bigeyesforbeauty Reviews

Tangerines (2013)

every cliché revisited

[1/10 · 2 November 2014]

An Estonian, a Chechen, and a Georgian locked together in a house during the Abkhasian war just after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. This alone made me interested in the movie. The set up was quite good and could make for an interesting story about the these so different and so similar people all united by their belonging to the Soviet world.

But unfortunately the movie soon slid into a predictable and dull moralistic tale which got worse the more it continued until finally culminating in a farcical deux ex machina.

The message of the movie is quite simple and this has been done thousands of times in other movies. You get noble enemies who gradually become friends and the simple twist of the plot in the end gives us a predictable resolution.But if the director of the movie wanted to really give a human dimension to all characters he/she didn't need to place this external evil in the face of the Russians to make his/her point. Instead we see the most idiotic caricature scene with the Russian peace keepers arriving to the place and for no reason wanting to shoot the Chechen.

I mean come on, how more cliché can it be? So you have all these noble people, the Georgian, the two Estonians, the noble Chechen with his chivalric code of honoring his word, and even the Abkhasians come off as noble (offering their help with the harvest of mandarines) and then you have these cardboard villain characters of Russian soldiers, who arrive and straight off the bat start to abuse the Chechen guy and then try to shoot him, only to be killed (3-4 of them) by the Georgian in a very unrealistic scene. To top it in the worst cliché ever the already left for dead officer (who didn't look like an officer) shoots the Georgian guy in a most abused Hollywood plot twist way possible. I wish the director just went straight out and said in the beginning that he hated the Russians and be done with that. That would save me an hour and a half of my life.

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash (2006 Video)

nothing really new

[5/10 · 11 February 2008]

I decided to watch the documentary after the storm of positive reviews on IMDb. One viewer even reported not being able to sleep the next night due to the shock received form the movie. But I actually fell asleep somewhere in the middle after the revelation of some professor form Stanford that the US actually didn't go to Iraq to free the people but to secure the oil supply. What a surprise! I think it was clear to the majority of people right from the onset. And who doesn't know that we're gonna run out of oil? Everybody knows that. Who doesn't know that wars begin for oil? It's so talked about especially after the latest American campaign in Iraq that it's surprising anybody would mention it like some kind of insider information. So, leaving the entertaining value of the old oil commercials and the historical background aside, there was hardly anything substantial in the film that the general public is not aware of.

Then, it seems that the documentary was tailored especially to the US public, as it I guess the coming scarcity of oil will mostly affect the countries the biggest consumers of carbohydrates, i.e. the US. What I didn't like in the film is the manner in which the material was presented. The cutting was terrible, all these music video style several seconds clips together with the video footage at hte background, it all seems made with the only purpose to create a sensational effect at the same time lacking most of the informative value.

Then, some punch lines of the "specialists" interviewed in the films were especially annoying, like one where the guy in the military pants said that people might worship Buddha, Jesus or Allah, but in reality they worship petroleum. I totally failed to see what was the point of the phrase, but it sounded ridiculous. There were some more annoying comments lacking any sense and pronounced entirely in order to shock the unsophisticated viewer, but let's not get carried away. The documentary was a bit entertaining, not enough to stay awake, but OK.

Eastern Promises (2007)

annoying

[1/10 · 22 January 2008]

This movie would be OK, if one considers it a B rated genre piece of action, but the problem with it is that it is so pretentious and presents itself as some kind of realistic mafia/gangster movie at the same time lacking any sense of depth or any entertaining value. Cronenberg has his own recognizable style of making movies and it's visible in this one, and it saves a movie a little bit. I mean if you take it as some kinda Kill Bill with a bunch of bad guys and a bit of ethnic flavor it's OK, although still nothing much to talk about since the story line is so generic and flat one has to be a naive and impressionable teenager to be entertained by it.

The problem starts if one takes the movie seriously as some kind of gangster drama or as some kind of glance into the world of real Russian mafia. Then, the whole thing falls apart right from the beginning. For someone who grew up in Russia and had any remote contacts with gangsters the mafia portrayed in this piece of fantasy is no more realistic as the orcs in the Lord of the Rings.

First of all, no organized crime group would call themselves "vory v zakone". It's plain ridiculous. Then, the whole switching of languages thing looks really schizophrenic. You constantly see the "Russian" gangsters exchanging phrases in some kinda pidgin Russian and then repeating the same thing to each other in English. It's just ludicrous as well as the words they say in Russian are so out of otuch with what the real Russians might say in the relevant situation. It's hard to believe that in a movie with such a budget they couldn't hire some Russians to do the work. Cassel in fact was the only one whose accent remotely reminded meRussian. The worst came from Mortensen who despite claiming to visitRussia and practice for the role inside the country totally fails to look anything close to what a Russian man would look and sound.

