It's a classic idea, you seem to understand, but there's a plot twist that you didn't expect. You know what's going on around the corner, but you didn't expect the turn.
Very rarely write reviews, but suddenly, someone my opinion is useful before choosing whether to watch or not?
About the name itself... none of the other does not correspond, in my opinion, more suitable 'Trap'.
Essentially, the film is not for those who expect a serious action movie or action, and yes, it is more for a more mature viewer.
A film about the nature of people, and about life. It does not matter who is on which side, what is on one side, what is on the other side 'Zashkvar' Some people think about money, others about their career, and each only about their own skin. If you start playing with someone in their 'game' you will be used to the end, manipulating in all ways.
Actors' play: this is a separate topic, which is why I decided to write.
First of all, I want to highlight Yuel Kinnaman (Pete Koslow), has not seen such a game for a long time, rather not a game a & #39; life & #39; this role, I do not remember anyone who would convey fear, not overplayed, very realistic.
And in second place (why not noticed by many) Mateusz Kosciukevich (Stazek) played very realistically, as if not even in ' cinema'.
The rest are closer to the stereotypes of this genre.
Directorial work at the level.
In general, anyone who wants to see something relatively interesting, not standard plot, I recommend.
I bet 10 out of 10, although there are moments for which you can reduce to 9, but for the realism and originality of the plot 10.
P/S The film is more for men, obviously not women.
Our valiant translators decided that the film under the original title 'The Informer', that is, in fact 'Informator' should be released in the domestic box office under a more obscure title 'Three seconds'. But that would have been the only problem with this British-made crime thriller with Yuel Kinnaman and Rosamund Pike in the foreground, Common and Ana de Armas in the second, and Clive Owen as a guest star.
The script is based on a book by a Swedish writers duo consisting of Anders Roslund and Börge Helstroem. And this, by the way, a good choice, because at one time another Scandinavian Stig Larsson with his trilogy ' Millennium' gave a ticket to all his compatriots in the big movie. And still, it must be admitted that the Scandinavians are in demand not only on the continent, but also beyond its borders, of course, that now means the Land of Dreams.
And this is what Roslund and Helström are up to. At the center of their novel is someone named Pete Koslow. He is a former criminal, but for the sake of his family decided to quit this dirty business, but immediately he failed to retrain as an exemplary representative of society - Pete gets into the development of an FBI agent named Wilcox. Now, to get out of the loop, he has to become an informant for authorities that conduct investigations on a major drug sales line, including in prison. But due to a combination of circumstances, the unexpected happens and Pete Koslov finds himself between two fires, realizing that his life hangs in the balance. . .
As for the genre of a criminal thriller, the plot is very good, and if it fell into more experienced hands, we would get a good movie for leisure. But, unfortunately, the Italian director Andrea Di Stefano did not succeed in confident quality and viewability throughout the film. Of course, the fragmentary picture captures and the development of the situation allows us to talk about some tension in the spirit of a criminal thriller, but for the most part there is some confusion and chaos, a huge number of dialogues only knock off the pace, and do not help to understand the plot interweavings and overlaps. The feeling was that for Andrea Di Stefano the material was too bulky as a piano, and he tried to put it in a small apartment. Somehow Andrea Di Stefano becomes a fairly average director, which was suspected after the film 'Paradise Lost' (2014) about Pablo Escobar, and was confirmed 'Three seconds'. Thus, Di Stefano will be ready to go to television or he will come to low-budget cinema.
Thus, 'Three seconds' could at least somehow emerge from the abyss thanks to the efforts of the cast, but here, in general, there was a miss. Swede with an American passport, Yuel Kinnaman, tells everyone that cinema for him is creativity, but at the same time he does not lose the desire to storm Hollywood heights, but somehow it does not work out so well. Announced by the powerful promotional company, the reboot of the cult sci-fi action movie ' RoboCop' and the film adaptation of the crossover comic book ' Suicide Squad' did not approve Kinnaman for the audience as a star actor. Local successes are overshadowed by these failures. And the role in 'Three Seconds' did not become a breakthrough, although Yuel’s efforts are worth noting. Rosamund Pike also wanted to show herself in all its glory and the role turned out to be quite strong, although after ' Disappeared' everyone demands something more from Pike, because she is capable of it. But Clive Owen for some reason gradually enters the board of guest stars, which, of course, his screen time suffers. But in 'Three seconds' and he played quite weighty.
In general, it turns out that the film could be much cooler, more assertive, tougher. This was facilitated by the script and the selection of actors, but weak directing nullified all attempts ' Three Seconds' to become a truly representative example of the crime thriller genre.
5 out of 10
When, due to one accident, everything can go wrong.
The story of how working four years undercover on a difficult task, you can be on the verge of failure only due to a slight oversight. The picture immerses in the world of harsh men who do not have time for games, and the leadership requires complete dedication. During one of the operations, informant Pete Kozlov gets into an ambiguous situation, but the boss of the criminal gang offers Pete a choice - either to disappear into oblivion, or continue to work for the boss, but already from prison. FBS agents inform Pete that they have everything captured, but Pete is already beginning to be tormented by vague doubts that any negotiations can end in a bad day for him.
