The film turned out to be a very French, meditative, peculiar conglomerate, eclectic - and body-horror and dramatic cinema and metaphor in a social direction. Such a mix of genres, if you carefully watch this author's film, is quite justified. There is a dynamic and a certain reflection (small). The statement on the post-cove space
more
The film turned out to be a very French, meditative, peculiar conglomerate, eclectic - and body-horror and dramatic cinema and metaphor in a social direction. Such a mix of genres, if you carefully watch this author's film, is quite justified. There is a dynamic and a certain reflection (small). The statement on the post-cove space turned out to be parable and in a couple of scenes in the second half - dystopian, which explains the very essence of the film. I love Romain Duris, I started watching the film because of him and did not regret it. It was interesting from beginning to end. In my opinion, the final point should have been put in an open finale, so the film would have acquired a more finished form. Good work by Tom Kaye.7.5/10. Here, too, in this essay-cinema, there is an allusion to the topic of the vitality of people from Joseph Brodsky: “And if you go back to the conversation about art, then, of course, it is lovely that Stravinsky is allowed, and Chagall and Balanchine are already good people.” But it also means that the empire can afford some flexibility. In a sense, this is not a concession, but a sign of self-confidence, the vitality of the empire. And instead of rejoicing about it, one should, in general, think about it.
|