Change Your Image
alyonkyast
Reviews
The Producers (1967)
The review of "The producers" (1967) by Mel Brooks
The perfect script, which was recognized by Academy Award, looks modern nowadays. This story about unsuccessful producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel), who was "The king of the Broadway" in past. The idea to stage the worst play of the world, which came to him thanks to appearance of an accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder), sounds like a madness. And because of this crazy idea producers' life became very funny and surprising!
The script is well built and the characters are skillfully designed. The author of the play named "The springtime for Hitler" justifies his nature. He is fond of Hitler and he admires the greatest tyrant. This madman speaks with birds and shoots a gun and whole his feelings and motivations are accurately played by Kenneth Mars.
It is a slapstick comedy which mixed different types of humor, jokes, tricks and gags. Needless to say, absurd dialogues make the narration more interesting and intriguing. There are also details of screwball comedy, especially scenes where Max encompasses for elderly ladies to get some money, and the funniest depiction of casting for Hitler's part in performance, where the comic sing a song about "love power".
The plot is untypical because of the results of the opening night. The "genial plan" was destroyed and the "sure-fire flop" was failed. The play was a success with viewers. The producers were very upset and the author was very angry. The main value of the script is unpredictable climax and astonishing resolution. The producers never give up, they have got a new "genial idea". Their project is called "The prisoner of love"!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
«The boy, who has survived»
It is the most famous screen adaptation in the history of cinema. Even people, who have not ever seen it, know this story about the wizard which came to our world to overcome the evil. There were seven books and eight films, because the last part was shared into two flicks due to new Hollywood standard. If you have not guessed yet, we are talking about the novel by Joan Rowling. The last film about Harry Potter was realized on the 7th of July in 2011. And it was the highest-grossing film of this year and the tenth-highest-grossing film of the all times.
What is the secret of success of the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2"? To solve this mystery let's focus on the key factors of a movie success such as: plot and story, their relevance to the audience, star power, director, special effects, budget, release date and critics' reviews. All of these constituents are here.
It is obviously that the plot resonates with the dreams and beliefs of target audience. Harry finally met with his enemy and the greatest battle is going to start, but surprisingly Voldemort become stronger than Harry has excepted. What way the inseparable trinity, Harry, Ron and Hermione will found to protect their school and their world? It seems to sound impossible but Harry decides to sacrifice his life to bring the death to Voldemort. The audience froze in anticipation, everyone would like Harry to live. Despite all fans of Harry Potter know the end of the book they are truly worrying during the film.
It is going without saying that the most part of actors, who has been shooting for more than ten years at the all previous films, has a large and enthusiastic fan base. Not only main characters which were played by Denial Radcliff, Rupert Green and Emma Watson but actors of supporting roles too, like Allen Rickman or Helena Bonham Carter - of course, they were gained recognition from the audience.
A well-known director is one more important factor. David Yates shot three movies about Harry Potter before the last one, but none of these parts has such huge box-office. They all made a great profit over 900 thousand dollars but the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2" has raised 1,3 billion dollars. David Yates has brought whole his experience into his last film, he knew how to make the perfect picture.
Since the 2000s "Harry Potter" has changed significantly. The last part was not a fairy tale like the first part, it was amazing, mysterious and scaring world. And director needed the computer-generated imagery to integrate magic world into a real life and make film more gripping. Needless to say, that the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2" was recognized by the Academy Award for the best visual effects and was awarded by BAFTA at this nomination also. Thanks to the soundtracks by gorgeous Alexandre Desplat the film won the Annual Grammy's Award.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2" had a budget of 250 million dollars and was co-financed by Warner Broth. Pictures and Heyday films which were very generous for whole necessary things.
Another reason of the film's acceptance is a good labeled from the critics. Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half out of four and said, "The finale conjures up enough awe and solemnity to serve as an appropriate finale and a dramatic contrast to the lighthearted (relative) innocence of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone all those magical years ago."
At last, the release date. It was the middle of the summer, when cinemas became full of Harry Potter's fans. Not all previous parts were turned out in summer, lots of them were screened in autumn or in winter, when many of viewers has not opportunities to visit cinema palaces.
To sum it up, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2" is an example of a commercially successful movie where various factors come into play to bring millions of viewers and provide the renown from the world cinema to all members of the film's production unit.