The plot appears before the viewer in the detective cover, sometimes with a small raid of the militant. The most disgusting thing in history is the work of the operator and specialists in the selection of scenery. Very unsuccessful plans, color correction and effects, which will gladly accept fans of Transformers, but for a harsh story looks used this style as a foreign element. Despite the fact that director Andrea Di Stefano is just beginning to master himself in the field of director, there is a lot of original material in the simplest story about criminals.
Good actors who can turn any plot in the picture is surprisingly enough. Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen can competently fit into any story, and Yuel Kinnaman has already proved that he is able to leave the viewer in suspense when he cannot predict the future behavior of the protagonist. The harshness of acting creates an additional heat of passion, forcing Kinnaman to fight for his life as for the most valuable thing he has. Only there is a feeling that the entire actor catastrophically lacks screen time.
The film directed by Andrea Di Stefano is a very atmospheric story about harsh guys who are able to find a way out where it seemed almost does not exist. Thanks to the high-quality script and the actors’ play, we will be able to immerse ourselves in the genre of a realistic action movie, in which the stakes are always very high, and the consequences are irreversible. The impression is spoiled only by the unsuccessful manner of shooting and the presence of unnecessary effects, due to which the severity becomes less tense. You can see the lack of sufficient experience of the director Andrea Di Stefano to keep the viewer at a high level of quality, but the main thing in the picture still retains its charm.
7 out of 10
The film "Three Seconds" is positioned as a thriller, action movie, although these words do not reflect its essence and the idea, the thought that it brings to its viewers. Of course, this is a brutal picture with shootings, fights and violence, but all of the above is just an entourage to convey morality, not directly related to this. “Three seconds” in each episode remains the drama of an individual in a large and cruel world, and the violence that fills the screen only emphasizes the complexity and uncompromising circumstances that sometimes break fate like matches.
The plot line with drugs, informants, prisons, etc. seems curious, but develops so quickly and as notes that it quickly becomes obvious its secondary nature, while the real story is told by two main characters, and this is the story of their place in the world, differing only at first glance. “Three Seconds” is the tragedy of the relationship between man and the system, and it does not matter whether the public system is private or criminal. The essence of the system is important – something inhuman, uncompromising and throwing all its forces only to maintain its own existence, regardless of the purpose of its creation. The system may have been born for something good, but over time the motives are forgotten, leaving only the endlessly rotating millstones that ensure its functioning. In such conditions, neither its cogs nor - especially - the elements falling under its rink are important.
Although the main character is a criminal, the film is in no hurry to condemn him, citing a touching relationship with his wife and beautiful daughter as proof of his humanity. Perhaps once this man crossed the line, being erased forever from the social group of good citizens, but that incident did not change the main thing in him - he remained a man. But this fact is not at all important to the soulless system, as if it put a stigma on a person, thereby depriving him of elementary rights, be it the right to his own life, to love, to his opinion. There is no resistance on the part of the victim, but this is not essential, the system protects itself, and it does not care about random and temporary elements.
Another heroine – an FBI agent – for the time being seems to be the perfect cog of her system, as impartial and soulless as the others. But once it is cracked, it is nurtured by the system cog is in it superfluous, thrown into the trash like non-recyclable garbage, in the name of the survival of the system as a whole. Thus, the position in which this heroine finds herself is not much different from the position of her ally and her victim Peter, as defenseless and as powerless as she herself is in the moment. The system does not care who to grind for the sake of its functioning, for it there are neither their own nor others. All are equally useful and harmful to it, all are equally foreign.
These two men, devoid of will, make a small revolution by their own actions and by decisions made against the system in which they had to exist. Their relative success is the result of not following directions, but is the result of their own feelings and actions, and their sense of self-worth and a related sense of compassion prevail here. Individuals, individuals, individuals – only they can change their destiny, reverse the system, defeat the impending fate. Human thinking, human personality and individuality are more valuable, more important than any most powerful system, which means that you should never give up your “I”, in whatever position you find yourself, and “Three seconds” speaks about this.
