Since I watched all three films of the franchise on the same day, I will not delay writing texts on them much. I liked the first film because it was perfectly balanced, and there was a balance between dynamic and conversational scenes. But there were a few moments with sagging that I didn’t notice, but after watching the second part again, I understand why I like the second film more – because of the non-stop action that starts from the first minutes of the film. The introduction was taken from the first film, and then completely slithered its structure. The only difference was that there was less talk and the focus shifted to action. I’ll go on to explain why I love this film so much and understand it for myself, because the last time I wrote something about this film was many years ago. Let us share our impressions of what we saw and some thoughts about this tape.
A narrative criterion or narrative. The story tells the story of Frank Martin. After the events in France, he moved to America in the hottest state of Florida and the famous city of Miami, where he replaced the driver of the Billings family: Jefferson’s father, Audrey – a loving mother and Jack – a small but well-behaved and obedient son, as convinced by the opening credits, decorated in the form of a route home from school. The boy is kidnapped and Frank does everything to save him and uncover the kidnapper’s plans. This time, the script from beginning to end blows the spirit of Hollywood, because there is a hero, there is a villain and a married couple twisting themselves. At the heart of dramaturgy here the conflict is understandable to any parent. If your child is kidnapped, you will do anything to see him unharmed. For its genre, the plot is strong, but if you watch this film for the first time, then remember that such paintings do not involve high dramaturgy of relationships and an abundance of second meanings.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. Spectacularity here is at the forefront, because you will not find long conversations, more than five minutes here. In this film, you can also see coolly staged fights in the rhythm of dance performed by Statham and bandits, high-speed chases for flying vehicles, a bit of gunfights and unrealistic physics, because it is not the main headliner in such a movie. Because at the forefront is the mind-blowing dynamics of the chase, where everything else is sideways and given in small strokes, but they do not interfere with the logic of the plot at all, and therefore do not look like a fifth wheel in a coordinated mechanism. The minimum of philosophy is the maximum of action scenes, the title of "story action movie" the film more than justifies. Because if the action is prolonged and you watch how Frank Martin guards the traditional foundations of the family (the scene where he deliberately drove around the conflicting father and mother) at the same time providing an unforgettable vacation to his friend - Inspector Tarconi, and dealing with the bad guys, provides you with an undisturbed spectacle and a pleasant evening in the company of a longtime acquaintance. The melodies are great, the main theme of the second carrier falls into your head without any modern girl songs, as in the third film, and every sound sounds in time, in its place, the explosions are colorful and sound massive, as explosions should sound, thanks to the sound engineers for the competent timing of all exhausts, shots and roars of the engine. Operator Mitchell Amundsen and composer Alexander Azaria did a good job, the first knows how to work with the frame and savor fights, and the second wrote music that fits well into the atmosphere of the film. The music from the credits is not as tear-jerking as in the first part. And the fights seem less flighty. But Pink on the soundtrack - 'one love'.
Acting as always at a decent level. Jason Statham continues to flaunt in a black suit, this time he is in it constantly, which hints that the actor merged with this role, but for a long time it was not enough, because he stopped acting in this role after the third film. Let’s see: the whole first film is based on the fact that he violates the third rule – “do not look into the package”, in this film he violated the new rule “don’t make impossible promises”, in the third film they decided to spit on these rules and did not fail to remind you again about it. Statham decides that he plays a strange character, refuses to continue to play this role. Or they didn't get along in fees, but Frank Martin's halo haunted him for a long time. Alessandro Gassman fit well into the image of the villain Gianni Cillini, turned out to be a convincing mercenary from the cartel, the owner of millions, he even has some semblance of philosophy, in his replicas there are also not stupid conclusions, everything in the theme of the film. François Berlain is always good in his supporting role, it is pleasant to look at him, plus the successful selection of the dubbing actor gave him a certain warmth, which I liked.
As a conclusion. Fans of militants of this kind will not pass by, because the non-stop action is put at the forefront and the plot collisions with conflict and family values fade into the background, especially in action scenes, which here are stuffed with almost the entire space of the film as lead. I still do not get tired of this film, I like to watch it several times and enjoy what is happening on the screen. I'd recommend it. All health, peace and good cinema.
