In Anna, there is a scene in which the main character, a well-trained KGB assassin, mows down an entire restaurant of armed bandits. Watching this action scene, you can feel the incredible wave of deja vu, as if such a scene existed before. Not a similar moment, but an exact scene. Failure in the imagination, not in the Matrix – Luc Besson released another remake of “Nikita” (probably already the fifth in a row). An exact copy of the early militants with the participation of the main character - a female agent. Sasha Luss in the role of Anna, of course, not Anne Parillaud, but the very atmosphere, saturated with cranberries and gloomy pseudo-Soviet despair, makes you remember the ugly and annoying last year’s “Red Sparrow”.
Anna had no real future, despite sleeping with a man with the appearance of Alexander Petrov. Like Nikita, she is offered a way out and a shadowy government agent (the brooding and dashing Luke Evans) recruits her to the KGB. Anna is trained to be an elite assassin, and then she is hired by a French modeling agency (after all, it is a film by Luc Besson).
Spy thrillers about women have become increasingly common in recent years. Recently, for example, “Explosive Blonde” and “Red Sparrow” came out. It is wonderful to see the birth of a new genre. However, such films are often contradictory, and the concepts are simply strange. “Anna” is also at risk of being manipulated. The main character was not given the brain to take advantage of beauty. Very rarely as the title character is ahead of the opponents. She simply does not have an individuality.
With a movie like Anna, style matters. But even here, Besson's creation fails. Due to the fact that the director was betting on a spy thriller, the fights and visual go aside. In spirit, everything is more like “Leon”, but, firstly, uninspired and, secondly, withering in the seas of cranberries. There are some exciting episodes, but overall Anna is a long way from Blonde to John Wick. Even the best scenes disappear from memory after watching.
As for the role of Anna, it seems that Besson once again turned out to be a lover of strong women. Real supermodel Sasha Luss feels at ease, but she's, sorry, not an actress. Evans and Murphy disappear in flat characters, while Mirren is entertained as the imperious Olga and cosplays Edna from The Super Family.
"Anna" seems to have been doomed to failure in our country from the start. If you close your eyes to the sea of inaccuracies, caricatures, then the concept is still a complete mess: the story goes through flashbacks taking place in flashbacks (!). The aspect is too tiring. Nothing holds the viewer’s attention, especially characters devoid of individuality. Another film, released on the wave of popularity of Russia in the Western media (and, of course, the notorious “evil Russians”) and wants to give the installation that KeGeBe fights to the last! And now to replenish the cranberry bins of the Motherland! At ease, comrade!
Old Besson is not the first year engaged in self-repetition, absolutely not fitting into the cinematic realities of today. But the older he gets, the harder it is to stop his creative impulses: then he goes headlong into CGI, then into another sex scandal. And his brainchild Eurocorp, not lagging behind, sinking to the bottom of the debt pit. Although the charges of rape were unfounded for the court, the adventures of the French sex giant at the same time remained forever in the history of cinema: and ' Nikita' and ' Leon' and ' Fifth Element' are directly related to the director's muses, among which there are minors and inspired by which, as befits a real poet, Besson removes his impertainables, changing these muses like gloves. However, accusations of rape of modern cinema he can not remove and the fruit of his last wet fantasies was the picture ' Anna' with another ' muse' Maestro - Russian top model, with a name more like a porn pseudonym, Sasha Luss in the role of a deadly KGB agent.
Cranberries are cranberry, and Besson’s inspiration with age flows into real insanity, growing on fertile fields of dementia: in ' Anna' the director completely erases the boundaries of time and space, bolder than in ' Lucy' placing broadband Internet in Moscow in 1985, and a laptop with an online questionnaire in the USSR Navy in the apartment of a metropolitan drug addict. Well, you know those insidious scoops. And here you can meet a famous Russian actor, well, the one who 'Well, you remember Rus', in the role of the classic metropolitan gopnik with a tattoo ' Gott mit uns' in the whole chest instead of the notorious ' I will not forget my mother' Although there is something to be surprised, the Russian creative intelligentsia, judging by all the domestic works that have been published over the past few years, only plays Gopniks - truly the most popular role. But, if you go back to the most 'Anne', then you can find Besson for the classic exploitation of his own, and not only commercially successful ideas: ' Nikita' on amphetamines, half of the film tries to become ' John Wick', simultaneously stuffing into each frame with a dozen plot twists, the second half tries to unravel and explain all these plot intricacies, simultaneously reflecting in the style of a liberally engaged millennial on topics ' peace, friendship, gum''. And all this bacchanalia, which could easily be called a sequel ' Red Sparrow' in the heroin frenzy is not saved by the presence of Hellen Mirren, Luke Evans and Killian Murphy, apparently driven to the shooting by blackmail and even more so the picture is not saved by the terrible mannequin play of the new actress - model.
Luc Besson - 'We shoot colorfully, spectacularly and unforgettable'
Luc Besson is a certain brand of cinema and it was under this slogan that his work was perceived.
But the more well-known the brand, the more total should be the control of production.
But we are seeing something quite different...
The film immerses the viewer not in 1987, but in the devastation of the 90s, which was mixed with technology of the 2000s. Amateur attitude to the history of the USSR, the work of its special services, the life of ordinary people creates the impression of a commercial film.
(For a very ridiculous representation of the KGB and its internal security.)
People were shaking when employees of this special service came to the house, and even KGB employees holding high posts, their hands and feet shook when they came from the KGB.
Azure eyes, a slender body, a pleasant voice and a beautiful walk. Yes, it is necessary to agree to the actress for the main role externally approached. Don’t worry, Russian beauty attracts you. But the viewer is not watching a poster on screens, but a movie. In the cinema, you need to be able to convince the viewer of the game, pseudo truthfulness of what is happening, and for this you need to use many special techniques of stage play.
As T. Edison said, “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% hard work.”39
In L. Besson comes out: 80% of personnel decision and 20% of acting skills.
The low-budget nature of many scenes is simply disappointing in viewing this picture. Poor solutions for the creation of the plot, climax and denouement, can make the viewer not get up and clap in the cinema hall, but pat his feet walking away from this cinema. And all this 'masterpiece' labor covers a lot of absurdities and inconsistencies.
It is worth understanding that today the picture becomes more detailed on the screens, the viewer becomes more legible, and there are more works of third-rate quality.
A beautiful spy with a gun naked in the middle of a spy drama is the perfect product from which men will drool and die of the envy of a woman. The long-legged daughter of an officer, who was at the bottom and a handsome KGB officer, a confused spy-model and a CIA officer ... how can you not envy both the men and the main character?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole film was made only for the PR of this Sasha Luss, a model of the style of Cara Delevingne with ice cream eyes and facial expressions of carp. But such a beauty and do not need to play - it is done by others, effectively shading long legs and sharp cheekbones. Even the mistress of the main character looks more alive and natural than this very Anna in any of the moments of the film.
The beauty of course does not reach Charlize Theron in “Explosive Blonde”, but looks better than “Red Sparrow”.
A good cast pulled even the model in the lead roles, and the location sponsors did not stint, the soundtrack is also quite pleasant.
Overall, the film left a much better feel than I expected. You can brighten up a romantic evening, looking at models flickering in the blows of the legs and spectacular shootouts.
All critics remember “Explosive Blonde” with “Charlize Theron” and find similarities with “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” with “Joley”, “Red Sparrow” and even with “John Wick”. But almost no one remembers “Nikita”, a modern remake of which, according to the plot, is “Anna”. And that's his first real minus. But small - Nikita was a long time ago, it was time to modernize!
The second terrible sin, according to critics, is "cranberry ton from Besson" (c). As an honest daughter of an officer, I'll tell you, cranberries aren't the same thing. In bulk. But judge for yourself what can be perceived as “cranberries”, what – for example, sending the heroine a letter on a laptop in Moscow-1988, a concession to the level of education, and what – finally returned to Luka Bessonov sense of humor, which he so lacked after “Leon”, “Vasabi”, “Element”. But the list of sins is impressive:
1. Everyone writes a living narzan of humour from cell phones in Moscow 1985. But if you look closely, the phones have antennas, and the satellite phones of the elite (gabya and foreign agents) could be. True, a kilo is 2 heavier: lazy prop or in the West and not found? Although there is an anecdote that the first satellite “pipe” was given to Gorby in 1986, but he took any crap.
2. The cops pursue the gang of Sasha Luss (Anna) and her short-term cohabitant (based on the film) A. Petrov on authentic "Nivakh" and jiguli VAZ-2105-"pickup" (then the word "pickup" meant different than now, young friends). It seems all right, but on the wheelbarrows clearly visible modern numbers RUS.
3. The restaurant in which the Russian mafia chics in '89 (and where the coolest action in the whole film takes place, not counting the extermination by the heroine of the head of the KGB to the final), is called "GLAVPIVTORG".
4. Anna’s curator managed to get battle wounds in Chechnya by 1988.
5. At home, the young bandits of 1988 have a microwave and a laptop (but how else to show “Anya sent a letter” to a modern viewer?) Paper and envelope? A mailbox? What is it?