Yuel Kinnaman and Rosamund Pike, oddly enough, solo, playing their characters not in interaction, but mainly individually. The drama that the actors had to play is purely personal for everyone, as are the decisions made, and the mutual influence here is more indirect than direct. Choosing them for the main roles is a very successful decision, because here you need not a grinning invulnerable hero of the action movie, but a living person who finds himself in a difficult situation, not an iron lady, but a controversial woman. Yuel Kinnaman in the role of a snitch involuntarily does not show the change of his character due to circumstances, on the contrary, he does not have to change any personal attitudes, it is more important to keep them in the cruel world of continuous injustice in which he happened to be. A family whose love is unconditional may seem like a hero’s weakness, but it’s not, it’s the reason why it’s important for him to survive. Peter is not abstract, he is not seeking justice for all, he is not trying to free the world, he is looking for happiness for himself – ordinary and understandable, and from this especially unattainable. However, faith in justice is also a feature of his character, otherwise it is impossible to explain the deal he made and the honesty with which he adheres to it. Kinnaman is very expressive of all the scenes relating to threats against his family, and in his eyes not only concern for their fate, but also some disappointment at the fact that someone – no matter who – is able to fall so low as to involve innocent people in someone else’s showdown. One of the strongest scenes in the film is the silent dialogue between the characters Kinnaman and Pike, the case when everything is clear without words, a jewelry episode played by both actors. Rosamund Pike plays something else: a sleeping personality wakes up in her character. If at first she does not care about such concepts as honesty and justice, then as the plot develops, her conscience wakes up, the question arises whether she is able to step over herself for the sake of self-preservation, become finally part of the system, but lose her “I”. Here it does not matter at all that the question is in a specific Peter, it could be any abstract Vasya Pupkin, it is important that the heroine’s self-awareness depends only on herself.
It is not necessary to follow these genres. Although there is violence in the picture, it is not the main thing, and there are more relatively calm scenes here than the so-called action. The plot of excessive movement is also not very conducive, although it does not allow you to get bored. The disadvantages include all secondary heroes. If the main turned out convincingly and convex, then the rest are extras, which is also too much. The most obscure character is a police officer from the NYPD, who was supposed to perform, apparently, like a knight on a white horse, but something went wrong. A hero who has almost no influence on the plot and characters – why was he added at all? The rest are not very: they are many, and they are all passable.
The film left a very mixed impression. On the one hand, there is a lot of violence, but on the other hand, it is primarily a drama, also played by first-class actors. It's a good movie rather than a bad one or an average one, but only if it's interpreted correctly.
In our time, we can note a lot of really talented actors and actresses who for one reason or another are not so in demand. Forced to star in far from the top films and receiving not so many offers for work. One of these actors is definitely Yuel Kinnaman, who became a real discovery for me in the series “Murder” and continues to delight in every role. Therefore, I simply could not pass this film by the director Andrea Di Stefano with the participation of Kinnaman.
The plot of this tape develops around FBI informant Pete Kozlov. One day, as a result of the murder of another undercover police officer and in order to maintain his own cover, Pete ends up in prison. The mafia requires him to continue business in prison, the police decide that Pete was the killer of the police officer and begin to harass him, the FBI decides to abandon the problematic frame and wash their hands. Caught between three fires, Pete must find a way out of the situation.
It is worth admitting that films on the subject of an undercover police officer who finds himself between several fires and is forced to look for ways even when his leadership is against him are filmed quite a lot and most of them are based on the same plot principles. Bribing only by how interesting the characters are written down and how alive they turned out on the screen. This film is no exception.
The authors of this tape really managed to register interesting and bright characters. Including the main character, who must tire with his excessive correctness and credulity. Still, finding the key to the viewer's heart and willingly evoking empathy as the plot progresses. No matter how meager and confused the events with these betrayals and the like are. Huntingly bribing with a really interesting and extremely honest ending, which bypasses the traditional concepts of happy ending and tells the story as realistically as it could happen in real life.
Now it is not surprising how this or that actor decided to try himself in directing. However, not many novice actors manage to adequately prove themselves in a new creative role for themselves. The director of this tape Andrea Di Stefano it certainly succeeded. Di Stefano shot the most atmospheric and exemplary crime drama, which makes a strong bet on non-trivial drama and a sharp atmosphere. It is this and smoothing out the absence of action scenes and clearly aiming in the direction in which the stunning “Shot into the void” with Nikolai Koster-Waldau in the title role develops.
As mentioned above, Yuel Kinnaman is a very talented actor and he once again proved in this film. At first glance, he got a knowingly losing character, which is spelled out so correct and trusting that it would not be interesting to watch him. But Kinnaman managed to adequately probe his character and extremely honestly play him on the screen. It’s like we’re facing a real person in a difficult life situation, not an actor playing a role. Willfully pleased Rosamund Pike, Clive Owen and Common, who also showed themselves on the screen. Ana de Armas also played well, but she was unlucky that her character is a normal image of the “girlfriend of the main character” and this clearly constrained the actress’ acting capabilities.
7 out of 10
Three seconds is more than a worthy representative of the genre of criminal drama and the worn theme of an undercover police officer. Nothing new in terms of direction and history, this film is not. Nevertheless, the authors of this tape managed to adequately use all that is in their hands and make a strong enough film that does not spoil even the complete absence of dynamism and any spectacle on the screen.
"Three Seconds" does not promise to impress the viewer with some accuracy in facts and events, but among other representatives of criminal thrillers aimed at entertainment, the work of Andrea Di Stefano will not be lost. It is noteworthy that the New York criminal flavor is transmitted by the Italian director, the main character-Swedish and the British in the main supporting roles.
A former serviceman once mistakenly sent an opponent to the next world in a bar, having served in a maximum security prison, got hooked by the feds. Now, working for Polish drug dealers, the protagonist tries to survive under total control, and until another murder occurs in his presence, which also involves the New York police in this multifaceted game.
