Reviews

I like action movies with fights, even when they escalate into something unbelievable, and, in spite of being a retired physicist, do not complain when the basic laws of nature are violated (very often, the conservation of momentum, as when Ip Man, with the touch of a finger, sends back a charging moron whose weight Is two times that of the hero). That said, the fights in JW3 are so long that they might become boring, while the plot is almost inexistent. Nevertheless, I might have enjoyed this movie, but for the ubiquitous show of sadistic cruelty. I know that this is just a question of personal taste, but sadism, sexploitation and bad taste (in this case, just the first item) make any movie completely unpalatable.

First of all, I must confess that I have a bias for Russian movies, because I spent considerable time in learning (at least, to some extent) the language and now being able to understand a movie in Russian gives me a special satisfaction. This war story reminds me of the US classic "The Bridges at Toko Ri": Brubaker and Soshnikov are both motivated by their sense of duty to take part in a war far from homeland, both have wives and families they love. Compared with other recent Russian war movies (e.g., "Tanks", "T34", "Devjataev") the tone is much more realistic, a total or partial happy ending is not foreseeable, but I've found in this movie the pathos of older Russian war movies about the "great patriotic war" (the name they use for WWII) I like so much. All in all: were do we get such men?

Luc Besson has realized many movies based on the same concept: a main hero with - almost - superhuman fighting skills who disposes of a myriad of enemies to achieve her/his goal: let's recall the "Transporter" and "Taken" franchises.

This movie is (sort of) a remake of a previous one by the same author, "Nikita" (1990), but in "Anna" the killing (and sex) galore prevails on the other components. Anna, the main character, mutates from a drug-addicted misfit into an ultimate killing machine in just a scene change, while the training of Nikita takes some part of the original movie and allows the spectator to have somehow a look into the humanity of the protagonist and of her teachers. In general, characters in "Anna" are void of any depth, like the targets that appear abruptly in the shooting ranges of police academies, and most of them end up the same way. I think I must make a partial exception for the KGB operative played by Helen Mirren, but maybe it's just the depth of the actress that shines through in her character. Coming to the central point, the killings, the fighting scenes go far, far beyond any credibility, well into the realm of preposterousness: they might be acceptable in a parody, but, alas, the movie takes itself very seriously. I got bored before the end and finished watching the movie with half an eye, while doing something else. On the plus side, there are a couple of not completely obvious plot twists.

All in all: should you, being eagerly in the mood for a "shoot 'em all" movie, watch "Anna"? I don't know, but I'd say that you should answer this question first: how many heads would you tolerate for the attacking shark of a movie by Asylum?

BTW: as an individual who spent a considerable amount of time and energies in learning the Russian language, I'm very annoyed when I see, in the title of a movie or another work that has something to do with Russia, "mirrored" western characters.

I decided to watch this movie on an evening when other TV offerings were rather poor, encouraged by it being cited in the book "Die 100 schlechtesten Filme aller Zeiten", The 100 Worst Movies of All Time, by Oliver Kalkofe and Peter Rütten . This seems not to be a good recommendation at all, but some of the movies in the book, in spite of their unquestionable badness, may be really entertaining, especially if you are in the right mood to appreciate their involuntary (?), absurd humor.

I started watching with just this kind of expectations, but the movie became less funny and more unbearable with each scene.

I don't complain about the goofs: the movie is an unique giant goof. For instance, movies like "Airplane!" and its sequel might be used, by comparison, as teaching material for future pilots, and, even with my limited expertise on the matter, I'm pretty sure that it is as much far from reality for what concerns volcanology.

The fact is that such movies, in order to be entertaining, must preserve a light attitude: casualties among the goods, e.g., should be kept to a minimum and, first of all, such movies shouldn't take themselves too seriously. On the contrary, Airplane vs Volcano aspires to portray real drama, with tragedy and strong sentiments, and fails miserably.

The only element that would entice you into watching it is the name of Bruce Willis in its cast, while "Hard" in the title should work as a not-so-subliminal reference to the "Die Hard" franchise. Unfortunately, the character played by Bruce could have been entrusted to any unknown incompetent aging actor with almost no difference. The producers have rented for a couple of days the buildings of an abandoned factory, populating them with a bunch of actor-wannabes that run, shoot, fight following the most preposterous storyboard. I found particularly ludicrous how the ubiquitous black minions of the villain get slaughtered without putting up any resistance, like proverbial lemmings falling from a cliff.

This movie is on a par with many others, where Steven Seagal plays a variation of his only possible role, i.e. The avenger who uses his ability with martial arts. The only SS's movies that, IMHO, are a notch higher are "Under Siege" and, to a lesser extent, its sequel. The main difference in this story is that Steven's character, Ruslan, rather than showing some connection with the oriental ways of thinking/meditating/praying/fighting, is a Russian: in many scenes the actors alternate the use of english and russian language (almost ever without subtitles), which I found rather funny. Unfortunately, the palette of russian derogatory terms used by Ruslan is very limited, and, BTW, the russian word for "idiot" is "duràk", not "dùrak".