6. The office of the villainous KGB is located in the Cosmos Hotel, and the iron Felix is replaced by ... well-known by the French de Gaulle, albeit from Tsereteli (clear banter, chic proof that Besson retained the remains of a sense of humor, in my opinion).
7. We learn that in 1988 “Anna applied to the army, having managed to be a cadet of the military academy”.
8. The heroine is praised by the opera GB (um, in what year GB was deprived of the right of operational work, turning into FGC? - I think later), but in protest she opens her veins across her forearm. Besson’s humor, incompetence or a hint that she is not serious? – I did not understand.
The last point, however, is from small faults, which in any film you can find a trailer.
But in the film good feelings – beautiful mistress Anna – Maud. Lera Abova, who moved to Germany, is very good and organic in the role of almost herself, because they and Sasha Luss together “plough” on VOGUE. Although Luss, seemingly naked (“one jeweler from Chanel”) for POP-Magazine was not filmed.
Erotics is shown softly (I would say 12+), beautiful - that looks nice against the background of sports in the style of "fak-chak-fak-yes!" American films of recent years.
In general, the casting is very successful. Young non-actresses look great against the background of not too famous actors (of course, with the exception of Sasha Petrov): trifles of the bobless type Killain Murphy (CIA), Luke Evans (KGB, alas - by the surname "Chekhov") and Helen Mirren.
The latter is my favorite song of the film, in a black wig and in the image of Akhedzhakova. But “Verochka” from Helen Mirren of secretaries and personnel officers GB breaks much higher.
In general, if you do not tune in to the action movie - we get a beautiful story of a girl with a couple of lovers and a mistress, shaded by comedy cranberries and the satirical line "Akhedzhakova". If you tune in to the action movie, we get "Nikita" successfully mixed with the world of high fashion. And at least half of the “cranberries” found by critics of the PC are actually cheerful comedic jokes of humor from the one who remembered his “nineties” Lucy Besson. It’s like the moment when the Crushniks are all trying to do what GG should do: cut off the finger of a diplomat they’re guarding or meet with a curator in a closet. The U.S. wears out no less than the USSR-Russia, though without the sharpness of the Red Scorpion. From this film, I learned that “the nesting dolls have beautiful faces.” Anna
The abundance of flashbacks looks controversial (but without them it is difficult to create not only “there are turns”, but also comedy scenes) and Anna’s voluntary struggle for the labor rights of models (beating a fashion photographer).
7 out of 10
Athlete, Komsomol, special agent and just beautiful
Not long ago I said that there is nothing more annoying than a movie (or any other work) pretending to be something else. The trailer for the last film of the famous Luc Besson promised us a hurricane action, stretched for one and a half to two hours of screen time. Something similar to John Wick or, if you take the filmography of Besson himself, The Hostage or The Carrier. Suddenly, however, a political thriller appears instead. And it seems to be even good, but I went to another movie initially.
One poor Soviet girl reaches the social bottom: meets a petty criminal, takes drugs and sees absolutely no prospects. It is unclear how she ended up in such a situation. Anna is not stupid at all - she knows several foreign languages, plays chess perfectly, knows how to make responsible decisions in a matter of seconds, has iron logic - but still she gets a chance to improve her life. Again, it's not very clear why the KGB didn't just kill the girl. Oh, come on.
The structure of the film itself is somewhat overloaded with flirting with time. Time and again, the measured narrative is interrupted by flashbacks. And it's done too often, just starts to annoy that eternal "three months before," "three years ago," "two months 10 days six hours thirty-three minutes and two seconds earlier." In addition, almost all the action was shown during the trailer, so it is not particularly smoothing the impression.
Besson seems to have conceived an experiment: combining a political thriller and a spy action movie. And if the first element as a whole succeeded, the second was not sufficiently disclosed. Anna - a good film that can cause confusion, if you do not know what exactly it is.
7 out of 10
A low-average score shows our people didn't get into this movie. Yes, of course - the Russian man's numerous blunders of the film in its Russian part and the mundane KGB can irritate. But I suspect these blunders are actually deliberate. At one time, I remember being fascinated by Element 5 as a beautiful parody of space operas. Then - surprised by the fact that the highest box office success of this film had in the United States. Then, I thought, I understood why -- Americans took it not as a parody, but as a matter of fact -- in the comic-book culture that Marvel is now successfully parasitizing. "Anna" in this sense is Besson's self-parody of "Nikta." A beautiful girl who is forced by circumstances to turn into a super-murderer. Only Nikita was serious, and Anna was no longer. But with all the brilliance and pomp. Not just a beautiful girl, but a supermodel. As a recruiter - not just some regular agent Bob, but the leadership of the KGB. And the girl is not just an agent, but a double and triple, fighting like a god of war and a brilliant chess player. A wildly twisted plot, a bunch of beautiful women, cars, sex and fights - all you need to rest your eyes. And all this is seasoned with a subtle European banter over the canons of the genre, which an unsophisticated viewer can take for blunders, secondaryness and primitivism. What he (the audience) judging by the estimates of the film successfully and does.
I write about this ugliness only because of the unprecedented fact of a creepy movie with the proud name “Anna”. Not Anna Karenina, thank God. This is the worst movie of the year.
"Anna" showed a very remarkable fact. A fact of creative degradation. The fact that Luc Besson is a mediocre director and a dubious producer has long been known to me. What his fame is based on, the reputation of a good director who gave his talent for the sake of cool production, was always a mystery to me. One film is worse than another and sometimes tolerable creations of a medium-sized director. Like, Joel Schumacher. Most of them are in Hollywood. And in France, Besson comes to mind first. But that was it. The quality of the film just offends the viewer. The film is cheap, stupid, full of not just cranberries, watermelons. You did not know that in 1987, the Soviet Union used bank cards of the First Soviet Bank. Or maybe you do not know that in the same year there were LED arches on the Theatre Square and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior proudly stood. Yeah, and back in 1985, we were all steaming on laptops. Even the movie Red Heat was more believable. The director did not bother to compare the interiors, buildings, clothes with the reality of 1985-1990, nor to establish the true geolocation of events. That is why the head of the KGB sits in a small room of a small building and plays chess with operatives. There was no analytical work done at all. Why? Everything is luxurious. Besson. It does not matter that the film is drawn to the B genre and so primitive in the forehead no one shoots for 20 years. A separate question is who put combat scenes and in general special effects. A five for his laughter. Mr. Pitkin behind enemy lines.
There is also another “pleasant” bonus – Petrov! I didn’t notice that he was in the movie. When the hope of Russian cinema appeared in the frame, the hall exploded with laughter (just before that, one by one, there were trailers of new Russian films and all with his participation). Lucky viewer. There was a lot of laughter in the room. Some of the characters in the frame behaved in the spirit of Louis de Funes, and in full seriousness. Helen Mirren how you managed to get here. I don't think I understand. The main character is the model Sasha Luss, so strange plastic character that I think she was slightly altered on the set. She's more of a freak than a fatal, deadly beauty. Why she was chosen. There's a couple of guesses. Compared to the movie, the Atomic Blonde is a masterpiece, and the cranberries that were in it are almost historical facts. Anna's film is in many ways similar to another masterpiece Red sparrow, but at least there was a budget. Anna was filmed for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, the rest (30 million dollars) somewhere to go (also there are guesses). We woke up and realized we had to let go. Minimum installation and voila.
The most interesting thing is that the film was conceived as a kind of respect for the director’s main film (well, maybe not the main one) – Nikita. This is evidenced by the plot (I will not polish, but everything is clear in the description for the film), and direct references in individual scenes (they are just one in one, but more vividly, quickly, went and stupid) and characters (a beautiful stern mentor in love with the heroine and a cynical intelligent calculating mentor). There are also references to other famous films of this genre: the scene in the hotel, when the heroine portrays a prostitute in a black corset, just one repeats the episode from Mr. and Mrs. Smith with Jolie. This is nothing, even interesting would be, make it qualitatively, meaningfully and more expensive. It would be a slight irony, but it turned out like in porn on the theme of famous films/series. The film was supposed to show the way the director has gone since Nikita, his modifications, a changed view of the art of frame and plot construction. Back to the past, but on a new level. More mature. It turned out to be a demonstration of vulgarity, incompetence and deceived advances of the viewer and film critics. I am ashamed that I saw such a movie.
Good day, dear friends! Luc Besson is considered one of the most talented directors of our time. He had a hand in works, many of which simply became cultic. It is difficult to overestimate the contribution that Luc Besson has made to cinema over the past 30 years. But lately, he's had a sort of crisis of ideas. Perhaps out of desperation, or from the desire to do something less familiar, Besson made another film in which the place of the main character was taken by a girl with extraordinary abilities.
In my opinion, Luc Besson himself apparently gravitates to strong female images. He started making films about these cool women before it became popular. So in "Anna" everything is like that, we are talking about another young girl who, by a good coincidence, gets into the service of the KGB.