In order to untie this knot, the hero has to go back to prison, leaving his wife and young daughter to be eaten by wolves, but this time, the main character decides to finally settle accounts with those who have been hanging on his tail for a long time. It is worth noting the confident play of Yuel Kinnaman, the actor is gradually selected for quality projects and each time his game remains noticed.
Although the tape remained a lot of holes in the plot, like the fate of the “general” and some other characters, purely for a one-time viewing of the criminal picture, the director managed to play enough cards in his story. I wonder if there were ideas for the continuation of this film, but its perspective would look interesting and many viewers would not refuse.
7 out of 10
The film "Three Seconds" - like other similar ones, is based on showing aspects of life that are far from our in most cases philistine life. 2/3 of all movies try to prove that life is not so far away from us. Well, they put us in it, so we have to watch - we're so entertained. (There should be a smiley face here.)
Speaking about this film of this genre, it is difficult to assess the degree of realism and logic of the behavior of the main characters in the plot, where the criminal part of life and the activities of government agencies (police, FBI) are intertwined, without having an idea of the internal laws of the existence and functioning of these systems, far from most viewers. Everyone is judging this by subjective notions ' how it should be' and by spectator experience in a similar genre. Therefore, the main criterion for myself is how it is presented and presented by the authors of films. I think they were at the height of the genre.
The actors of the main and secondary participants of the plot played as it is supposed to portray a world where there is very little room for emotions. Imagining yourself in their shoes when any wrong move or move could cost a life is one way to look at it from the inside out. The possibility of such an implantation of oneself in the plot allows one to avoid excessively strict evaluation of the actors’ play, without requiring them to have theatrical emotions, the desire to push one’s ego above the role. That's not required of them. As Kozlov said in one episode, I am a soldier in this game. In this game, the commanders are a writer and director. It seems to me that the actors were good soldiers, 39, and 39, who did everything they could to win the movie.
Rosamund Pike is an example of how, from the emotional minimum of the role of her hero, she managed to show with subtle movements of the heroine’s soul how she is not indifferent to Peter’s fate, that through the impenetrableness of a service worker, conscience, simple human sympathy and participation, rewarded with her personal victory over the boss, in which these human qualities were killed completely by a purposeful and calculated movement through the ranks, can penetrate. Evil, which should personify the state system in the face of unscrupulous persons, Clive Owen portrayed quite enough and convincingly in the overall plot of the film. Of course, along with the “goszl”, there is Evil, personifying the criminal system. Yuel Kinnaman himself also convincingly played “Soldier of the Invisible Front” 39, who fights not only for the flag, but also for people close to him.
In general, the casting in the film is very good - the characters and types of almost all role participants are correlated with the idea of how they should look in the face of the actors themselves. The fact that they played smoothly – which may seem like a bad disclosure of themselves – seems to me a general attitude of the authors, not to overshadow the many small nuances and details of the film that create saturation without screaming tones. The role of Peter’s wife may not be clear at first, but it turns out that she is also a “soldier,” a woman forced to live a double life as a companion and just a woman who loves a child and a husband. Still, it's not an easy life. If Ana de Armas may seem unpersuasive in this role, I’m actually looking at her role in the context of the task she was given.
And the film is really full of the participants of the picture and the details of life. Somewhere this picture was written in small thin strokes, and somewhere wide, sweeping. If you look away, it may seem the presence of much unnecessary, which is why the coherence of the plot and the logic of actions is lost in places. But if you look with interest, then such saturation, even juicy, justifies 110 minutes of the film, and some final moments show that the authors did not have enough time. Nevertheless, it looks in one breath, there is a sense of empathy and a desire to look to the end to ensure the victory of “good” over “evil”. Yes, the banality of such an end is obvious, because in life there is not much choice for the finale of any fight. Of course, there are movies where "evil" triumphs, or when no one wins, leaving the viewer in turmoil. In fact, there are only three options for the final – who likes or wants. I wanted to defeat evil here. Which is what happened.
Yeah, some people don't think much action. But that's not why many people come to the movies. The story that the authors told and showed was interesting to me. A good, good movie within the genre.
Someone compares this picture with the film ' Shot into the void'. There is a certain similarity, but this tape still loses on all articles, although it does not turn to call it a bad language, even on the contrary, the film is good, although it carries the label of a so-called one-time film.
To do something good does not mean to become a hero. The main character of the film Pete tried to protect his wife from the attacks of bikers, as a result of which he was in prison. Calling a mistake to protect a wife is extremely difficult, then what is it? You do justice and justice, but justice is against you. It gets worse. Government organizations play criminal games and Pete is the pawn they need. Trying to survive the cunning games of the government, he is willing to do only to protect the family from these events.