There's plagiarism in the movie. The wolf from the cartoon "Well, wait." In order not to be a spoiler, or not to act like a spoiler, in other words, if I were a lawyer, I would sue the writer. Surprised by a five-minute action, when the villain is sitting in the car INCRESSED, the kid is STOPED, and the cool carrier develops speeds much higher than 100 km / h. You'd think you'd slow down. But, no. Of course, a lot of collateral damage. But, it's small, the movie is good, it's a fairy tale!
Since I watched all three films in the franchise on the same day, I won’t delay writing a review much. I liked the first film because it was perfectly balanced, and there was a balance between dynamic and conversational scenes. But there were a few moments with sagging that I didn’t notice, but after watching the second part again, I understand why I like the second film more because of the non-stop action that starts from the first minutes of the film. The introduction was taken from the first film, and then completely slithered the structure of the first film. The only difference was that there was less talk and the focus shifted to action. Next, I will explain why I like this film so much and understand it for myself, because the last time I wrote something on this film about six years ago.
The plot continues to tell the story of Frank Martin. After the events in France, he moved to America in the hottest state of Florida and the famous city of Miami, where he replaced the driver of the Billings family: Jefferson’s father, Audrey – a loving mother and Jack – a small but well-behaved and obedient son, as convinced by the opening credits, decorated in the form of a route home from school. The boy is kidnapped and Frank does everything to save him and uncover the kidnapper’s plans. This time, the script from beginning to end blows the spirit of Hollywood, because there is a hero, there is a villain and a married couple twisting themselves. At the heart of dramaturgy here the conflict is understandable to any parent. If your child is kidnapped, you will do anything to see him unharmed. For its genre, the plot is strong, but if you watch this film for the first time, then remember that such films do not involve high dramaturgy of relationships and an abundance of second meanings. According to the criterion of "the plot" the film will put a solid four.
Visibility is at the forefront here, since you will not find long conversations, more than five minutes here. In this film, you can also see coolly staged fights in the rhythm of dance performed by Statham and bandits, high-speed chases for flying vehicles, a bit of gunfights and unrealistic physics, because it is not the main headliner in such a movie. Because at the forefront is the mind-blowing dynamics of the chase, where everything else is sideways and given in small strokes, but they do not interfere with the logic of the plot at all, and therefore do not look like a fifth wheel in a coordinated mechanism. The minimum of philosophy - the maximum action scenes, the title of "story action movie" the film more than justifies. Because if the action is prolonged and you watch how Frank Martin guards the traditional foundations of the family (the scene where he deliberately drove around the conflicting father and mother) at the same time providing an unforgettable vacation to his friend - Inspector Tarconi, and dealing with the bad guys, provides you with an undisturbed spectacle and a pleasant evening in the company of a longtime acquaintance. By this criterion, the film gets a solid five.
Actors are working as usual. Jason Statham continues to flaunt in a black suit, this time he is in it constantly, which hints that the actor merged with this role, but for a long time it was not enough, because he stopped acting in this role after the third film. Let’s see: the whole first film is based on the fact that he violates the third rule – “do not look into the package”, in this film he violated the new rule “don’t make impossible promises”, in the third film they decided to spit on these rules and did not fail to remind you again about it. Statham decides that he plays a strange character, refuses to continue to play this role. Or they didn't get along in fees, but Frank Martin's halo haunted him for a long time. Alessandro Gassman fit well into the image of the villain Gianni Cillini, turned out to be a convincing mercenary from the cartel, the owner of millions, he even has some semblance of philosophy, in his replicas there are also not stupid conclusions, everything in the theme of the film. François Berlain is always good in his supporting role, it is nice to look at him, plus the successful selection of the dubbing actor gave him a certain warmth, which I liked.
Soundtrack or "music and sound". The melodies are great, the main theme of the second carrier falls into your head without any modern girl songs, as in the third film, and every sound sounds in time, in its place, the explosions are colorful and sound massive, as explosions should sound, thanks to the sound engineers for the competent timing of all exhausts, shots and roars of the engine.
Verdictating. Fans of militants of this kind will not pass by, because the non-stop action is put at the forefront and the plot collisions with conflict and family values fade into the background, especially in action scenes, which here are stuffed with almost the entire space of the film as lead. I still do not get tired of this film, I like to watch it several times and enjoy what is happening on the screen. I will rate the film at eight points and recommend it. Good to you all!