Probably sometimes it is very difficult to choose an actress for the role of the main character of a film, especially when the whole plot is tied to her. But Besson has always been distinguished by the ability to select really talented actresses for the main roles. It was he who saw the potential and opened the doors to big cinema for actresses such as Natalie Portman, Milla Jovovich and Anne Parillaud. Well, in my opinion, after the release of Anna, we can safely assume that Besson has another such actress, a new face, and not yet worn. Sasha Luss is quite talented, and she is not just a picture that is needed to attract a male audience. The girl really turned out to be extremely capable, and when watching the film, it seems that all the acting wisdom is given to Sasha as something completely natural, whether it is the level of serious dialogue, desperate chases or tough shootouts, Sasha copes perfectly! She looks very organic in this role and as if the whole plot was written for this actress. In addition, it is very well complemented by recognized and more experienced actors such as Luke Evans, Cillian Murphy and Helen Mirren. The images came out quite convincing, and the interaction of the characters worked out. Plus, I believe that the role of Russian characters still partially take Russian actors, however, we again did not do without the stoned Alexander Petrov, who again plays another moral freak, but I must say he turns out well.
Unfortunately, the film has flaws and many of them. First of all, this can be attributed to the plot. If you are waiting for a famously twisted spy thriller, you can safely say goodbye to these expectations, since everything here is based on a bunch of assumptions and conventions. At first glance, we are seeing another big movie about the collision of two superpowers in the spirit of “Red Sparrow”, but the idea is too elaborate. Speaking about the scenario, it is impossible not to notice that it consists of a huge number of blunders and stamps. If this is Moscow, then all the heroes are stupefying around the Kremlin, as if they were attracted to the place by some unknown forces. If we are shown past years (this is the end of the 80s), then there is no idea where things from the future come from, namely a laptop in the apartment of a drug addict, the heroine calmly and confidently fills out a questionnaire for future work and sends it online to the employer ... and it is not necessary that the Internet among ordinary people in Russia appeared only in the late 90s, and someone and that later? And there are a lot of such nonsense in the picture, which speaks in general about the disregard for the topic that the creators touch on. But Besson had Russian consultants who I think tried to demonstrate to him the fallacy of what he was doing. I guess I didn't listen... But since the film as a whole is aimed at Western audiences who do not know all the nuances of Soviet Russia, they will not notice anything like this. As a result, for us it turned out to be a story full of absurdities, and for the Western audience another action movie about evil Russians.
Someone may decide that the star cast can cover the main script problems, but this, alas, did not happen. As a result, the artists themselves did not really understand that they were playing at all. I still have the feeling that for Luc Besson this film is a passing project, at least it is definitely capable of more.
As for the technical side, the picture and the entire action presented are made in the best traditions of the average fighter. This film, especially in some episodes, reminds me painfully of the film Nikita. It turns out that Luc Besson himself steals concepts from his past films to at least fill new stories.
As for the constant temporal jumps, it bothered me very much. “A year earlier,” “an hour later,” “three days before,” etc. The chronology, of course, must be observed, but it was possible somehow to organize events, and not to force every time to remember “three days before what?” Not to mention the fact that Western tolerance for free sexual relations, of course, blooms and smells, our heroine successfully enters into intimate relationships not only with the opposite sex, but also with her own, and it is not at all obvious what she likes more. Although European feminists, of course, will be pleased, but for the Soviet time (about which this film is supposedly made)... well, guys, you have nothing mixed up?
In summary, with all due respect to the author and creators, this movie was a failure. Perhaps at home in a calm atmosphere and with free time, you can watch it (at least laugh), but you should not go to the cinema and spend money on a ticket!
Many will say that there are a lot of cranberries about Russia in the film. I'll say to them, 'It's a great movie. Nothing else is scary.” The hit-and-run affair holds up the entire movie. I really liked the movie. Anna (played by Sasha Luss) did a great job as a model. I also liked that Sasha Luss plays Anna and voices her in Russian dubbing. This story about a hired killer very much fits into the alternative world, invented by Western political scientists about Russia. Here’s a quote from the movie: “You have to believe in yourself.” It perfectly reveals European egocentrism. The producing countries - France, the United States - used the Russian popular actor Alexander Petrov.
Sasha Luss plays well the emotionlessness characteristic of all beautiful girls. The heroine Anna reminds the heroine Nikita from the film of the same name There is a cranberry in the film that all Russians love to play chess. I don’t know how Russian agents in the Russian intelligence services feel, but the film says they’re all proud of serving their country. Maybe this phrase about pride is another cranberry, but all the intelligence services in the world do not divide the world only into black and white (it seems to me). The film consists of philosophical phrases about the homeland, about trouble, about love, about debt to the country, about death. The film consists of general philosophical phrases.
Luke Besson is a director, writer, and producer. The film is gorgeous: the intrigue holds the whole film. I really liked the movie: I was waiting so long for what would happen to the character in the end. The end of the film is purely European. The film is very European and I like it.
The film’s budget of $30 million is well spent. The film is very beautiful, very European, very spyy. There is European eroticism in the film. The film celebrates the beauty of women and the female mind.
8 out of 10
Luke Besson has everything as usual - deification of a woman and elevating her to the rank of truly unpredictable, fantastic creatures, where in a fragile creature with an angelic appearance sits the devil's mind and simply stunning physical strength. And now before our eyes, a gentle young girl, in which no more than 45 kilograms of weight - turns into a real Rambo, and in six minutes in hand-to-hand stacks numerous visitors to a huge restaurant, 80 percent of whom are strong men armed with either pistols or knives. What's not fantastic? All in the best traditions of the militants of the 90s. It seems that somewhere we have already seen, only last time was not Anna, and Nikita.
In general, it all looks funny, a little ridiculous, but I must admit - beautiful.
The main decoration and rose on the cake was of course Anna herself performed by a Russian model originally from Magadan - Sasha Luss. Surprisingly, the first role for a girl from the fashion world did not come out in a lump, in the frame she looked very organic, in her role felt, apparently, as comfortable as possible, and looked natural. To play the role of a super-woman, in my opinion, not everyone can, because there is a great temptation to overplay. And there is nothing worse than a theatrical, deliberately exaggerated game in the cinema.
The secondary, but very memorable role of the mistress Anna went to my favorite model Lera Abova, because of her, I drew attention to the new creation of Luc Besson, whose work, except Leon, never particularly aroused my interest or delight. It is painfully fascinating to me the appearance of a fragile, short-haired girl.
The biggest failure in the whole ambiguous picture was that at the very beginning of the film we are warned: we will talk about the time era of the late USSR. However, in every Soviet hole in which the lower strata of society live, we are shown the presence of... attention... a laptop! There are ATMs everywhere, everyone uses plastic cards and mobile phones. That must be Besson's joke. Why couldn’t we paint our days? All that had to be replaced by the acronym KGB FSB.
As a result, she was rated 8 out of 10 for entertainment, dynamic plot and beautiful women.
Give me my money back, and it's not in cranberries.
To begin with, watching the film was boring, banal, uninteresting.
If we talk about the script with its “there are turns” in the style of M. Night Shyamalan, then it is very difficult to perceive the plot and, frankly, there is no desire: I came (judging by the trailer) to see how the beautiful Sasha Luss coolly kills his enemies and looks stylish in the frame, and what did I get? The flashback is in the flashback, and instead of getting high from the picture, I should think about what is the moment of history and who, in general, is on whose side, who is good and who is bad, and why Anna is such an immoral scum who betrays her comrades who saved her life, and then betrays her enemies.
Logic in the behavior of characters is very often absent, the dialogue is phenomenally dead. And everything is so stretched, for example, the scene when an agent of the CRU falls into the apartment to the mistress of the main character - this scene has no weight in the plot, it can be easily removed from the film and nothing will change.
PAFOS and cliché
Of course Luc Besson did! “I’m the head of the KGB, I’m ready to shoot anyone with whom my dialogue does not work out,” and what only costs Anna’s meeting with the character of Luke Evans, “I work for the KGB, baby” or “Let’s fuck” and other pathetic phrases.
If you are a model, then you are a drug addict and give yourself to millionaires, well, it is ridiculously simple!
I work in the fashion industry and it was very unpleasant for me to watch the scenes of photo shoots and visits to the agency, again cliché: the photographer = gay idiot ungrateful, agency employee = hypocritical person, the head of the agency = pimp, and the model = prostitute / drug addict / slave on the set, ready to do anything for the sake of a contract, maybe 10 years ago this could be shown in the movies, but not in 2019.
Combat scenes with Soviet stormtroopers from Star Wars
In the lead roles, a very beautiful actress, and to look at her one pleasure is an unambiguous plus, but the scenes of fights / shootouts leave much to be desired: boring, uninteresting, banal, it is not John Wick.
Bottom line:
And you know that feeling when you watch a movie and feel like it was made without soul, without effort and without love? I felt it when I saw this movie. I hope there will be more movies with Sasha Luss.
Thank you for your attention, it was my completely subjective opinion, 100% dependent on the context in which I exist.
Luc Besson was once a chic director and producer. “The Fifth Element” and “Leon” is one of the favorite films of millions, and “Taxi” is the last great French comedy series. And today the author of great paintings makes an average genre film. So "Anna" got into the same cohort of average Besson.