Then, the way they execute each other and all these "Chechens" with little knives is again so remote from reality. In real world they just shoot the victims early in the morning while they are going out of the house and not run after them in the public sauna armed with tiny knives. The God fathers gathering to admit the new member is again director's fantasy. In real world none of them busy people would bother to come together in order to hire a little man. In real world a mafia newcomer would never have chance to talk to all the bosses at once. Then, I had an impression that the fearsome criminal organization where Viggo infiltrated himself consists of only the father, his son Cyill and him, nobody else. I could go on and on about all the mismatches but I guess the realism wasn't the driving force behind the making of the movie, so let it be what it is- a stylized B rated piece of mafia-fantasy.

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)

painful to watch

[1/10 · 16 December 2007]

First of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.

But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in "Mongolian" clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a "Mongolian". The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.

The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.

And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?

Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse.

Disbelief (2004)

nicely made propaganda piece

[1/10 · 5 December 2006]

1. for those who don't know the second Chechen war started in August 1999, a moth before the explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk. It started with unprovoked invasion of the Chechen guerrillas of Dagestan. They invaded Dagestan with the aim to create a joint Chechen-Dagestani Muslim state. From 2 of August Russia was already at war with Chechnya and there was absolutely no motive for the special forces of Russia to bomb the houses in Moscow in September. This simple fact is constantly ignored by all the conspiracy theory adepts, who link the bombings of the houses with the beginning of the second Chechen war. 2. although, there was a lot of disturbingly unclear about the Ryazan 'training', it in itself doesn't prove anything. This is the only part of the movie which actually contributes in any way to the conspiracy theory. 3. This so-called documentary makes no effort to present the full picture of what was going on, neither is it interested in any facts or allegations that don't conform to the preconceived notion of the director. The final scenes of Chechen mothers weeping over their dead kids shown in a row with the Russian women who have lost their relatives in the bombings and all this after a ridiculous interview with Zakaev is but a cheap and disgusting attempt to play on the viewers' emotions to press home the director's point. 4.Zakaev's interview is put in the movie to give more credibility to the director's idea, but it is just ridiculous. I almost fell from the chair when he said that the Chechens couldn't be behind this because it was so barbaric and even the 'frozen' ones wouldn't dare to to this as they wouldn't find a place in the Chechen community after committing such a barbaric act of terror. Mr Zakaev obviously forgot Budenovsk, Kizlyar, the slave trade, the public executions, the cutting off of the heads of the Western journalists, and all the sh*t that was going on in his little jihad paradise during 1995-2000. All those people who are responsible for those acts lived comfortably in Ichkeria until Russians hunted down and eliminated them one by one. So, overall, this is the nicely cut propaganda piece for the western public. I've heard the next work of this director will be a film on Litvinenko or Yushekno's poisoning and it's gonna be made with the money of Berezovsky.

9th Company (2005)

not bad, but something's missing

[5/10 · 9 March 2006]

I have very mixed feelings about that movie. It has a lot of Holliwoodish scenes which make me feel embarrassed, because it also have a lot of beautiful, deep and touching scenes, scenes that reflect something Russian, something deep thought. But then the good scenes turn again into Spielberg type Saving private Ryan patriotism blabbering and I get embarrassed again. But overall this movie has good directing, good visual effects. It is clearly a big-budget movie with beautiful shots, music, professional special effects. I see how Bondarchuk tried to show honestly the real army days with the hierarchy of soldiers, the drill sergeants beating rookies, the brutality of the system. I really felt touched by the play of some actors. I felt sorry for Vorobei, a young intelligent boy who has to die, and he dies fast and painful like in real life and you can't help feeling deep sorry about it. But then I get embarrassed again seeing the Rambo style scenes with guy shouting "No" and charging forwards into attack with the machine gun in hands. I can't help feeling embarrassed seeing the mujaheddin attacking Russians walking in line full height, totally defying all common sense and the way the soldiers would dash in the real war. I understand what Bondarchuk tried to deliver, I feel impressed by the beautiful shots of Afghanistan, helicopters, it has quality in it. The fight in a village was quite well shot but then again we see the holliwoodish style last battle, which doesn't make any sense. The same with the actors play. Some actors make you believe in them, feel their pain and joy, while others play just bad. So overall comparing to Hollywood, it is better. Americans would never make a movie like that. But it is still very commercial and you can see that it's made to be sold. You can see that the director adopts Hollywood's methods of spectator manipulation. And I can't help feeling that it could've been much better, that he could've done much more and different way as there is such a rich history of Soviet and Russian cinema with its own unique style.

So my verdict is, yeah, good attempt, but just an attempt.