The sequel to the rather successful action movie of 2002 significantly added to the budget. This added to the spectacle. True, plot stretches and improbability became even more.
Frank Martin moved from France to Miami, where he became a chauffeur in the wealthy Billings family. One day, the couple's young son is kidnapped and Frank has to use his skills again to get him back and prevent the kidnappers' insidious plan.
Like the first part, the film is based on the charisma of Jason Statham. In his crown role of a cool and wordless hero, he is, as usual, very good. Here he fights much more than in the first part and the staging of fights is quite decent. We now dispensed with the love line, although Mrs. Billings gave very unambiguous signs, but our Frank stoically withstood it and limited himself to an offer of friendship.
The other characters are much less remembered. The main villain performed by Alexsandro Gassman is somehow unimpressive. But his sexy and dangerous assistant Lola looks very impressive. From the first part also moved François Berlain with the comedic role of Commissioner. In addition, in a small role there is a rather famous former heavyweight boxer Shannon Briggs.
In general, a very decent and dynamic action movie, somewhere slightly inferior to the first part, but quite watchable.
The hit action movie based on the scenario of Luke Besson with one of the main stars of Hollywood action movies Jason Statham could not remain a loner, and came out, although not such a huge film epic as “Fast and Furious”, but a fairly solid trilogy, the second part of which not only continues the first – it significantly improves this story, making its main character a much more noble person than the rude type we saw in the first film. What made him a gloomy loner, living by his own invented rules, living one day - and remained a mystery, but in the second part of his life a miracle happens - he gets closer to people, ceases to be a lone wolf, and everything seemed to get better in his life. But any American action movie shows how someone’s life is in danger, someone else’s life is even cut short, and only a hero who knows a lot about martial arts and technology can prevent villains.
The film begins with a banal fight in the parking lot, where some hooligans unsuccessfully try to take the car from Frank, after which we are shown the friendship of Frank with the son of his employers, whose family is on the verge of divorce. Frank, out of nobility, rejects his little friend's mother's attempts to seduce him, while preparing to kidnap the child. When the attackers succeed in this, Frank himself is suspected of kidnapping, who got into a desperate situation under the pressure of the kidnappers. The situation is further aggravated when it turns out that the bandits possess an extremely dangerous virus.
In terms of the number of action, all three parts in the trilogy are about the same full of visual surprises, only in the first part the only flaw is in the rude nature of the main character, and in the third part there are “misunderstandings” – the second part is flawless in everything, and even though it does not look quite realistic, but this is how many action movies look, and some viewers do not like this genre, not because they do not like watching fights, but because they do not believe that one hero can defeat the mafia. Here, for example, a scene in which Frank takes off in a car from a ski jump, and from the bottom of the car crane rips off the bomb, looks very impressive. In general - cheerful, energetic, not devoid of meaning action movie and just a great movie.
10 out of 10
There is no such thing as a plot, the truth is where the "thriller" here I can not understand. In general, the film is a thrash comedy, but why the authors present it with a serious mind. The same mistakes that were made in the first part. These are spatial and temporal holes of what is happening on screens.
To shoot down a bomb from the bottom of a car in an air flight on an Audi is not real, even fantastic, but it was cool, but to turn away from bullets, whether you are not a “Neo” or to defend yourself from shots from a distance of 5-10 meters with a wooden door is also unrealistic, but it is not cool. A dangerous virus that could kill millions of people? The filmmakers have ever visited a clinic with children or themselves, it is clear that not as in Russia, but still not the same as one registrar and two pediatricians.
The whole film is based on Statham’s charisma and a few beautiful fight scenes. There are a lot of questions from physicists. In the American special forces apparently teach the technique of combat with a fire hose with the use of improvised items and the main character works them out daily. You can compare such fights with fights in the style of Jackie Chan, but still in Jackie they look realistic and often hint at chance, rather than proven skill.
I do not understand such films, the opportunity to make it more realistic or less serious is not used, and to shoot a deliberately weak film, but with good scenes fights, betting on the main character, in my opinion it is amateur.