For starters, the film is not disgusting, but... But! He has the wrong advertising campaign. Just look at the trailer, the authors clearly push on the action and coolness of the main character. But in fact, the entire action ends in 30 minutes (excluding the final fight), and the film is two hours! There is a feeling that the fight in GlavPivTorg was filmed exclusively for the trailer. And the worst part is that she's cool! "Anna" shoots, fights, rolls no worse than John Wick, and besides she, unlike old Keanu, is still very young and can wriggle in murderous pirouettes with all her inherent grace. Yes, Sasha Luss is just amazing, very beautiful, elegant, speaks Russian. She also plays a girl with girl problems. And that's actually the movie. Not about espionage (although it’s a theme that really stretches through the film), not about shootings, not about glamour, but about the place of a girl in this world. And if the picture was promoted in this way, then I would hardly go to it, but it would find its audience.
As a "film for girls" movie works great. Here is a cute heroine with difficulties in life. Its development and new problems that do not allow it to continue. Relationships with guys, love triangles. An experienced mentor with a bitchy character. The girls in the hall were quite happy with what was happening, emotionally reacted to the plot twists. But the film was served under a completely different sauce. And the sauce ran out in 30 minutes. At first, it seems that everything was advertised correctly, and there is an action-thresh on the screen in the good sense of the word (with a sea of hooks, guys with a heightened sense of patriotism do not watch this film). Sasha Petrov played a beautiful turned scumbag, but why? Just to show you which Russians are recaptured? They would have taken away all the action, leaving the spy troubles, and the movie would have lost nothing again. The male audience is not interested in this work, and even a couple of shooters and chic beauties can not fix it. Terrible marketing!
“Anna” is a good film about the difficult life of a girl in a world where everyone wants to show her place. As an espionage film, it works averagely, as an action movie does not work at all. If you want to see a good Besson movie, you have to look at some of his old works. If you want to spend 2 hours with your friends, it is also good. If you like the trailer with shootings and acrobatics, pass by. Ladies, I recommend adding two points to the final score.
Luc Besson, unfortunately, continues the sad trend of modernity, when the cult directors of the late 90’s – early 2000 want to go on stage today and shoot a frankly bad movie.
Anna is another set of stamped cranberries about a fragile Russian spy who playfully beats a crowd of peasants and knows how to calculate her moves forward enough to fool both the KGB and the CIA. The KGB and the CIA, in turn, seem to be no fools and act quite logically, but exactly as long as it does not concern Anna - in the plot, the girl is so charming that even seasoned agents lose their heads from the desire to drag her to bed and commit frank nonsense.
The plot is not new, has been played hundreds of times and therefore looks very secondary. The “flashback method” used by Besson also does not force the film to be played with new colors. First, these flashbacks are made very clumsy. Secondly, they are bumped in such numbers that by the middle of the film they begin to irritate, and it becomes obvious that the director has an inability to submit and twist the plot - to the master of flashbacks Guy Ritchie he oh how far.
The actors are well selected, play naturally within their “cranberry” role. That is, their game looks very funny and implausible at times, but they coped perfectly with the task of creating a passing kinzo about the “evil and vile KGB”. Petrov once again plays a womanizer-major-addict-neurasthenic, that is nothing new:
In principle, all these cranberry stamps could be tolerated. Still, it was clear from the trailers what kind of movie it would be and what to expect from it, but Besson was surprised by the inexcusable inattention to detail, which is permissible for a graduate student with limited resources, but not for an eminent director. Cell phones in Moscow in 1985. Internet and laptops in 1990 in the apartment of a regular Russian drug addict. The main character, who is a resume on the site is (probably headhunter in 1990). Cars from the 2000s in the frame... All this nonsense terribly spoils the impression of the film, forcing you to perceive it as a cheap craft, made hastily “to cut a little money”.
3 severed fingers out of 10.
Luc Besson is a great director who knows how to shoot something quite original. In his creations, everyone can find something for himself. A great comedy, a beautiful and original science fiction film or a great action movie (I’m talking about Leone).
In his new film about a Russian spy in the service of the KGB, Besson decided to make a mixture of an action movie in the spirit of John Wick, spy drama and eroticism. Moreover, the theme of the latter is developed and demonstrated an order of magnitude wider than the topic of fights and shootouts. Here you can find hints of a connection within a same-sex couple and how quickly the main character herself changes partners. And the existing bed scenes are filmed very simply and cardboardly. From this awakens hunger for action scenes, beautiful views of cities or even dialogue.
For the whole movie, there seemed to be two really high-quality shooting scenes and one good chase scene. All the rest of the time is a demonstration of the life and work of the main character with a lot of spectacular editing solutions, places successful, places not so good, dialogues and the above-mentioned bed scenes.
I personally did not notice the global cranberries in the film. Vodka is not specifically mentioned, the appearance of Soviet citizens is correlated with the described era (1983-1990s). The actors are playing well.
The story itself is simple, naive, and full of a few silly decisions by charismatic characters. Events change each other with great speed and it would be very difficult to tell the story without beating into spoilers. If you are a fan of the director, if you like films similar in the manner of Montage to Guy Ritchie, if you are interested in the actors who played in the film, you want to immerse yourself in the atmosphere of spinal intrigue and multinationality (the countries in which the main character, especially France, are shown from very bright sides) you can safely go to the cinema, knowing what I said about erotic scenes.
7 out of 10
I have always been interested in American movies. Extremely unsuccessful ' Red Sparrow' almost killed the hope of truthfulness, not to mention the eternal grayness and lack of humor.
But then Maestro Besson took up the business, whose works always cause vivid emotions from bewilderment to delight. Being a fan of his early films and extremely indignant from the latter, in particular from the dull ' Lucy', with whom this film is often compared, in anticipation of hats-uhankas and evil ' Russ spies' included this film with expectations to laugh and again sadden from the eternal clichés.
What a surprise it was when such a seemingly hackneyed theme was presented in a humorous, light and inoffensive light. Naturally, film critics will kill this film, if they have not already done so, but still this is a huge breakthrough for the cranberries that we, Russians, love.
Of course, the main star of this film is Sasha Luss. Despite the fact that she is not an actress, Sasha perfectly played Russian & #39; Nastenka & #39; with blue angelic eyes, blonde hair and terrible ties to the KGB and the CIA. Nothing more was required of her.
Helen Mirren made a surprise appearance in the film, playing the local KGB babushka. To create an image inspired by Liya Akhedzhakova, thank you for Easter.
In short, if you do not want to delve into the masterpieces of world cinema, you want to relax with your eyes and mind - this film is for you. Beautiful Annushka in stockings with a gun is a cranberry in sugar, which we finally deserve.
P.S. Sasha Petrov, better 'Policeman from Rublevka', Anton Yelchin is still far away, ostitis.
Luke Besson made a spy movie. I will not spoil the story or events, but I will tell you the impressions of the film. And I will compare my impressions with the same Lucy, who did not go to mass critics much, and for me so for his genre was very even OK.
Anna. Now in the introduction to tell the story, but it will be spoilers to the plots that will kill the intrigue of the first third of the film. You know, Besson's spy movie turned out... Funny. Like a spy thriller, it's weak at all. Although the timing of the film jumps back and forth within five years constantly, where the story ends with backstory and jumps to a new time interval ... Most riddles are quite predictable and do not belong to the genre of “this is a turn”. Especially striking when watching the film is a very bad environment. For example, in the movie is 1987, and a girl in Moscow works at a laptop with a color screen (and kind of even through the Internet). Or all the atmosphericity slides down to the fact that the hero rides on a “penny”, and around him – modern foreign cars through the window are both visible and visible. The number of such blunders in the first half of the film is frankly distracting and annoying. But maybe it's for the best. Because the plot is quite slow and slow.
You probably heard that the famous Russian actor Alexander Petrov played in the film. I think he played an autobiographical character. I mean, almost myself, maybe. Well, as Bekmambetov in his "Hollywood campaign" with Jolie attracted the then popular top "watch" actors to play the role of a Russian alcoholic - so here, in principle, ... But it turned out well. It is good that the role of Sasha is short-lived and quickly terminated. It would have been too much Petrov, as usual.
The film itself... Well, let's face it - interesting enough to watch, but for once. And if you manage to turn off the brain on a huge chorus of blunders of the environment, and you do not want to study in detail the very obvious plot twists, without wondering how special services can suffer such a thing, especially at the end - then you can even enjoy watching. Cheerful, interesting. But, to be honest, Lucy, who was probably not scolded only by a lazy one, I liked the plot, dynamics and history in general much more at the time. She was just more interesting. Fascinating. Mysterious. So, conventionally, if you didn’t watch either Anna or Lucy, I would, contrary to all sorts of “experts,” recommend Lucy more. By the way, do you know what Lucy 2 will be in a couple of years? Given the surre with which the first part ended, it will be interesting to see even.
Over. Quite a cheerful movie, but weak for the spy genre. It seems a lot of twists and jumps in the timeline – but everything is so simple and predictable that it does not surprise and does not give the effect of “wow” as you solve each spy puzzle. To see a movie once, it will be interesting. But no more. The spy movie Besson somehow failed. I can see that I tried.