L'amant d'un jour (2017)
The review of "Lover for a day" by Philippe Garrel The tearful melodrama in black and white
At first sight, the interesting plot about relationships of new Gilles's mistress and his daughter seems original, but since the third shot the intrigue becomes predictable. Because of the weak dramatic structure, the film is sluggish.
The story is clear. A philosophy professor named Gilles (Éric Caravaca) has a relationship with Ariane (Louise Chevillotte), who is one of his students. Gilles' daughter, Jeanne (Esther Garrel), moves in to live with them after being kicked out of her boyfriend's apartment. Later, we find out that Ariane is attracted to young men and she also was shot for the cover of porn magazine. One of the strangest things that Gilles and Jeanne does not understand who Ariane is. In my opinion, the actress so badly pretends to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, that her heinous character is obvious from the very beginning.
There is one positive thing, it is an idea, that false love helps father to establish relations with his daughter. And thanks to negative example of Ariane's behavior, Jeanne and her boyfriend made up and started to appreciate each other. The fuzzy and weak conflict is over like that way.
It is not clear what happens in Ariane's soul when she says to Gilles and Jeanne that she loves them both. Furthermore, it is not clear what happens in souls of all characters at this film.
The climax is too vague, we also watch as Ariane has sex with another young man. And what conclusion should we draw from this? It is not the first time. The scene like that we saw at least twice before, so it is not surprised us at all.
As for director of photography work, it is very simple. The shots are flat without any perspective and depth. The mise en scenes are not built well, big close-ups are not always well connected with previous frames. It may seem, that the editor did not have enough time to make image on the screen more technical quality.
The color score, perhaps, must help us to believe in this story and must give us an opportunity to perceive it more reliably. And that's the whole idea! I suppose, that it would have been better if the director had spent more time working with actors than on pondering the color rendition of the film.
To sum up, the idea of the film lies on the surface, and the director's conception is too simple for the quality artistic expression.
Paris pieds nus (2016)
The review of the "Lost in Paris" by Dominique Abel and Fiona Gordon. The history returns
The film starts with a touching scene, which shows two people, they are little Fiona and her aunt Martha, talking about Paris. Martha said: "I'm going away to live in Paris" and Fiona answered: "I'm going away to live in Paris too". Back then, they had no idea, that their dream would come true in the future. It is the exposition of the story. After this dialog the filmmakers add new buildings, houses, lights and another symbols of civilization into the image of snowing Canada village to show that the time has passed. The start like that prepares us to the extraordinary, a little absurd, but very sincere story.
Two unusual comics Dominique Abel and Fiona Gordon, as if they came from the pages of the cinema history books, have made this film, using whole their experience from their last pictures. "Iceberg", "Rumba" and "Fair" are films where two actors have showed themselves as the followers of classical comic tradition of silent films, like Buster Keaton, Max Linder or Charlie Chaplin, or even Jacques Tati. Gags which they usually do not only amuse the audience, but they are also meaningful and thought-provoking. This makes them the most similar to Chaplin's gags. For example, in "Lost in Paris" there is a direct allusion to famous "dance of buns" by Carlie Chaplin in the scene where Pierre Richard and Emmanuelle Riva dance with the help of their feet. There are also various similarities.
What is the advantage of the "Lost in Paris" over the other pictures by the comics? It is more adapted for a modern screen. At the last films numerous of their stunts and gags look a bit strange and their meaning is not always clear, but in this picture they are reasonable at all. In particular, the scene at the restaurant, where each character jumps up when the music is played. The music makes the rhythm and without it the actions of the characters would look strange. The music also helps to make comic situations even more absurd. When Fiona suddenly falls into the river this incident is accompanied by the "Swimming song". In their last pictures, Dominique and Fiona preferred not to use many sound effects. The main sound for them was the noise of the sea waves, but in this film the sound of the sea is replaced by the sound of a swiftly running river as well as the peaceful provincial life is replaced by the noise of the city streets. There are also other differences like close-ups and medium shots, before this film comics usually used cover shots and frontal picture compositions. And the technical quality of the image is better, thanks to Claire Childeric as the director of photography.
