Few now you will find films, after watching which you want to sit and reflect on the question posed in the film. In this film, this question is clearly posed. You just have to want to see him.
"Psychics" (another blundered rental name in Russia), actually - "Solace" (Comfort), 2015 Unrealized sequel to the cult film Seven (1995) with the working title Eight. The idea of the sequel was rejected due to the objections of director David Fincher, and the result was a film that was not related to the film “Seven”. The original title reveals the essence of the picture, the leitmotif - from the words of the hero Anthony Hopkins - "...you can not play God..."
To begin with, I would like to say hello to Russian distributors, who once again broke their brains in trying to come up with a name that will attract the viewer to cinemas, and found nothing better than Psychics. Thanks for not putting Basharov's face on the poster. First of all, when Anthony Hopkins and Colin Farrell and Colin Farrell are cast in the lead roles, the film will go so, even if it is called ORT Weather Forecast. Second, the original title, Solace, conveys the film’s true message much more accurately and deeply. After all, despite the fact that the plot revolves around people with supernatural abilities, but in the end it is not what they do that matters, but why.
To get the most out of the movie, you have to accept the fact that there are psychics in the world of Solace. Otherwise, the unprepared viewer risks catching a considerable dissonance: like before him a serious, gloomy detective about a serial maniac, but at the same time one of the central characters is an old man who can see the past / future of a person just by touching him. But if you believe in this world, then the tape Afonso Poyarta (who it is, by the way) is able to seriously captivate and leave an aftertaste.
In fact, I would be interested to read about how the decision to make this film was made and how the process was built afterwards. For what reason was the project with a rather complicated plot given to a young, absolutely unknown director and how did such figures as Anthony and Colin get involved in it? I don’t think I’ll ever know about it, but it probably doesn’t matter because the main thing is the result. And the result was a very strong detective-fiction thriller, which is not only interesting to watch, but also pleasant. It's nice, not because I'm a latent maniac who enjoys seeing dead people, but because Solace has a great shot. The cameraman, the editor and all the other participants in the filming process, responsible for the picture, gave a great job. Some shots are so aesthetically good that at least a screenshot and put on the desktop.
The fact that Anthony Hopkins is beautiful, somehow and needless to say. I repeat this in every review of the film with his participation. Colin Farrell played a rather unusual role for himself, but did it habitually confidently. But who would like to praise separately is Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who made his unremarkable, in general, character charismatic and memorable. And the scene in the hospital - and all my applause, one of the most realistic, and from that emotionally difficult moments of the film.
In general, Solace is not only about watching, but also about thinking. It’s nice when the antagonist in the film is not just an evil maniac or a picture villain, but a character with his own views, which, in general, some viewers can share, without being bad people. At least I thought about it.
Verdict: A very good movie that is definitely worth watching.
8 out of 10
The script is stupid. Actors are great. It's a script you don't have to write. Ideas don't get sucked out of your finger. SOLACE Mercy in the English language box office! The thought is banal.
Another movie with a mistranslated title. Another movie about a serial killer. Another movie with a claim to a psychological thriller. Another film where the authors speculate on a topic that they have little idea. Another film illustrating the saying ' swing on the ruble, and a blow on the penny'.
Actor Anthony Hopkins is able to decorate any film in which he participates. But, unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to pull the plot alone, especially when the opponents are a gang of writers led by a director. These guys are still at the stage of the trailer safely killed the intrigue regarding the antagonist of the main character, and the only secret of the film is as follows: will show the boobs Abby Cornish or not.
Now for psychics. These people really do exist in reality. Personally communicated, a little familiar with the methods and 100% sure that he was not a victim of charlatans. I did not like the presentation of visionary insights in the film. Most of them are shown too straightforward, rude, artless. There are episodes when the character of Hopkins needs to interpret what he saw and compare the image with the real situation, but these interesting moments occupy a catastrophically small part of screen time.
Now the antagonist. The motivation to commit a series of murders is clear, the methods are clear, but how poorly thought out is the idea of completing the mission! This is a complete fiasco. No clear explanation from the lips of the character did not sound, and his character is not so worked out in detail that the viewer does not have questions. Apparently, the authors thought that everything was clear already ' Well, crazy what you'll take. ..'
The ending of the film... how to put it mildly. None at all. The revelation from the main character is unlikely to shock the viewer. I was expecting a post-credits scene that could, if not save a failed film, at least create a certain aftertaste, but alas... It would be worth changing the images of the Glavhero and his opponent, which would benefit the film. Then there would be a clear logic in the actions of the antagonist.
Outcomes: minus five for a good idea, six for Anthony Hopkins, and two for Abby Cornish. In the dry residue:
To my shame, only after watching the film 'Strangers' discovered the actor Anthony Hopkins. Perhaps, thanks to the acting skills of Hopkins, and maybe because of the vital, sprinkled with fiction plot, to break away from the film ' Psychics' quite difficult.
A significant highlight of the film gives a global problem, the question in which millions cannot agree: is euthanasia murder or liberation? Throughout the film stretched the theme of years of controversy. And then you involuntarily think, is it a crime or nobility to free the terminally ill from pain, and his relatives from the suffering of the slow and painful care of his native?
The film ' Psychics ' is a psychological drama, with elements of a thriller. There are no thrilling adventures, freezing blood of horror, or crazy intrigue. Within 10 minutes of the movie, a lot of things became clear. But there's something to think about, there's a good actor's play, there's wise phrases, and there's definitely a soul in this film. I recommend it to everyone!