They always annoy and annoy me at the same time. And so did Anna.
Luke Besson is a good shot. You look at it, but you forget most of what happened. So it was with Lucy, Valerian and now with Anna.
The cast, of course, adds fire.
Luke Evans is a Russian KGB guy who recruits the main character, but for some reason Alex at least Chenkov. Such a clumsy Russian, as probably Russian men abroad and represent.
Killian Murphy, created to play cunning, insidious and charming antagonists, frightening and attractive at the same time, here is a witty, calculating a few steps forward American from the CIA.
And, of course, Sasha Luss is a racial beauty, both in reality and in the film. Anna with a difficult fate, deceived in the past and present, with incredible willpower and an irresistible thirst for freedom. Thank you to Besson for such brightly spelled in their films women.
Helen Mirren is not immediately recognizable here, she is organic and as always beautiful. A tough and harsh Russian woman in the leadership of the KGB structure, well, what?
And here Sasha Petrov lit up. Before the film in 4 of 5 trailers still lit up, but it is a retreat. He's not much here, but he's interesting here, too.
Flashbacks and time jumps were normal at first, but by the middle of the movie they were starting to get annoying.
There's no point in explaining the plot. You can catch it by the middle of the movie. What can the confrontation between the KGB and the CIA lead to?
This is pure cranberries, where, looking at almost every scene, you want to be outraged: where did you get this, hello!? But then they turn on the fighting scenes and let you go.
6 out of 10
And that's mostly for the actors, the chemistry between them and some fighting scenes.
The film from the director Lucy is a spy story about a Soviet spy Anna (Sasha Luss). For some reason, all the promotional materials are reminiscent of "Lucy" - a completely absurd film by Besson from a series of his recent failures, when in fact "Anna" is very, very similar to his cult "Nikita" (as the director himself said - this is generally her free remake).
This is not the first time that we are trying to sell a very simple straight story, masking its template with a nonlinear presentation. The title "N time back / after" is so frequent on the screen that closer to the finale begins to annoy. And the next plot twist after such a credit is guessed much earlier than the screenwriter conceived. What not to take away from a highly experienced director is the ability to shoot action. Everything about chases and fights looks cheerful and dynamic. Besson is better than telling interesting stories.
In the center of the plot is a Soviet spy and the confrontation between the KGB and the CIA. The time of the main action is the very beginning of the nineties. “Cranberries” in the film is so much that “Anna” is strongly compared to “Red Sparrow”. This, of course, is too much - in these two films "cranberries" of completely different kind. If "Sparrow" is saturated with paranoia and some completely wild fantasies, then "Anna" simply does not try to be reliable at all (there are a lot of anachronisms in the frame) and collects all sorts of stamps under its wing (take at least an evil general sending heads by mail). For many, this “cranberry” so covers their eyes that they do not notice the main thing – in the end, Besson does not show sympathy for either the KGB or the CIA, and the most courageous, honest and skillful are women.
The film turned out to be quite average and, it seems, outdated, but I could not understand what it was worse than the same “Explosive Blonde”. If you like to watch the confrontations of the special services, and even more mastered the series like “Condor” and “Deep state”, “Anna” has every chance you like, if the spy theme does not fascinate you, the movie can be safely skipped.
6 out of 10
The only inaccuracy of this film is that it was released. Such a mistake could not be allowed in any case, but the security services, apparently because of the constant wars with each other, overlooked the pig, which was planted defenseless citizens.
On that ill-fated day when I saw this picture, the choice was between Anna and Golem. Initially it was planned to go to the horror, but at the last minute plans changed dramatically and the girl model appeared to me. And as is often the case, behind the attractive tinsel, gloss and screams there is something so uninteresting that after a few minutes of being there you regret the mistake made.
The first thing that catches the eye is all sorts of laptops, the Internet and other Galimaty in the USSR. The second is the unmotivated behavior of the characters, excessive expression of Petrov, he would play in the theater, but apparently they do not pay as much as in the movies. Anna's admission to the KGB is, of course, a moment-cliché, Olga in it directly says a memorized text from the manuals of Russian services. Not even the KGB, but just any state service take and there will be all these points: "The recommended candidate: does not use drugs, does not drink, does not smoke, does not swear, knows Shakespeare by heart, can play Bach on the guitar, speaks all the languages of the world, speaks fluent Assembler, has skills in controlling cars, aircraft, ships, space stations." Well, Anna is the perfect candidate.
Heroes look unnatural. Situations look unnatural. Overall, the whole movie looks unnatural. Of course, this is an action movie, it is stupid to expect deep thoughts from him, but it is absolutely useless to make such an outrageously stupid person. No fish, no meat. Three for a scene with a finger - it was funny.
3 out of 10
Luke, what the hell?! This picture performed by such a famous director looks a little strange. I would never have believed that Besson could shoot cranberries about Russia, but cranberries could reach and get to French cinema. It is clear that this picture is just a mind-blowing number of all sorts of clichés, from which a slight grin appears on the face, but in general, the characteristic handwriting of the director in the scenes of chases and shootouts is guessed in it. The film is surprisingly similar to another cranberry work - "Explosive blonde" - that's just it was made without due diligence. My general characteristic of the film is that it will pull under a beer, but about everything in order.
The main character. The trailer did not lie, the actress is really like two drops of water similar to Mila Jovovich, only talent bases. Apparently, the director was tortured by nostalgia. Sasha Luss plays more than mediocrely. Throughout the film, she consistently holds the same facial expression, as if she had nerves fixed on her face. At first, this one is even a little surprised, until you learn that this is her second feature-length film and her first major role. Needless to say, she's not even close to Charlize Theron from 'Blonde'? I don't think so. Clumsy and unnatural movements in action scenes confirm this. In some places it was clear that Sasha tried to give the acting, but it turned out not very well. The potential of this actress is, but she directed it in the wrong direction.
Cameo Alexander Petrov. To say I was shocked is to say nothing. A more sudden appearance on the screen must be remembered. It does not appear in the picture for very long and even affects the main course of history. . . But! He's playing himself. Do not expect any special acting techniques from him here. Perhaps for this we can say thank you dubbing, and he duplicated himself and judging by the quality did it on the back. His whole line looks ridiculous and extremely ridiculous and can only cause a fit of laughter, since his actions are extremely controversial and very illogical. Beating a man in the center of Moscow near the Kremlin and then shooting at the police there is certainly fun, but it does not fit with reality and logic.
I'll repeat the cliché. Here everything is as we like: nesting dolls, fur hats, the bazaar plays ' Katyusha' or what it was, apartments with a situation like drunkards, from KeGeBe you can only go to the grave. A perfect description of the life of the nineties in the USSR. The story itself is almost pure slime with ' Explosive Blonde' with its own jokes. The main character Derzka is not the word. Of course, arranging a makhach with a shooting in a restaurant in the center of Moscow, despite the fact that there are cops on every corner it is very correct and logical. But when the police as a result do not even arrive a minute after the start of the muzzle - it is a shame.
The film is constantly throwing us back to certain time periods so that we end up with a complete story. And it would work if those segments weren't that long this time, and if the director bothered to write the time we're in at the moment. Because of this, by the middle of the film you can simply get confused and eventually lose the thread of the narrative. Breaking the timeline is certainly good, but you should not forget about reality. And oh, those action scenes in the film, when a girl armed with guns runs a crowd of extras armed. Nothing! This only causes a fit of hysterical laughter and completely discourages the desire to believe in what is happening.
As a result, a tolerable cranberry turned out, over which you can laugh, and sometimes even cook. Cameo of Russian actors is a shame that should be quickly forgotten. I think they fell for the director, not really understanding what they are filming. And the intro of the film, which directly refers us to the beginnings of the films ' Taxi' makes you even cry a little.
3 out of 10
If you want a funny and logical cranberry - see 'Explosive blonde'. And yes, when I watched the description of this film here in the recommended I was advised to watch the film ' Red Sparrow'. There's some irony in that.
Once again, without bothering with the title for the film (in fact, what can be easier and more effective than making the name of the central character in the title), the already iconic Luke Besson offers his new brainchild - Anna to the public. And if a few years ago I could say that the release of a fresh creation from the creator of such strange, but undoubtedly soulful films as "Leon", "The Fifth Element", "Angel-A" is an event that any self-respecting movie lover should not miss, today the name of Besson has ceased to act as a guarantor of quality. After ambiguous (but still watchable) "Lucy" and "Valerian", the Frenchman for an unknown reason decided to step on a minefield, placing the heroine in the conditions of the Cold War between the USSR and the United States, and, unfortunately, severely undermined: "Anna" is perhaps the worst film of the famous director.
Boring, stupid, faceless and secondary. Boring, because the arsenal of gray plot twists is not surprising, but tiresome; because absolutely all the characters are empty cardboard, to which you feel nothing but indifference; because the plot as a whole does not catch and there was not a single element that could even try to save this Titanic. Stupidity consists of the illogical behavior of the characters, a bunch of conventions (in action episodes this can be traced especially boldly), the presence of frankly worthless scenes and ridiculously fleeting throws from side to side of the same Anna who managed to go to bed with almost half the characters. Facelessness and secondaryness are mutually determined: sleeplessness here almost does not smell, and the feeling that many scenario techniques for you are not new (you can remember "Red Sparrow" or "Explosive blonde") beats over the edge.