6 out of 10
Recently, a new, fourth part of the "Carrier" visited the cinemas. The trailers confidently said that the film will not drag, because “there is no Statema, there is no normal plot.” And after the release of the film, each viewer sums up his opinion by the fact that, except for the first part, it is not worth watching The Carrier. The fact that "Heritage" turned out to be a second-rate product there is no point in denying, but the fact that "except for the first part, it is not worth watching the Carrier" here many are mistaken. Few people realize and few know that “The Carrier” is one of those franchises where the sequel is better than the prequel. And as many people know, this phenomenon is quite rare in cinema. Therefore, today we will talk about the second, best part of the "Carrier", which at the same time is one of the successful continuations.
What was the problem with the first part? There seems to be a cool, steely and invincible Jason Statham. There is an action that is put right for its time. And the picture has a good script, which does not sink in its cliches and cliches. The problem is simple: the film is not exciting. As a fighter, he has to do everything to be interesting and dynamic. Nothing should slow down. However, this fact was not taken into account when writing the script. All the music that Stanley Clark wrote turns the film into anything but an action movie. The dialogues were intentionally pulling rubber. And if you add to this the fact that of all the characters remembered only one, and at the same time he did not try to express emotions, then here the script is limping. All these flaws did not make the first part a failure, the film could still be seen. However, after watching it, you realize that you could have survived from this material more, and made one of the cool blockbusters. And fortunately, the creators did work on the mistakes in the second part.
If you compare the first and second parts, you can see the difference between the two pictures with the naked eye. The first thing that pleases from the first minutes is that the sequel has its own high-quality soundtrack, written by Alexander Azaria. The music is not what suits the film, it still sticks in your head after listening. Fans of film soundtracks should listen to this. The second thing that really surprised me was that Frank Martin had some feelings. In the first part, he always walked with a stone face, and saved people, because he is the protagonist & #39; Here you quickly forget about it, as well-written dialogues do their job. This time you believe that the hero is alive and ready to do anything to save the boy and everyone else. However, the creators do not abandon their roots. Frank is still walking around with a stone face for most of the film, because you have to stress the brutality. He still drives in an “armored” wheelbarrow, which for some reason can be scratched with an ordinary knife or, worse, with a school briefcase. Most importantly, the concrete wall can withstand. As for the action, the second part is just fine. They are so well woven into the structure that removing them can disrupt the whole concept. This is a rare case where action scenes are not superfluous, but rather necessary. And with the signature music of Azaria, everything just looks gorgeous.
I wonder how many people have read this line? Few people will waste time and read about how some viewer “praises” the second part of the “Carrier” to heaven, which many consider more a weak sequel. And in some cases, you can agree with them. Despite the work done on the bugs, the project also cracked in many places. And most of all, the plot. To begin with, it is worth admitting that for an ordinary action movie, the plot is quite good. I was intrigued at the time. But if you look closely, you can see a huge number of holes that destroy all logic. For example, it is not clear where the sniper who pointed the laser at the boy could have found him? Why is Frank still healthy after contact with the infected? Why did the Coast Guard suddenly show up at the end and so quickly? Scenes with the detection and disposal of the bomb so generally suggested the idea that somewhere nearby hiding in the bushes of the piano. Yes, you can agree that the foundation of the sequel is not strong. However, before criticizing for such mistakes, you should sometimes ask yourself the following question: “How would you avoid this problem if you were a writer?” And by asking yourself, you can see how difficult it is to correct these mistakes without breaking the whole structure. This all suggests that for the sake of a good presentation of the material, the writers made sacrifices. You did the right thing. With the main task of the 2nd part coped – it is interesting. The second part brought us: a cool soundtrack, exciting action, leaky, but interesting plot. And what's more, "Carrier 2" doesn't mimic the other parts. Does not introduce empty love relationships, inappropriate bed scenes (namely with the main character), does not deprive the villains of brains, do not make a stripper of the hero (it is a pity that in the third part the hero again acquired the habit of undressing during a fight).
In terms of frequency, the Carrier franchise has always been weak. Each part was different, but at the same time lost the qualities of its predecessor. The first part was distinguished by its history, although not fully thought out, the second - the plot and presentation of material, 3 - erm... cool car Audi, 4 - only the picture, because the film is fresh. Carrier 2 is the part that works best. Which is interesting and pleasant to watch. And to watch how Frank “shows striptease” to some Ukrainian – is not worth it. You are watching a movie about a former special forces officer who would do anything to save people, not a stripper who satisfies the needs of women.