A good movie, flowing in a quite calm rhythm, there is little dynamics, but this is not a movie in which tooth-brushing scenes are necessary. Here the mind and resourcefulness are important, so as not to throw off the hooves. But the slow course of events does not make the film worse, just watch it more carefully. You can skip 5 minutes and lose the thread of the story. I looked at this creation and was pleased with what I saw. In addition, it was interesting to watch everything because of the good acting - the actors tried to play their roles convincingly and they succeeded.
Almost two hours of the film did not tire at all, but gave an exciting spectacle, about watching which I do not regret a bit. I recommend to lovers of crime dramas, fans of militants this film will not be so interesting!
8 out of 10
That's how much you'll remember about this movie after watching it.
Nope! Nope! It is not so bad, on the contrary, in its style resembles the best examples of criminal drama. You can remember the same ' Shot into the void '. A positive hero-family Nordic type (B & #39; Shot into the void' the main actor is a Dane, and here is a Swede playing a Pole), all in tattoos and resembling a noble scumbag, will fight for traditional family values and resist the criminal syndicate and dirty FBI sheep.
What I didn't like:
Outright stupid moments, like when an undercover cop comes to a deal with four drug dealers alone and without cover,
ostensibly bad gangsters who walk around the city and shine guns to the right and left,
-steriotype presentation of Eastern European mafiosi - at each meeting they must certainly drink vodka, without washing down,
Prison life - prisoners with mirrors, prisoners engaged in some sort of cleaning heaps of scattered packages throughout the prison, from where there is so much garbage in the prison,
- Inmates who are free to cook next to the choppers, what is that? Delivery of parcels to prison by drones, Lynch courts under the direction of prison guards - Staaa?!
- Clive Owen. He's a good shot, but he's a secondary role, and I know old Clive can do more. You can see that he works for the checkbox and to get his salary.
The dialogue is also lame and they are at the level:
You killed a policeman, you know what that means?
- So what?
- That's too bad!
- The protagonist. I don't think he's quite attracted to a brutal gangster, a role in a melodrama would suit him better.
What I liked:
Actors!
Rosamund Pike! At 40, she's pretty good. Although the role of an operative is probably not quite for her.
Common! Very organic as a meticulous police officer.
Atmosphere
The story takes place in San Farzisco. It is a pleasure to see this city.
To watch or not?! If you don’t have anything to do and you love crime dramas, you can do it! Although it is better to review the Casino, Cocaine or the Godfather.
Let’s start with the fact that the description for the film does not correspond to the plot, and the film is good, you worry about the main character, the ending I expected is more realistic, but the one I liked, although it is fantastic. . . 10 out of 10.
FBI informant Peter Kozlov finds himself in a desperate situation. He is one of the members of the Polish drug mafia headed by a certain General. An undercover New York cop was killed during an FBI operation. The General's detention had to be curtailed. His wife and daughter are in danger. By blackmailing their lives, the General forces Peter to go back to prison to sell new drugs. The FBI decides to take advantage of it. At the same time, the partner of the murdered cop begins his investigation.
A criminal thriller, which in the original is simply called 'Informant'. The plot is typical for such films. An informant and his family find themselves between three fires: the FBI, the police and the mafia. I must say that the tape was pretty tight for two hours. Especially the first part, where a number of scenes with completely unnecessary and nowhere leading dialogue could be reduced or removed. There are many questions about the logic of what is happening. And they were completely destroyed.
Starring Yuel Kinnaman. The hero he turned out, in principle, not bad, knows how to think with his head, even causes empathy. Kozlov's wife performed by Ana de Armas periodically seriously dulled. It is clear that this is written in the script, but here I did not like the actress. And the heroine’s hairstyle and facial expression, with which she looks like some kind of stupid. Although in recent 'Get knives' Ana was good. The two FBI agents who repeatedly frame g are played by Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen. Mafiosi, except for the General's nasty son, are typical. Well, the cool New York cop performed by Common is not bad.
A complete criminal thriller. The production is medium, the action is not impressive, and there is little of it here. A story like this has been seen repeatedly. Except that the actor is quite representative.
Crime films still occupy a significant place in the space of released film content. Most often they are divided into paintings about bandit romance on the outside and reigning orders in places not so remote. In the new British film ' Three Seconds' producers ' John Wick' and ' Assassins' together with the team from the actor Andrea Di Stefano who grew to the director's chair and screenwriters Rowan Joffe ('28 weeks later', ' Steel Star') and action expert Matt Cook ('The Fall of an Angel') covered both points.
The plot of the film introduces the viewer to the main character named Pyotr Kozlov - a member of the Polish organized crime group and an FBI informant, put in a deadly triangle between bandits, the police and the FBI. And to protect his family, Peter will have to rely only on himself.
The names of the production and film crew look quite promising, instilling in the viewer the hope to see a strong criminal action movie with notes of drama from experts in their field. And the above professionalism can really be seen in the first half of the picture, skillfully demonstrating the atmosphere of a harsh criminal action movie. However, behind all this brutality lies a number of disadvantages, expressed in absolutely one-dimensional characters and their no less one-dimensional motivations. When a picture suddenly changes the title, cast and release dates, it is impossible to perceive such a thing as a series of alarm bells. And, that is why the unsurprising and crumpled finale of the picture, leading the viewer from harsh reality to rainbow fantasies and craving for happy endings. Evil will be punished, good will prevail, triviality will remain.