The burden of playing the title role fell on the Russian model Sasha Luss, who, for all her attractiveness, does not get enough in charisma and acting skills (the same Johansson and Theron, of course, did not suffer similarly). Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy are here, rather, for big names, because their parts could easily be performed by any ordinary extra. The debut of Alexander Petrov in the international arena was accompanied for the most part by a twist and replay, and it seems that only one Helen Mirren in the image of the iron boss can be remembered.
Timeline rape was very infuriating: “three years earlier”, “five years later”, “six seconds later”, “nine minutes later” pop up so often that one has to make a noticeable effort not to get lost in the chronological sequence of events. Moments of long action here for meager 2-3 times: for the average brand of an action movie, the level of staging is quite acceptable, in comparison - clearly leaves much to be desired. The recreated entourage of the 80s, 90s is in many ways ugly not authentic (although the use of a laptop in Soviet times is strong), camera work, in principle, mediocre, musical accompaniment can be put a plus.
"Anna" is not a movie of our time: it is morally outdated, as, apparently, its author. Luc Besson is exhausted: this film is the most pronounced proof that the director is mired in repetitions and, more importantly, self-repeats. And the question hangs in the air: is the bizarre originality for which the creator and loved, left forever in the past? I hope not.
In the difficult times for the Soviet Union of the late 80s, when the former power of the party is cracking at the seams, Anna (Sasha Luss) - a young girl who makes ends meet, trading in the market, decides to escape from a worthless life, filling out a questionnaire for service in the KGB. My life is changing, but is it for the better? Now in the service of one of the most powerful and ruthless organizations in the world, she is in the grip of which it is impossible to escape. Performing multiple tasks of leadership, the girl increasingly wants it all to end, to become free. But in the confrontation between the KGB and the CIA, there are other rules of the game.
Everyone knows that strong female characters are key characters for Luc Besson’s films. "Anna" is another story about how fragile, at first glance, a girl can resist a whole squad of men. At one point, the 60-year-old director began to repeat himself. There is something about Anna from Nikita and LiLu from The Fifth Element, and even from Joan of Arc. Not to mention the fact that Red Sparrow with Jennifer Lawrence recently came out, so it’s impossible not to make comparisons. But I liked the picture of Besson more, it seemed to me easier, but at the same time interesting, with rather ambiguous plot twists.
Perhaps foreigners will believe in the whole story, but we, Russian viewers, it immediately becomes clear that the whole story is a fiction of the director, from beginning to end. There are many inaccuracies in the picture, primarily historical. Moscow of the late 80s - early 90s is modern Moscow, where the heroes move on the old "Zhiguli". Well, laptops, albeit the first models, in ordinary citizens – it is simply impossible to imagine.
Luc Besson found an unusually beautiful girl with Russian roots - Sasha Luss. As an actress, she is just beginning her career, but she plays quite well. There is not only external attractiveness in it. She starred in Valerian from the same Besson, where, apparently, the director noticed her. The other three main characters are world-class stars. Helen Mirren, as always, perfectly got used to the role of cruel, but still fair Olga. Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy convey the characters of people of the same profession, but different political regimes. In the episodes you can see mainly Russian actors. In particular, the episode starred very popular in the domestic cinema Alexander Petrov. Negative characters are very good at it.
The soundtrack to the picture does not cause vivid impressions, there was a very passable track. Locations are limited to harsh Moscow, bohemian Paris and hot islands.
"Anna" is a stylish movie aimed at an audience that loves strong female images, who loves action movies and spy games. A good addition to the piggy bank of female images of director Besson. Expectations from the picture were justified. I advise everyone who wants to spend a few hours in the cozy chair of the cinema.
8 out of 10
And, you know, 'Anna' is perhaps the most unexpected movie of 2019! Everything in it is so caricatured on all fronts (except for camera work), that at some point even the thought begins to creep in: what if everything was conceived by the eminent director? Well, it's hard to believe that an experienced Besson could have written a frankly stupid and primitive script with frankly superficial and meaningless dialogue. That the film about the Russians is brought in a stereotypical view of them to the absurd square. Here almost in their apartment Russians walk in fur coats, eat caviar, talk about nesting dolls, and the all-powerful and unscrupulous KJB dumps people in stacks and indiscriminately on the bad and good. Or is this how a film from such a director can recreate the eras of 1985, 1987 and 1990 so sloppy? In the background are all modern cars, around laptops with Windows 95 (this is even a simple Soviet drug addict, and you thought!), which can easily record a video in FullHD, cell phones literally everyone (and often models of zero years, and you can call your mobile directly into the bunker KGB agent!) and even the Internet with some prototypes of sites! Again, it's 1990! How do you understand that?
But maybe this isn't really a bug, it's a feature? I will say at once that I am a Besson fan and even in his not the best films I have always found for myself much more advantages than disadvantages. But did Besson not understand all this nonsense? The man is already 60 years old, and he probably remembers his 90 years perfectly. Why did you need all this stupid masquerade when it was enough to replace the KGB with the FSB and film the same thing in the modern era without any changes in the plot? Siberia does not care in what era to frighten the foreign viewer. I really want to believe that all this is a kind of Besson’s joke, such a humor and satirical view of the PR confrontation between the West and the East existing in the world. I want to... There is one thing that prevents this: the trailer. In which, in order to drag the viewer into the movie, obviously inserted only the best moments of the film. And they do it only in one case: when the creators themselves realize that the film failed. And in the version of frank knuckle, alas, believe much more than in the version of the funny Besson. ..
Oh, Besson-Besson. What are you doing? Do you really think that by filming something more disgusting than the recent Red Sparrow, you will make money to cover your debts?
“You see, the communists aren’t absolute evil, right?” says Luc Besson. But that doesn't change the crazy cranberries that the movie is about. What's the problem? I don't know. The main character is a Soviet drug addict who lives in the center of Moscow with her beating husband-bandit and fills out a resume on her own laptop. And here every second has mobile phones, go Gelendvagens, nesting dolls are not spoiled, mentioned some "Siberia" (in 1988).
And don’t let God reveal the characters: if in “Red Sparrow” showed at least some training of the heroine, then we know nothing, except that she knows several languages. Just some pompous chess game. A decent part of a significant biography is simply missed. In addition, there are some KGB and CIA officers with tsarist habits, the history of which is not fully clear.
The biggest part of the movie is surveillance. In my opinion, only a paranoid person can seriously believe in so many cameras. Is that how the cameras end up in every Paris diner? Or in each hotel room, three grand? And why, if everyone's watching, don't they realize they're watching them too? Does everyone know everything? Then why are they acting like idiots? The scenario as a whole cracks at the seams at the first step to the side. For example, why are armed CIA fighters walking around Paris in broad daylight? You know, I don’t even want to paint every hole, let’s move on.
The entertainment part. The film does not show a single special operation from beginning to end (in the film about spies). Personally, I was wondering who this kind man was, who, for example, hides a gun in advance in a hotel room, and also places cameras slightly less than anywhere else. I'm very interested in how traces are covered after surgery. There is no quality action in Anna. Two examples. One. Anna shoots in Macedonian style while holding a man’s carcass to protect him from bullets. Two. Anna with her legs, on which there is not even a hint of muscles, without any problems throws out specially trained Chekists who hold her by the same legs with their whole body. By the way, the Chekists are generally shown to be extremely weak and untrained people.
Actors. Sasha Luss is a girl of unearthly beauty, it is a pity that she is so mediocrely staining her career. A separate hell is that it duplicates itself. Sounds extremely bad. Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy look at the camera, successfully playing cardboard characters. For some reason called Helen Mirren, apparently, that she did not show any emotions.
"Anna" is a bad movie. Stupid, with bad action, bad camera work, bad soundtrack (the composer knows nothing but plates from the drum kit), boring special operations, sick cranberries. I think the audience deserves more.
It is only necessary to withstand the first 20 minutes of assumptions, inconsistencies in historical truth and other conventions to plunge into the unusually attractive atmosphere of a careful reprisal of good over evil. Surprisingly, it is a fact.
The film was viewed in the original (in English) and was made outside of Russia. You could watch, listen to the reaction. In Europe, where for many, the film is a documentary. And that's the point. That is why the film is worth watching. Carefully, but giving a head start to the first half an hour of inconsistencies.
Yes, in Moscow in 1985, against the background of VAZ 2104, tricks and skodas, modern to us and you, yes, the FBI agent on the very 4th, Gelendwagen of the model range from the 90s flies in, yes, Mercedes 124 restyle, on which a half-mad friend of still authentic (drug-dependent and lost) Anna goes to the first ATM of the Main Soviet Bank (so in the cinema), appeared only in 1994. And it has modern numbers with the region and the RUS flag. And – yes, there were no laptops in the drug-addicted huts of 1989 (and even now, I think they are rare there because they are pushed faster), and there was no “thornet of yours”, and yes, it could be shown otherwise, not by sending an email, but by dropping a letter into a blue box on the mail wall, BUT – who will understand then that she sent the letter.