8 out of 10
I have read a lot of negative reviews of this film and I think that for the most part they are poorly substantiated. The modern viewer is already so fed with good high-quality action pictures that it is really more and more difficult to single out something new for yourself, because honestly they all contain the same, beautiful views and special effects, most of them similar to each other. So where do you get originality when everything you can think of has ever been? So it remains for the directors to get out and play not original moves, so that the unfortunate viewer does not get bored at all.
Yes, the film does not pretend to be original, does not pretend to be a masterpiece in terms of the plot, it is created simply to relieve its viewer. There are people who like to watch drama, some comedy, and someone needs action films and that’s just in this genre the film can take not the last place.
Still, “Carrier 2” borrowed all the best from its predecessor, namely from the first part, everyone learned something and special effects, interesting views, spectacular fights, became even more.
The absurdity of the screen action (even worse than in the sixth “Fast and Furious”) would have served – if it was a parody. But no, all the nonsense - only with a serious mine. An unflappable Glavger, a Russian biologist, a fighting woman in a negligee, a helicopter explosion, impossible chases, fights one against eight, big politics - well, right, a fair of genre stamps. But to hell with them, whether in the film at least something else: an unexpected plot twist or a memorable type (as in "From Paris with Love"), the almighty Statham does not count. None of this. “Carrier” number is a little better, but there is at least some intrigue.
Of the good, perhaps, only the Commissioner, who flew from the first part, but not in itself, but as an element. He's the only one besides Statham that connects the first film with the second. Oh, no, more "rules."
After the events that took place in France, Frank Martin was forced to leave such a hospitable country. After all, old Frankie is a modest guy who does not like complexity, and the police would ask a lot of unnecessary questions, from whether the hero has the right to bear weapons to why the police find dozens of corpses wherever they see Frank Martin. But even after changing the location, the carrier still manages to get stuck in history, anger very dangerous people, and also look for a cure for a virus that threatens to destroy thousands of innocent people. Not a moment of peace!
Changing directors is a kind of roulette game. Will the newcomer be able to keep the bar of quality that was in the first picture or will he successfully destroy the franchise? I have met with both the first and the second option and, to my great regret, the second option usually prevails. But what about the “carrier”? Should I make a voodoo doll named Louis Laterier? Well, this person has enough faults, that is, but for this film the director is still worth commending because the film was no worse than the first part. And not the last role here was played by the fact that the film crew, and in particular Luc Besson, is not alien to such a word as self-irony because the initial scene in which Statham deals with hooligans clearly reminds of the fight in the bus depot that was in the first part. What about when Frank Martin stops at an imposing institution and looks at the clock? Immediately you expect robbers to run out of the door shouting, but this does not happen, because the carrier is waiting for a small child, who must be taken home to loving parents. And such references introduce a comedic component, which is advantageously diluted by the pathetic spectacle that takes place on the screen. Although, no, not pretentious, but rather a fabulous sight. After all, if you think about it, many moments that took place in the film, otherwise you can not call it fantasy. There are wooden doors that can withstand the queue of Uzi assault rifles, there is a fire hose used as a lasso and then of course tricks on the car from which any stuntman would hang himself. But does that ruin the viewing experience? Not at all. Ultimately, this is an action movie created to entertain the viewer, which he successfully does. Does it matter that these tricks don’t work in real life? You, dear viewer, will not try to embody them, right?
As for the actors, Jason Statham from the moment he starred in the first film began to feel and behave much more confidently. He constantly makes jokes that only make him laugh while opponents of the bald actor crawl on the floor and collect their teeth. He now flaunts himself in front of the camera and again there is nothing wrong with this, in the end, the actor began his career as a model for a fashion magazine and old habits are not so easy to get rid of, and should I? And of course, his character demonstrates that he's not a bad person, just his job is to hurt the bad guys, but that doesn't change the fact that Frank Martin won't leave the kid in trouble. Modern hero as he is. The scoundrels are a hero. And no, I don't mean that they move grandmas across the street and donate money to charity. No, these guys are happy to throw an old woman under the wheels of a car, and to burn the orphanage. But those are the kind of people that are needed for this kind of film – cynical, ruthless and a little crazy. Of the secondary actors, I would like to highlight François Berlean, who again played Inspector Tarconi who became a friend of the main character, as well as Jason Fleming who played one of the henchmen of the main “bad man” and played perfectly, as always.
