are no meetings with civilian survivors of the fighting after the events, as is often the case in documentaries about the war.Attempts to show the war on the other side, even without interviewing the military, but at least civilians - **** topic of revealing propaganda lies is very weak, with the exception of the event in the maternity hospital and the reaction of the Russian Federation media.There is no war crime theme at all. So what is shown is not supported by witness evidence and direct filming at the scene, which leaves the viewer in the dark and gives a huge scope for imagining possible **** the end of such films, the author usually either shares his own opinion, or leaves «food for thought» to the audience themselves. Unfortunately, there is neither the first nor the second in this picture. The only conclusion that comes from watching is that «war is bad». But for a documentary that won an Oscar, it's too weak. Because even without watching any movie or unread any book, any normal person understands that any war is bad.

A pseudo-intellectual film with a «hidden meaning». Film critics will be ecstatic, once again admiring the «artistic subtlety of the themes of social life raised in the picture». And de facto Wesley Anderson has NOTHING to say to the audience with this film. Nothing new. All the same scenario and camera techniques as in the previous pictures. But if in the Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) the audience was reminded of the lost high culture of the generation of the beginning of the XX century, and in the Kingdom of the Full Moon (2012), they showed an interesting liner to the domestic drama, then the latest paintings of the French Bulletin (2021) and the City of Asteroids (2023) are nothing more than parasitism on a successful visual ideas and riveting, like stamping molds at a factory, of new films, not for the purpose of saying something with them or reminding them of something, but only out of a desire to receive an award again for another «improvisation» and once again remind themselves of themselves among cinematographers. Anderson gradually outlives himself, «fresh innovation» quickly turns into a boring routine.