Let’s not forget who the film is aimed at: in / on the “West” email was much earlier than Russia, (only here to use it, for some reason, “there” is often worse than we have here).
There. “There” has grown two generations of people – against one “here” – who do not think of sending letters in the form of an envelope.
There is also a growing generation. How to explain to them in 10 years that Anna sent a letter? Well, that's a saying.
The story begins with the effect of this letter. To Anna comes not Santa Claus, but the agent of the passionate KJB. And recruits Anna to KJB. And here we go!
No, I'm not going to tell you the story. Only a brief conclusion from the analysis and analysis of the film.
If you analyze the film – its message, its impact on the target audience in the West – Besson is at great risk of being sanctioned. Just because he can be granted Russian citizenship. I got it. If you know the way of thinking of some of Russia’s neighbors on the globe of this planet, it is impossible not to note that the film is firmly ingrained in the subcortex. The KGB's best commercial yet. And Besson can be thanked for several things at once.
In the film there are many moments to think about, in the film there is relatively little blood, in the film there are almost no explicit bed scenes, and those that are, in comparison with them, even Romeo and Juliet Zefirelli are almost porn.
The characters are well maintained.
Good acting. The storyline doesn't break. The history of the actors does not end. There is no slack in the plot.
A number of moments that could well be present in the life of special agents are taken into account (although, perhaps, if you show it at the SVR corporate party, passers-by will think that comedy is being shown in the hall).
There is no stamp about bad rusty and harrowing american...
Ba! Here, if you look carefully and think, it is exactly the opposite. But not directly. Not in the forehead. You have to think, or at least notice.
However, the line is transparent enough to see that the Russians (the natives of the Soviet Union, the Russians and those who consider themselves among them) have not only the ability to crush the enemy, but also know how to work, and also to achieve the goal by overcoming difficulties. And KJB is so powerful that in a year they can do this! Imagine, but in the West about this legend still go.
There's a detective in the film and there are explanations for those who don't understand (two generations not only didn't write letters, but didn't read much either). Basically, not just mail. Explanations are woven into the plot by a suitable director's pitch. They will not be seen by those who just watch the movie without fooling around, they will not annoy those who understand something in cinema as a specialist.
The film has a place for valor and... dignity. And this dignity, in the end, resolves a situation that seems hopeless. One that in chess would be called a pat. It was originally stated as such – “Abo-abo” is, you know.
Yes, by the way, in the film, chess and morality pass through the red line - playing chess is actually cool. You have to think ahead. If such a film had been released in Soviet times (this is also an assumption from the category of the beginning of the film), chess schools would have been replenished with those who wish to become agents of the special services in adulthood. The ability to play chess well in general smooths out a lot in this story.
The bottom line is the movie needs to be seen. At least to support Besson. The man decided to make a film that extolls Soviet-Russian matter to the whole world, at an hour when most of the globe sharpens its dagger at Russia. Let it be moral. But such films affect the cultural consciousness of people. And believe me, in the West, this impact will be positive. Indirect but positive.
Anyway, it's a good movie. It looks good on the big screen of the cinema with good sound.
When we talk about Western cranberries about Russia, invariably remember 'Red heat' with a harsh Schwarzenegger in Uschank.
Gentlemen, a new cranberry standard should appear in the House of Weights and Measures from today - the film 'Anna'.
To watch this film on dry, that is, without drinking, is absolutely impossible. 5-10 minutes after the beginning of the picture, the tantrum will begin not what the Russian, but anyone who has spent more than a week in Russia.
There are not only cretin stereotypes about Russia, but also countless blunders, which together give such a thrash chapito that the film simply cannot be regarded other than curiosity.
Here we have a terrible KGB, from which the only way out is forward (which is cranberry) cuts through Moscow 80s cars with Russian numbers of the 77th region (which is a blunder at the level ' lazy to Google'). The Soviet police with the same Russian numbers (although blue) is chasing robbers on the Nivas with George the Victorious.
Moscow of the 80s is still a place, of course. Not only is it shown as a creepy, dark and wild bandit city, but it is also disfigured with sobyaninsky arches and plastic trees. De Gaulle in front of the hotel 'Space'. In '89, yeah.
In the apartment of the hero Petrov, in a terrible drug dens with a black ceiling, there is a microwave ' Samsung'. On Gorky Street (strangely, not Tverskoy), in the 85th, quite modern foreign cars are swept against the background of reflective road signs of the Sobyaninsky sample and bicycle paths.
The only bright spot in this Third World hell is the Izmailovo Kremlin. It was built 10 years after the events described. But, conciliator, these are trifles compared to the central apparatus of the KGB, which sits ... in one of the buildings of Moscow State University, and not at all where we used to think.
And above all this mess proudly flies the tricolor flag. A miracle without a portrait of Putin.
I don’t know what motivated the authors to do this – if it wasn’t for Besson, you would think that chronic dementia.
We can say that these are nitpicks for details that do not change the essence. Maybe it is, but you know, when Marshal Mannerheim plays a Negro, it's hard to think about anything other than that detail.
But the worst thing is that even if you abstract from this schizophrenia, there is nothing to analyze at all. The film is boring to watch, it is long, illogically built, and there is nothing in it that would distinguish it from the endless films about superheroes, single-handedly defeating the Soviet army. Any review of the passing superhero film, shot on the patterns of James Bond, fits and 'Anne'.
Of course, in accordance with the requirements of the Brussels regional committee, the lesbian line was up, which is not necessary at all, except to achieve the desired degree of tolerance. So to say, LGBT is defeating the KGB.
This is a second-rate film that does not save either the budget or, in fact, Besson. It is discouraging that our very talented actor Sasha Petrov sees his participation in this infinitely dull kinze as a breakthrough. He is, of course, the only actor whose acting work has somehow succeeded, but God knows he could find a much more effective use of creative energy. After a strong role in ' Call DiCaprio' to play in this - it's like after ' Locomotive' to play in the backyard team in San Marino and be proud that ' played in Europe' Lord, when will we get rid of this rustic adoration for fantasists with the inscription 'Made in EU'?
It is bitter to see how a man who was once compared to Smoktunovsky now dreams of knocking out Oscar in fierce competition with Danila Kozlovsky, who is generally difficult to call an actor in the true sense of the word. I would like to believe that this is a temporary clouding, an aberration of the consciousness of a young, not very experienced artist. But Mr. Petrov's recent interviews, unfortunately, give little cause for optimism.
In short, there is absolutely no point in watching it as there was no point in filming it. Unless, of course, you collect a collection of the most ridiculous paintings about Russia.
And if the difficult still brought you to ' Anna' - visit the bar. This will somehow allow you to perceive what is happening at least as a not very successful comedy.
Luc Besson is considered one of the most talented directors of our time. He had a hand in the works, which over time, and some immediately became a real cult. And it is probably difficult to overestimate all the contribution that Besson has made to the cinema of the past 30 years. But in recent years, Besson’s things are not the best way. The viewer either ceased to perceive his films, or Besson himself is slowly losing ground, and he began a crisis of ideas. Sometimes he tries to do something completely new for himself. “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.” The concept itself was something completely new for Besson, but in the end the picture turned out to be very, very average, besides it completely failed at the box office with a rather large budget. Perhaps out of desperation, or from the desire to do something familiar for himself, Besson shot another film in which the place of the main character is again taken by a girl with extraordinary abilities.
In my opinion, it is obvious that Luc Besson himself is very much attracted to female images, at the same time, very strong and independent images. Besson began making films about such strong women even before it had become mainstream. Now the strong and independent are shoved into every third film, but probably only Besson himself always knew how to show it in the most correct way, and he did not turn you inside out. So in Anna everything is exactly like that, and we will talk about another young girl who, by coincidence, got into the service of the KGB. At the same time, Anna does not sit at a comfortable table, going through papers, she, as they say, is literally on the front line, and all due to her ability to perfectly eliminate her goals, and do the work cleanly, without any punctures.
Probably sometimes it is very difficult to choose an actress for the main character of a film, especially when the whole plot is tied to this very heroine. But Besson has always been distinguished by the ability to select really talented actresses for the main roles. It was he who saw the potential and opened the doors to big cinema for such performers as Natalie Portman, Milla Jovovich and Anne Parillaud. Well, in my opinion, after the release of Anna in cinemas around the world, we can safely assume that Besson has another such actress who may well get a ticket to the big cinema. Sasha Luss is very talented, she is not just some kind of picture that is only needed to attract a male audience. The girl really turned out to be extremely capable, and when watching Anna, it seems that all the acting wisdom is given to Sasha as something natural and completely integral. Whether it's the level of serious dialogue, desperate chases and tough shootouts, Sasha is doing great. She is very organic in this role, and as if everything here was written for this actress. In addition, it is very well complemented by recognized mastodons of world cinema - Luke Evans, Cillian Murphy and Helen Mirren. The images came out quite convincing, and the interaction was really worked out.