But in terms of musical accompaniment, the creators were still greedy, and if the first picture for each occasion was written its own music, then the second most often plays only one composition. And no, the music is good and fits perfectly into the picture, but I would like a little more variety.
Summing up, I want to say that the second part turned out to be fascinating, explosive and funny. There are memorable heroes and high-quality fights and interesting chases that you follow with great interest. The fantastic nature of what is happening gives the picture its unique charm, and it is thanks to her that such a picture as “Adrenaline” was released, but this is a completely different story.
7 out of 10
Again, I'm excited about this movie. The sequel made it as cool as the first part. Carrier 2 remained as interesting and spectacular, and Statham began to play even more confidently. Fights have become even cooler, chase even faster, in general I am happy with this continuation.
The atmosphere in the film is heated to the limit, and it makes you watch the film to the end. The budget of the film became much more than in the first part, and it is clear that it is not empty. The plot is certainly not a masterpiece, but it is not required, the feature of this film in the steepness of the main character, but still there is intrigue. It is a pity that the soundtracks are few, I would like more, but this does not affect my assessment.
I didn’t regret watching this movie, it will definitely be in my collection. And I advise everyone to watch the entire trilogy of the Carrier, the film is cool and everything is cool!
10 out of 10
Frank Martin, a former special forces officer and now just a Carrier from the Cote d'Azur of France, was pulled to hot Miami, where he works as the personal driver of the young son of a large tycoon. When the boy is kidnapped, Frank has no choice but to return him by any means necessary.
Released exactly three years after the release of the original, the film “Carrier 2” became a clear proof that sequels are often very interesting and high-quality, although this time the plot can no longer boast of excessive originality, but what is important in this film is only how spectacularly the events in the tape develop, rapidly and brightly and all this against the background of insanely beautiful Miami, shot simply exciting and phenomenally stylish and exquisite even. However, the action component should not be forgotten, because “Carrier 2” in any case will please fans of the genre with spectacular shootouts, no less spectacular chases and fights and, closer to the final, more epic. The camera work of Mitchell Amundsen does not cause complaints and visually it is impossible to find fault with the film. and the juicy colors of the tape please the eye.
Jason Statham as Frank is convincing in his brutality, and Alessandro Gassman and Kate Nauta have become perhaps one of the most colorful villains in action movies in my memory. Also perfectly coped with their roles Matthew Modine, Amber Valleta, Keith David and Jason Fleming.
The soundtrack from the composer Alexander Azaria sounded filigree in the picture, creating the necessary tension or discharge with its melody.
So, if you liked the first “Carrier” and you like high-quality action films with a European flavor, then this picture can not be ignored in any case.
9 out of 10
“Everyone wants to walk over me, but it is possible only in a dream.”
"Why rules if they cannot be changed?"
The second part of The Carrier takes us from France to Miami. Before us all the same Frank Martin, his chic cars and sharp phrases. This time he will have to save a small, well, wonderful six-year-old boy. I would like to add that in the second part we finally see the soul part of the main character. Now he is not only for himself, he has the kindness and emotions that he is subject to. It turns out that he is not a selfish special forces, ready to kill for the sake of quality performance of his work, but also a harsh but fair guy, ready to save more than one human life.
From the very beginning, the film is gaining momentum, you will not have time to come to your senses, as little Jack will already be held hostage and our Frank, without hesitation, rushes to save him. The film is full of action: exciting shootouts, magnificent chases, stunning views, cool tricks and a sea of humor.
I’m not going to say that I liked Jason Statham’s game. It's already obvious. It's his role, and I don't know who else would have done it. I want to mention the little boy Hunter Clary, for me he became a new actor, because I had never seen films with him before. He just struck with his charm, and as he guessed riddles, he will not leave indifferent to himself, and you cling to the screen will worry for him no less than for the main character. It was also a pleasure to watch Inspector Tarconi (François Berlean) bring that zest of humor and dilute the intensity of the film. Interesting was the character of Jason Fleming, who played the Russian scientist-doctor Dmitry.
What did I like about the movie? Let many say that the first part of the “Carrier” remains the best, and in the second part, everyone did not really need it, but it was a good idea. “Carrier 2” is good because it is already a full-fledged film. If you haven’t watched the first one, you can easily start with the second one while staying up to date. In this case, I will take it more to the pros than to the cons of the picture and, definitely, I will advise the film to watch.
You know the rule?
- ...