Pros: Caste, a good setting of a criminal thriller.
Long waited for this film - the trailer impressed, while waiting for the accumulated disappointment from such 'masterpieces' as ' Gemini', ' Fall of the Angel', '6 underground' and many other recent ones, including superhero afterburners and muty with Willis/ Cage (no, I didn't go down to that, of course)
In my opinion, there has been a crisis of the genre, which I will roughly call a criminal action/thriller, interesting, but not too unrealistic. Probably all the most normal specialists went to TV shows and all that. . .
However, there is a success, there is a cool new tape almost at the level of ' Three days to escape', 'Sin City', 'The Apostates' (very much almost) and others (now I do not remember others sharply so, sorry). Given, of course, the fact that producers in order to increase the likelihood of payback take into account the preferences of the majority of the modern public. Yes, there is a certain degree of naivety, template, exaggeration, etc. But actually, very moderate. It looks realistic, dramatic, keeps in tension and empathy. I highly recommend it, especially to fans of the genre.
The actors are top, playing very well. Clive Owen is a little stressful to me personally - he spoiled his reputation (so soon he will slide to the level of Willis / Cage).
I wish there were more movies like that.
The description of the film can be misleading and judging by the phrase “It is so much time left to make a decision to the informant...”, here we will talk about what can be done in three seconds, and the narrative itself will be built like it was in the film “Firing Point” with Dennis Quaid, when the same event is shown at a strictly defined time and from the point of view of different participants in this event.
In fact, the annotation generally does not reflect the essence of the picture, only focusing on a single scene from the film. And for that matter, in those three seconds, the threat to the protagonist came only from one side, not from three at once. I don’t want to write about the title again, but I have to: where did the title “The Informer” come from? No matter how hard you try with an online translator, what the most detailed English-Russian dictionary you can open from The Informer will not turn out to be Three Seconds. But "Informant" is easy.
Petr Kozlov or simply Pete (Juel Kinnaman) works as an informant for the FBI and is infiltrated into a Polish drug trafficking group. His goal is to bring control to Klimek (Eugene Lipinski), the ringleader of the gang, whom everyone calls a general. Especially for this Pete is engaged in the transportation of drugs, helps them sell – all for the sake of the main task. But everything goes to waste when he meets a man like himself. After that, Pete has to deliberately go to places not so remote – to get to Klimek from there.
To be honest, the plot of the film looks a bit strange – to get to someone who is free when you yourself are in prison. Klimek did not interfere with conducting their business in the wild, which makes the attempt to fight him in the zone looks somewhat strange. In my opinion, the director of the film, Andrea di Stefano, has somewhat overdone the plot, trying to make it even tougher than it was at first. In addition, behind all the fuss surrounding Pete at the moment the door slammed behind him, the creator of “Three Seconds” missed what Pete himself said – that he wants to destroy Klimek. Ultimately, which began as a thriller about trying to uncover a drug cell, the film went in a completely different direction, in the end presenting a man's struggle to save his own life, rather than to fight a drug lord.
The idea of pushing the right policeman and scumbags of the FBI, who, in favor of larger prey, turn a blind eye to such serious crimes as murder, looks somewhat confused and underdeveloped. Maybe there are solutions in the style of “sacrificing a pawn”, but it looks ambiguous and somehow unrealistic. In relation to the viewer to the actors, it turns out that FBI agents are on the same level as the Polish mafia, because they also use people for their own purposes, blackmail them, and then throw them away like garbage. In this case, the director portrayed too many negative characters, because the same Rosamund Pike language can not be called positive.
From the point of view of atmosphericity, characters of the film, cruelty on the outside and in prison, criminal showdowns "Three seconds" turned out really good. This is a harsh movie with harsh characters performed by Kinnaman, as well as Common, who played a policeman here, the same Lipinski, as well as the character of Clive Owen - he was assigned the role of a bump from the FBI. In addition, Rosamund Pike played an important role in the film, whose heroine is a very murky character, rushing between two fires and rather trying to save his skin than help his informant, as well as Ana de Armas, who played the role of Pete Kozlov’s wife.
Yuel Kinnaman, known for his role as Rick Flag in the first and upcoming "Suicide Squad", perfectly and harmoniously got used to the image of former criminal Pete, perfectly playing in some emotional episodes, as well as adding brutality and determination of a male character in scenes where his hero had to deal with either cops, or the FBI, or a drug gang.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
What is Three Seconds? The script gives the impression of a large, almost large-scale thriller. At the same time, the film painfully resembles some indigestible drama on the theme of “bandits also cry”: the story of an undercover agent who became entangled in his duplicity is more like the creation of the NTV channel – still a lot of “blacks”, although the creators of the picture are, admittedly, competent people.