Names Engraved in Marble (2002)

"nice" touching movie for not too critical viewer

[13 January 2006]

The movie is nice, if you want to give it a credit just because it is one of the rare chances to see Estonian cinema. It is touching and somewhat sentimental, though the director managed to avoid too cheesy holliwoodish scene. The main plus is the touching feeling it evokes when you think about those young lads who got in the civil war and have to fight the outnumbering enemy. There is a love story, beautiful girl, but nothing really happens. There is a token brother-against-brother theme, that is supposed to show the brutal nature of the civil war. There are battle scenes, but the main battle scene against Latvians is too over dramatized and extremely unrealistic. In general, it's OK if you don't start thinking how in reality those battles would be possible. If you start thinking it seems extremely surrealistic and devoid of any resemblance of what the battle would be in the real war. Thus, some 10 young students lying in the half trench seem to stop the whole company of mighty Latvian Reds (those guys hugely contributed to the victory of REds in Russia). The movie ends abruptly, and you have a feeling that something is missing. As for historical part, it's interesting that most Estonian/Finnish spectators immediately see it as us (Estonians) fighting them (Evil Russians). The movie itself doesn't really show much Russians. Most Reds are actually Estonian. Another thing is that the Civil war in Estonia (and Finland) is often presented as Liberation war, while in fact it was a Civil war. Russians played a minor role in both countries. And it was a part of one giant civil war going on in the whole disintegrating Russian empire with Reds fighting Whites. So the words appearing in the beginning of the movie and saying that Soviet Russia wanted to establish itself as a European power (implying that Soviet Russia invaded Estonia) have more to do with current Estonian political situation than with the history.

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

masterpiece

[10/10 · 27 November 2005]

I am happy I watched this movie before seeing all the reviews, so I didn't have this preconceived "sex" attitude. TO me "Last tango in Paris" is a special movie. I can watch it again and again and it will remain as powerful as it was when I had watched it for the first time. To me it is more that a movie. I saw it for the first time some 10 years ago as a teenager and I remember being mesmerized by the special mood that pervaded the whole movie. And those images. Grey Paris, city of loneliness, the lonely figure of Brando, the girl in a ridiculous hat. Then, the sex in the empty apartment devoid of all signs of normality, a strange relationship between two strangers, who have sex and still remain as separate and alienated as two people can be. She, young , curious, full of life, going to be married. Him, old, disillusioned, in the end of his life-journey, tormented by the pain of the loss of his wife who had brutally left him committing a suicide without explanation, without a note. And so they meet in this naked apartment, engage in the sex devoid of any tenderness, him, dominating her, setting the rules for the game where there is no names, no reality. And during those moments he escapes from the world around him, from the suicide of his wife, from the pain of the existence. She is strangely attracted to him, captivated by his power, lets herself be part of this game. She lets him do whatever he likes with her, but she knows she is free, she can leave this empty apartment at any moment.And she does. She is young and returns back to the normal life with her young fiancé. The last scenes of the dance and the chase are so powerful. The old man making a mickey of himself in front of the dancing crowd, playfully chasing the young girl who is visibly scared up into that empty apartment where everything had started. That last scene of him dying on the balcony like a stray dog is still haunting me. There is so much of the existentialist despair in the movie and the final release of that despair is so crude and powerful and beautiful in its bareness.

Altogether it is a piece of art so close to the existentialist writers and painters of the 20th century. It is about human condition, about the hell of existence, about no escape. and at the same time it is so full of emotions, of sadness and fear, of pain, and it is so beautiful.

The Last Samurai (2003)

a disappointing movie if you have watched Japanese films about samurais

[1/10 · 25 November 2005]

I like Japanese movies and I like movies about samurais and for some reason after I saw the ads I bought a ticket and went to the cinema to watch it. I expected something like the "Shogun" with it holliwoodish but still interesting entertaining exploration of Japanese culture. But what I saw was so cheesy that walking out of the theatre I felt like I start hating Tom Cruise for lurking me into the 2 hour popcorn- for-the-brains show. I always expected Tom Cruise to finally die, but he never did. Instead he went on chopping the samurais (who, supposedly dedicated all their life to the sword fighting art) right and left. The scenes where he trains with the master of sword remind me all those hundreds of cheesy Rambo-Kickboxer movies where the white Americans kick the asses of their Asian adversaries in the field of the martial arts after having trained those arts for some 10 minutes. The movie is quite expensive and has a pretense of being a historical drama, but the plot and the message of it are just way too cheesy. Hollywood clichés are oozing from every scene. The worst part is the ending where Tom Cruise (an Amercian officer who came to teach Japanese the modern Western war technique and subsequently underwent a transformation embracing the "old ways" of noble fighting with the katana sword) together with his noble friends dash in their last suicidal charge with the naked swords right onto the machine guns of emperor's army and... what I see: all Japanese are dead and Tom Cruise is still hanging on, all wounded of course, but alive and with this tremendously heroic face he tries to stand up, alone among the corpses of all his friends. Here the director apparently wants us to cry and sympathize with our hero, but all I felt was a creepy feeling that one might feel when observing something so utterly false and cheap cheesy that you want to shudder. So my verdict is: It is bad, very bad. Even for Tom Cruise.