I hope that the recent love story of SS with Russia (I spotted him, on TV, in the honor tribune on the Red Square during the parade for the 9th of May) has improved his knowledge on this subject. The action scenes are not bad, but sometimes the exchange of bullets from automatic weapons goes beyond realism (how many magazines would have been emptied by each shooter?) and becomes rather boring. The plot is quite predictable, but this is a normal feature of such movies.

I've spent a big amount of time learning the russian language, in order to read the masterpieces of russian literature as their authors wrote them (or, at least "almost as", due to the orthographic reforms). "Anna Karenina" is one of the novels I've read with great intellectual satisfaction. In general, I'm well aware of the fact that novels and movies are different animals and I don't like crude comparisons of movies with the novels they are based upon.

Nevertheless, IMHO, this particular movie fails in conveying anything of the spiritual content of the novel. I might have enjoyed it anyway, but, even putting aside its literary heritage, I didn't find anything particularly interesting in it (this is absolutely subjective, without any rational judgment), so that I stopped watching it very early.

I'm convinced of the fact that Woody Allen's "Love and Death", in its comedic transposition, shows a way deeper grasp of the "interiors" of XIX century's russian literature.

The first intallment of the series found a sweet spot where action, irony, (english) humor, Tarantino-like exaggeration, likable characters melted into a very entertaining movie, that one could appreciate and remember, although its components are the same of a myriad of previous flicks. This sequel goes often one or more steps too far, in many directions, destroying the magical equilibrium of the original, to the point of becoming almost a parody of it. Nevertheless, taken as a parody, without any great expectation, it may still offer moderate entertainment.

Don't even attempt to notice the ubiquitous absurdities in this movie, you'd be overvhelmed. But if you can switch off your sense of logic and likelyhood (internal coherence in a SF context) and are in the mood for a fairy tale, this movie might please you with its brilliant colors and its rich imagery. In this genre of movies, I'm somewhat sick of mentally twisted characters, dark scenery (I know, a dark set is much cheaper to realize, but...), bitter endings and found this movie a little bit refreshing.

Just the nth earth invasion movie, almost a low cost, B-style remake attempt of "Independence Day". Nevertheless, I find that there are many worse movies on the same subject, and this one can be watched with limited attention and some bland enjoyment. On a "bang for the buck" comparison, I'd say it is not much worse than "Independence Day: Resurgence".

A Russian attempt to add a new chapter to the "heist comedy", a genre that counts many successes as 'Rat Pack' and its quasi-remake 'Ocean's 11', 'Topkapi', 'A Fish Called Wanda', and many others. This movie cannot be compared with these illustrious predecessors: there are very silly moments in the screenplay and somewhere it degenerates into pure farce. On the other hand, I found it entertaining mainly for its distance from other recent Russian movies, as 'T34', 'Attraction', 'Space Walker', 'Salyut 7'. Maybe I'm influenced also by the fact that I watched it in Russian, a language I'm starting to understand well just now, after years of learning and exposure; anyway, I liked it. P.S.: my rating of this movie is higher than my opinion on it, but I wished to compensate somehow for the minimal scores by other reviewers, scores that I deserve only to movies showing absolute bad taste, as the infamous italian 'cinepanettoni'.

The massacre of italian defenseless civilians perpetrated by Yugoslav partisans in Istria during the last years of WWII and immediately thereafter is a proven historical fact. Unfortunately, the political climate in Italy after the war caused a widespread removal of any mention to all the atrocities that weren't accomplished by fascists. This aberration survives still, to the point that it influenced negatively the distribution of this movie in the italian theaters, due to the fear that extremists might cause disorders and damages. Those who negate the Istrian atrocities are on a par with those who negate the "Shoah" and shouldn't be allowed to do so in a public context in any civilized country. That said, the movie does not contain any actual political propaganda, neither in favor of Fascism, nor against Communism: it shows the story of a bunch of men and women in those tragic times. From an artistic point of view I'd say that the movie is very good, even if, IMHO, the aim at aesthetic elegance risks diluting, at times, the dramatic tension.

This movie definitely does not aim at depicting anything technically or historically genuine about WWII. It rather shows a legend, like those of the old good russian "bogatyri", with all the good sentiments that are still very popular in Russia about the "Great Patriotic War" and the comforts of a contemporary action movie. That said, I found the film fresh and highly enjoyable. Maybe I'm a little biased, due to my personal interest in Russian language and popular culture, but I'd say that it compares well with the best occidental production of the same genre.