Former convict Peter "Pete" Kozlow (or Kozlov?) works as an informant for the FBI. Agents are trying to catch some Polish gangsters. Federal agent Wilcox (played by Rosamund Pike) promises that the activities of the snitch will help Pete out of the situation. In fact, the government, as usual, frames the hero, and he also has to solve problems with the aforementioned bandits of Eastern Europe.
The creators of "Three Seconds" seem to have big ambitions. Probably, the script was written in such a way as to launch a franchise: a lot reminds me that Peter can have, so to speak, further adventures. Everything goes to this, but once the plot unfolds, it immediately collapses before our eyes: to the saga in the style of “John Wick” Three seconds is a long way off. The fact is that the script here is too standard and just teems with undeveloped secondary characters. Everything is one-dimensional: from the chief of agent Wilcox, played by Clive Owen, to sweaty prisoners from the local prison.
And it’s a shame because Three Seconds has its own atmosphere, thanks to the scenery and the cast. Kinnaman is experimenting with his dark side, trying to portray a scum with a heart of gold. Clive Owen growls, vomits and dreams. Rosamund Pike has a talent and even solves ethical dilemmas with Common. But the heroes are so underwhelmed that you do not particularly worry about their fates.
"Three Seconds" begins as a gangster saga with the tension of a dangerous situation, and ends with some sketches from the life of a bandit. All events are quick, the plot is awkward and the creators feel obsessed with the hero’s endless misadventures: a story that is interesting in itself is interrupted and ends unsatisfactory. From the song, in this case, threw out the words and “Three seconds” as if resembles an endless chorus: a sequel, which is likely to reveal some of the secrets remaining in the script, I would not like to see.
5 out of 10
To begin with, the description of the film is not true. There are no three seconds to think there, and in general shoot meters from 250-300, so there are no three seconds themselves.
What is – an attempt to make an interesting drama-fighter, when the hero is all right and does the right thing, and the system grinds him and throws him, and he, overcoming himself all the same ... well, you know. As a result, we got the main character so obsessively correct that when everyone who could have deceived him, but he continues to believe in everyone. They don’t really talk about him, he just exists, his wife and child are just there. And they just love each other. I almost confused my wife with a colleague, so indistinctly passed the family in the beginning.
The plot is trying to promote, albeit somewhat template, but still rolling out some expectations in development. But expectations remain expectations, everything stretches and stretches, the hero tries to do something, but continues to be as wooden as he was in the beginning. Empathize with such a hero is weak, you are glad that he at least does not rush to transfer all the old women across the street.
The arches of villains are not spelled out, they are just thrown as they are – they are evil, they are bad, and everyone uses our naive boy for their own purposes, everything. They are boring and boring.
The development of the plot as such also failed, half of the film has already passed, and we are still trampling there. The final came out crumpled and torn, in fact breaks off only accelerated.
On the way out, no interesting plot, no normal drama, no clear villains. That's only 5/10. But +1 for cute "Joy," so
Once imprisoned prisoners are forced to only dream of the past tense. The serviceman again gets into questionable schemes, only the group is replaced with the banned mafia, the diplomatic FBI. However, it becomes unclear why the main character gets into another problem. Does he not want to live a life of peace and happiness? In one moment, Peter says that he will not survive if something happens to his wife and daughter, and in another, in full seriousness calls on the loved one to take risks, for the sake of his beloved.
No less adventurous is the idea of introducing a “witness” into a prison colony. Instead of hiding such an important person, the Federal Bureau of Investigation decides that it is worth taking the opportunity when the situation is at its most tense. And the plan they came up with leaves much to be desired. The mafia boss, in turn, is so inattentive that he is not even able to notice the “undercover agent”. The "he saved you and you owe him for it" reason is unrealistically intertwined with the equally dubious goal of delivering a prohibited item. Although, as we learn later, there is someone without Peter to do dirty work, which completely devalues all his work.
The role of an incredibly charismatic guy was played by Yuel Kinnaman. A harsh look and a ton of impenetrable brick on the face is the key to success, according to the creators. All of Peter’s actions are explained by two qualities: an inability to make key decisions in an emergency situation and a pathological lack of intellectual abilities. All his actions look stupid to say the least and do not have a strong logical foundation. And his wife, played by Ana de Armas, served as a typical lady of the heart of an unkillable hero, committing no less stupid deeds. For example, driving around the house when the husband told him to leave even if he didn’t come back. Let’s say they didn’t want to leave without him, but then what’s the bad option of sitting at home or in the car quietly waiting for him?
The FBI is presented to the audience as a cowardly organization suffering from the same syndrome as all the characters in the film. At the first opportunity, they are ready to leave a person to the mercy of fate, without regret. Such a large federation is limited to only two people. Clive Owen plays a boss who doesn’t even want to listen to others. His stubbornness is reflected in his face. The stone haunts the actor throughout the film, and can’t get off him even at the end. The career of this actor went on a rapid decline, and for a long time. Another thing is Rosamund Pike. Yes, she also picked up the dubious image of a typical female agent, but she at least in some moments caused controversial emotions. In one episode, the character caused hatred, and in another - a little indulgence towards the person.