The plot is clear. Fiona gets the letter from Martha. The comic situation is that Martha throws the letter into the trash can instead of sending it by mail - we can see that this eighty-eight-year-old aunt, which "can take care of herself", calmly passes by the mailbox and throws a letter into the trash bin. The comedy begins! After that Fiona goes to Paris to find poor Martha, who is not so poor in fact - she perfectly succeeds in hiding from the guardianship authorities who want to take her to a nursing home. As for Fiona, in Paris she gets into different troubles, she falls into the river, loses all her things, goes to the funeral and, finally, finds her love. There is also parallel storyline of Martha and the conflict is that two characters cannot meet each other in a big city.
The typical story becomes not so typical because of the characters, their behavior and reactions to unexpected situations. It is a well-done screwball comedy, which brings to modern screen gags and stunts from silent black-and-white films and combines them with modern tricks. It's not accidental that Pierre Richard takes part in this film. As he has made lots of things for the French comic school development, he is significant figure in film history. So, in this picture Pierre Richard personalizes the link the old generation of comedians with the new. In the scene, which shows the meeting of Norman (Pierre Richard) and Martha (Emmanuelle Riva) we can realize something about their past and we can analogize with our younger characters.
But not all past inventions may be accepted by modern viewers. Therefore, the fans of Dominique Abel and Fiona Gordon can be disappointed cause in this film there are not so many meaningful acts and sincerity of feelings, last gags of comics became adapted to the mass audience. Events of the story are moving faster, heartiness is replaced by entertainment. We can only feel nostalgic looking at our favorite gags like Dom's legs protruding out of the tends and the passionate dance in a restaurant, which remind us "Rumba".
In any case, if the audience laughs - the comedy is success. There are lots of various methods to make story crazier and funnier. For example, the ice storm, which comes when door is opened, or any costume details like Canadian flag, which is attached to Fiona's backpack or her yellow sweater, which Dom puts on himself.
There are also well-thought-out phrases and dialogs. "So, miss you've lost your passport, and your luggage, money, and your aunt Martha...", - said the man from the Canadian embassy, making a list. It sounds like absurd and because of that it is very funny. Or another example, when Norman is asked a question: "have you seen Martha?", his answer is: "Yes, twenty-seven years ago...". So, there are lots of illogical dialogs, they are like absurd comedies by Ionesco.
The sound, which outstrips the action, also makes situations more comedy, as in the scene, where Dom talks with Martha voice, thinking that he talks with the Statue of Liberty. There are many other scenes, where Fiona and Dominique as directors use the device "one instead of the other". Dom confuses Martha with Fiona when they sleep in a tent or Fiona thinks that the woman, which has died, is her aunt Martha. All that details make the simple story with uncomplicated plot more unpredictable.
The composition of the plot is circular. The picture of the modern big city at the end of the film is opposite to the picture of the distant Canadian village. The idea is clear. All that Martha needs in her eighty-eighth is the peace like at home after the busy life in a modern, civilized society, and with the help of Fiona Martha's dream to climb to the top of the Eiffel Tower is carried out.
To sum up, the film by Dominique and Fiona is unique as their last pictures. This comedy combines burlesque, absurd, grotesque and simple funny situations, characters and jokes. And it is rather a plus than a minus that it is more adapted to the mass viewer. Thanks to this film everybody can get acquainted with these astonishing modern comics.
Rope (1948)
The review of the "Rope" (1948) by Alfred Hitchcock
It was an experiment when Alfred Hitchcock decided to shoot the psychological crime thriller in one take. But technical limitation did not let him to do it, as a result we can see long continuous takes sometimes with the editing but the change from one shot to another is not so notably.
Despite the weakness of the plot director made more breathtaking the story based on the play by Patrick Hamilton. The setting is just one flat with depiction of New-York through the window. After the murder this typical American flat is filled with the heavy atmosphere and viewers feel complicated senses. We partly worry about characters when they try to mask their crime because we identify ourselves with them. But on the other hand we understand that it is cruel to kill the person to experience the theory of the "perfect murder".
Contrary to comments of some critics that there is not traditional suspense, I would like to mention that when the murders speak with native people of killed person near his hidden body and when the housekeeper is going to open the hapless table you really thrill.
This film is not only experiment of the provocative plot and the long takes it is also the knowing with the technicolor by Hitchcock and it is his first independent film which he produced himself. So this picture is very original and the factor of box-office which did not cover the budget does not diminish its value.