I'll tell you right away, from the 20th to the 30th, I've been watching in snails, rewinding. There are several reasons. So in order, I'll start with the main one. Another film with a phlegmatic narrative. Too much. It is full of Scandinavian style. In some movies it may be acceptable, but not in this case. I believe that the presentation
more
I'll tell you right away, from the 20th to the 30th, I've been watching in snails, rewinding. There are several reasons. So in order, I'll start with the main one. Another film with a phlegmatic narrative. Too much. It is full of Scandinavian style. In some movies it may be acceptable, but not in this case. I believe that the presentation of the material is the foundation on which it depends very much what trace the film will leave in the audience. That is why this disadvantage is identified as the most significant. Aside from that, the breakdown into mini-history, I was never attracted to that. Too many storylines, most of the time going exclusively in parallel. Because of this, I perceive the plot not as an integral unit, but as its fractional components, existing in themselves. Honestly, I don’t even want to give an assessment to these outcasts. They did not impress me individually. There is just something to compare with, and it will be unfair to other films and to myself, too, to score points, and I do not see why. In addition, it is a single cinematic organism, which means you need to approach it as a single organism, and for me it does not exist - there are only separate organs. And finally, acting. Also very important. Of course, when the first two points are already in the negative, this can affect the actors to a certain extent, and if the director also sets the wrong tasks, or lacks acting experience, the result can be deplorable. Which I actually saw. No matter how social it is, all efforts are in vain.
|