The police here were the only character who was most idealized. Common played the role of investigator in the case of a deceased colleague-friend. No, of course we will not be shown his oppression on this occasion. The character will be a little sad and return to normal. Emotions creators deprived and this hero. A serious facial expression and a slight note of pathos is the limit of dreams! The policeman tries hard to find the culprit and even miraculously manages to enter the forbidden territory. But in the blink of an eye, all his efforts suddenly disappear from the horizon, as if he had gone to prepare for the final round. The introduction of a character like Parasite is also shrouded in mystery. Its usefulness in the film is estimated at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
The duration of the film is an impressive 110 minutes. Only here is the fact that most of the scenes are too long, insanely long dialogues that have no semantic value and only rare interesting episodes of action. One scene in the car lasted an impressive seven minutes, although, in fact, nothing interesting or important she could bring. If Andrea Di Stefano crossed out such moments, the total duration would be reduced to 80 minutes, but at the same time it would become dynamic.
"Three Seconds" is a crime drama that can't handle either. The story itself is an empty list of events, terribly masquerading as a series of stupid decisions of the director and strange in style conversations.
P.S. The original title of the picture translates as “Informant”. The most interesting thing is not the name awarded by Russian localizers, but rather the reason for this. Three seconds is the flight time of a bullet fired from a sniper rifle from a distance of 1,500 meters. Where did the following information come from, even if the film doesn’t mention it! Funny to tears!
The film is very good for its budget. Stronger than many films of this genre from class A. When, it would seem, such stories can be found only in a good modern series, “Three seconds”, which in the original is called “Informant”, manages to pleasantly surprise.
The cast deserves a special mention, you can feel the hand of the producer of “City of Thieves” and “John Wick”. The actors are all in their seats and look very organic. Since the film is based on a literary work, one of the main tasks of the authors was to adequately transfer the material from the source to the screen, which they, in my opinion, coped with 100.
I noticed an interesting feature: in this film a huge number of not fired Chekhov guns (who understood this metaphor, the well-read moviegoer, who did not understand, do not worry, the film you will like without it), which keeps in constant tension and feeling that everything is absolutely out of control, both the characters of the film and you personally, because you have no idea what will happen on the screen in the next minute. And what is not unimportant, the film because of this does not fall apart and looks like a single, organic work. It is strange that there is almost no information about it on Wikipedia and as such there is no advertising on the Internet and cinemas either, if it were not for a happy accident, I would have missed it altogether.
In general, fans of good criminal thrillers-detectives with a raid of an action movie definitely recommend. Nostalgic for Takeshi Kovac, too. But! It's not a shooting-fighter movie, it's important to understand. A few teenagers who were unfortunately allowed into the cinema, despite the fact that it is 18+, were very disappointed by the fact that it turns out that you need to keep your brain turned on to follow the rapidly developing plot. Therefore, ardent fans of the Furious and the like, it is probably better to refrain from going to this film, so as not to spoil its rating with their reviews, which will be the usual result of unjustified expectations.
Before going to the movies, I was tuned to the most tough action-fighter, like flaunting on posters for the movie John Wick. But the first half of the film struck with its calmness and minimal violence. The main character of the picture, Americanized Pole Peter / Pete Kozlov (by fate an informant of the FBI) turns out to be a somewhat weak-willed victim of circumstances in the form of a setup by his own leadership. As a result of all the manipulations of the FBI and the Polish mafia, our hero ends up in prison. It is from this moment that the main action of the film begins, so gently reminiscent of the action films of the eighties, like “Turgeons” with Stallone. Survival of a strong protagonist, prison gang conflicts, corrupt cops, drug distribution, a violent fight, and a spectacular scene with a half of scissors in the ear of a corrupt warden. A little later we are shown that the hero is not just a bunch of muscles, but an intelligent and experienced former military man.
The finale of the film again returns the audience to the “classic” action films: the villains are punished, and justice rejoices.
The actors in the movie are pretty good. Yuel Kinnaman ("Murder", "Altered Carbon", "Night Fugitive") looks like the perfect movie hero - handsome, tall and muscular, he squeezed everything from this role. I would not like him to get stuck in movies where you just need to shine muscles and make a hard face (yes, I am not indifferent to him, very good).
Clive Owen (Lawyer, Proximity, Sin City) plays a persuasive scoundrel for whom it costs nothing to go over their heads for the sake of their own career.
Rosamund Pike (Jack Reacher, The Disappeared, The Wrath of the Titans) as the “right” FBI agent who will wake up her conscience in time.
The rest of the actors are also very organic in their images, whether it is the sweet wife of the protagonist (Ana de Armas) or the most disgusting Polish mafioso (Mateusz Kosciukiewicz) and his “bosses” (Jujin Lipinski). We will not forget rapper Common with his hero - a fair detective.
The film is excellent, for all its naivety and old-fashioned, and causes exceptionally positive emotions.