Unfortunately, the film also has flaws. First of all, this can be attributed to the plot. If you are waiting for a famously twisted spy thriller, you can safely say goodbye to these expectations, since everything here is based on a whole bunch of assumptions and conventions. Yes, the plot will certainly present a few surprises, but almost most of them are something from the category of pianos in the bushes. It is probably not worth mentioning cranberries hanging here and there, but for the sake of fairness, it is worth saying that the era is shown in general not bad, and the creators clearly bothered to recreate the very atmosphere of the USSR. Of course, there will also be a number of questions in the course of the story, but the efforts are noticeable to the naked eye. And finally, it is probably worth adding that the action turned out to be at least very good, and Luss herself did not look in the episodes with him as unnatural as it might seem from the trailers. Another thing is that Anna is a very, very average film. It seems that you do not want to scold him, at least because the plot still holds intrigue, and the action entertains. But at the same time, there is nothing to praise, because there is no sense of a new word in the genre, or even the level of some of Besson’s truly successful works. It’s just a good movie, which certainly won’t be something cult.
6 out of 10
That's how you walk, go to the movies, and then, bang, and the second coming of "Nikita" in the guise of blonde "Anna", from which even the strongest moviegoer can shake nerves.
The new English-language action movie from the legendary French director may become for some the most cranberry of all cranberries, and for others a very pleasant pastime. And yet, whatever you say, Luc Besson can draw attention to himself. On the one hand, his film "Anna" can safely claim the "Golden Raspberry" as the worst film of the year, and on the other hand has every chance to fall into the soul and leave a mark on a long memory there.
At first glance, we see another big movie about the confrontation between the two superpowers in the spirit of “Red Sparrow”, but, looking closely, we understand that we are just a poorly made picture, artificially trying to please everyone and everything. Speaking of the script, it is necessary to understand that the whole story consists of solid stamps, blunders and complete nonsense. If Moscow, then all the heroes, like befuddled, circle around the Kremlin, as if they are attracted to this place by some invisible forces. If the past years, it is unknown where things from the future appear in the frame, such as a laptop in a drug apartment in 1987, where the heroine is absolutely calm and confident for future work was an online questionnaire, despite the fact that in real Russia, ordinary people began to use the Internet only in 1992. And such nonsense in the picture abounds, which speaks of a disregard for the topic that the creators touch on. Although, as you know, during the filming and pre-production, consultants and Russian actors tried to reason with Luc Besson, hinting at obvious inconsistencies and blunders, but in the end, no action followed, because for the director it was not important, since the film was primarily focused on a Western audience who does not know all the nuances about Soviet Russia. As a result, for us it is a nightmare cranberry, and for the West another action movie about evil Russians. But the worst part is that even without these shoals, the script of the film looks extremely clumsy. The main character has no logic, no motivation, other characters are not revealed, arches are not worked out, dialogues are monstrous and so on. Meanwhile, the author himself overdosed with the number of flashbacks, which quite confuse and overload the viewer’s consciousness in the wrong chronology of the main events.
Of course, someone will decide that the star cast will cover the main script problems, but in the end, the artists themselves did not really understand who and what they were playing. The absurdity of the images and empty looks of the characters only increase suspicions in the illiterate work of the director. Were it not for his past achievements, you might think that the film was directed by some amateur, but we know that Besson is capable of anything if he wants. Therefore, we can conclude that for him this project is either a passing material before something big and serious, or the director is tired, broke or just lost himself.
As for the technical side, the picture and the entire action presented are made in the best traditions of average militants. And yet the most vivid and only spectacular scene refers to the events in the restaurant, which eerily resembles the restaurant episodes in the movie Nikita. It turns out that Luc Besson himself steals concepts from past films in order to fill his new stories with something. If this is the case, then the director’s situation is really bad.
In general, with all due respect to the author and creators, but this is a very bad and unseeable movie that you can safely miss. Of course, you can watch it once at home, but now it is better to go to another movie, because you deserve better. Have a good time.
A locomotive that sweeps away everything on its way
I notice a terrible trend of recent times, when many young people (I already suspect this by the style of writing) submitted this wonderful site accuse me of subjectivity and bias, they say, she does not understand anything in the cinema, and the blockbusters of the last year do not like, and in cinemas only for company, and in general - a terribly stupid young lady. So no, dear citizens, it would seem, only I once again despaired of watching a spider, as in all senses positive.
Luke Besson released a ribbon about the fearless Russian beauty, the coolness and determination of which will envy any modern man, and I just melted, spread around the chair with midday ice cream on a five-year-old jersey. I love this kind of movie - dynamic, bright, spectacular, rapid and so unstoppable that it seems that it is about to flow through the screen with an indestructible element. I am thrilled with the motley and professional cast that, both together and individually, keeps the viewer on edge. Well, I finally note from myself that I was so interested that I never looked at the time, I did not want to go to the toilet, to the street, smoke, drink, get drunk, forget. It is such live paintings that I consider a high-quality action, from which you do not want to break your head on the bench, only to remember nothing after a couple of hours.
I’ve seen the trailer for the movie a couple of times, that’s all. Due to the lack of time, it is extremely rare to look for something, plan, look out, wait, my attention can be captured only if the trailers are shown before another film show. All. I’m never even in the Internet looking for new super action pictures. Of course, the film-video rental of the city makes its contribution, which even in 2019 (the hand of the face) does not represent a huge choice. So Anna, unlike many other paintings, was expected by me, I even looked at the rating on the site, was upset, but still went. I didn't miss it.
So, let's talk about actors? Of course, all the raisins of the film in the charming Anna - the most dangerous hired killer in the world. A girl of exceptional beauty, whose universal appearance could not be better suited to this spy film. For two hours we see Anya and terribly disheveled, with sores and sores all over her exhausted face, broken dirty nails, and with a perfect beauty with flawless manicure and easy styling, to give carelessness, which probably took a couple of hours and a lot of puffing experienced hairdresser. Exciting and stunning reincarnations, both external and internal, occurring with the heroine, do not give the viewer even come to his senses. There is no clumsiness, which is almost always read on the face of young protégés who broke into the film industry. Without a clue, I won’t lie, whether it’s a perfect hit in the role itself (like in the life of Sasha and herself – a model), or whether it’s really the beginning of a good acting training, but she was a passion as organic in everything. I do not have high hopes for her future career and do not hope that she is the second Lyubov Orlov, but still, for one film just amazing.
Further, the cast of the idea (something is happening in Russia) according to the classics of the genre should be rolled into lubok, primitive and ruthless. You know, all the films made about Russia are simply talentless, and all the films made about Russia abroad smell of wet bear skin, cucumber, lard and balalaika. This is a truly indestructible canon of the genre. And no, did not guess, not even looking at the fact that half of the action takes place in Moscow, and even against the shots with dolls and some bazaar of lubricated products. Everything Besson is beautiful, of course, not without inflections, but they are so superficial and with a bias in color that it is not funny and not cardboard was almost never. Yes, strained you same-sex relationships, yes, the refrain again was feminism and the fight for women's rights - but this sins now almost every film rental, what is there to wonder? If there are no African-Americans (and there were no African-Americans, by the way, this is a shock), that is gay or lesbian. They already resemble a symbol of modern crippled society. No, I have nothing against it, everyone has freedom of choice even in the cinema, but still long wanted to look at the good old picture with the passion of a man and a woman.
And you know what's wonderful and wild, there was passion here too. Like Luke Evans and Killian Murphy. If the first is the man of my dreams, and I have followed his Instagram player since the days of two hundred pathetic subscribers, then the second one I greatly respect as a strong dramatic actor who is convincing in every role. Here, every man was as convincing as possible in his role. Luke is such a clumsy Russian (as probably in America and represent 90 percent of men). He is strong, principled, stupidly in love, but he believes in what he does. The second is the typical American that Americans want others to see: determined, smart, collected, witty, always one step ahead. Despite the fact that I list some template set of qualities, the characters turned out to be very original, bright, intricate.
Separately, it is worth noting Sasha Petrov, who only before the film show appeared in three of the four trailers of the upcoming Russian premieres. Sasha is now the mainstream steeper than Bezrukov in the 2010s, his face I dread to see from my window, waking up in the morning. But we must give him credit: despite the fact that the actor he is one, the same type of role - such a sweet slut as in the "policeman with a ruble", he copes with this role perfectly, and, even slightly frightening - this role is much in demand in what films. He is all impulsive, impudent, cruel, dashing, and again believe him.
Separately, I will say a few words about Helen Mirren, who performs not the last violin here. I repent, I did not immediately recognize her in a dark wig and a rather simple environment of things of the Soviet relic of the past. She's really good, as always, amazingly reincarnated.
The film itself resembles a thundering ferry, a thundering, rushing forward locomotive, which on its way both picks up new passengers and without regret sweeps them away on its way. Of course, there are funny gaps, but most of them do not violate this run, rather, add the same color. I love Besson and how fearlessly and brightly he bursts onto the screen, how famously twists a seemingly banal plot. Here the devil is in every detail, whether it is a veggie or a room overlooking the Eiffel Tower. Oh, I love beautiful things!