Some try to see a detective in the picture and suffer disappointment, because the viewer is quickly given to understand who the killer and the main puppeteer is. The others are looking for mysticism. The title of the film makes her hiccup in the picture, but she's not here. All the psychics shown to us are background and, in fact, it is not so important. Still others are looking for philosophy, parable, drama, and they are in the right direction, but still miss out, clinging to too superficial understandings of mercy, virtue, and so on. In the picture, the main question is much deeper, and this question is always relevant, especially when our loved ones face tragedy. What is this question?
Euthanasia!
What does psychics have to do with that? They are necessary to ensure that we do not think that the dead could live, that diagnoses can be mistaken, and many BUTs that interfere with a clearly stated problem. Looking ahead to the future is a clear YES. The victims of the killer are the victims of the disease, and for all of them there is only one future - a terrible, painful death! The philosophy is different. Should we alleviate the suffering of our loved ones, deciding on euthanasia, or give a chance to enjoy life until the last second, to have time to say what they did not say?
This is not a game of God, this is a game of our conscience.
If you look at the film from this point of view, then the questions of mercy, and the question of love, the question of religion, the question of the genre of the picture are solved by themselves.
We have freedom of choice. We set the limits of this freedom ourselves. And no one will set them up for us, not even God!
The logic of the translator is not always clear. In the case of the movie "Psychics" - especially. The original film is called "Mercy": with this word the narrative begins, it is referenced throughout the film, and - wow! - that is the whole film. That is, the title is not stupid, quite logical and very suitable for the film. But no! For some reason, our distributors decided to call this film “psychics”, although this is not the essence. But all right, let's get around this point. Let's talk about the movie.
This picture is addressed to a topic that causes a lot of controversy in society, namely, to the topic of euthanasia. The whole film, all the actions taking place in it, are aimed at making the viewer think and finally make his choice: which camp to join. In general, the movie turned out well. The subject is clear, complete, all well removed. But at the end of the viewing, there was a feeling that this film would not pass the test of time. It really didn’t, it’s already obvious. Something was missing, but I can’t figure out what. It’s probably not worth “smoking” the project for too long. I read that this picture was “in production” for many years before its full release on screens – and apparently, the project was delayed. After all, in principle, there is everything for success, you could even swing at cultism. But it didn't. Something was missing to detonate the bomb.
Overall, I liked the film. Good actors (an agent named John is just a rebirth of Robert Downey Jr.) Amazing ), there is food for thought, high-quality shooting. However, there is one thing that personally spoiled my impression , namely:
1. Too obsessive, crude scenes of unaesthetic sex, which we persistently showed at every verbal mention of this act. So you know what I'm talking about. Maybe someone else will have other associations. I thought there was a lot of naked ass. Maybe this was included in the project as a prerequisite for its sale (I read that the creators had serious financial difficulties, no one wanted to implement this project), or maybe this is such a fashionable director's find: to give the film realism. To show it as it is, as John, a psychic, saw it, as if you were standing next to me and secretly watching. But anyway, I didn't like that moment. Once would be enough. So, for a tick, they say, naked ass showed, cross out.
2. It is difficult to call a brain agent a “good girl”, but John, the main character, called her one and generally attached himself to her for no obvious reason. A raging character. This is often the case in movies.
3. And the third – the final – paragraph refers exclusively to the duplicate version. In my opinion, Anthony Hopkins' voice was picked up badly. He doesn’t look very old, but with this senile creaking voice, it’s creepy. There is an aesthetic rejection. Perceiving Anthony as "the one," the good old Mr. Hopkins, is only possible in silent scenes where he is alone with his daughter. That's where Hopkins is wonderful, real! And the age is not felt at all.
Resume: The movie is good. But it doesn't make ten.
A series of brutal murders leads the police to confusion: a very inventive maniac operates in the city. The method of action is instant murder, merciful death. All victims are terminally ill people. Forensics are unable to solve the mystery and involve John Clancy (Hopkins), a man with paranormal abilities. The visionary must read the future, prevent murder and help catch the criminal.
We are given the meager facts of Clancy’s life – a serious illness of her daughter, a death, a divorce from her wife and a lonely present in which the thinker spends time. The genius of scanning the future for decency breaks down, but then agrees to work on the case. In general, the film carefully draws every Hollywood pattern. For the detective genre, template is forgivable, the same Agatha Christie has all the stories in one manner. However, a dashing plot, a non-standard twist or bright characters can correct the monotony and bring a twist. In “Psychics” the characters are boring, the actions are predictable, and the painful action is overloaded with inconsistencies and then and then the monotonous images-visions that arise.
The move with a maniac, who turns out to be a strong psychic, and thanks to superpowers fools the investigation, is not bad. From the battle of soothsayers could turn out a good mystical detective for once - good, without frills, but a film during which you will not fall asleep. Similar films in the 90s were shot dark, and a good flashback in the past would make movie lovers nostalgic. The film does not save the casting: Hopkins is sluggish, tired, plays back what they said. Farrell is a housekeeper, minting memorized phrases. Cornish has a good fifth point ... really, the most outstanding part in a boring detective.
Such words are spoken in this film. They are addressed to the main character performed by the unsurpassed Anthony Hopkins. Somehow they were in my head.
Sir Anthony, as one of the fauna that does not spoil the furrows. But those who know him, Lecter, will not let me lie - portraying an FBI agent retired but back in service - Mr. Hopkins, by analogy with the same noble representative of fauna, did not plow deeply. There may be several reasons for this. From old age to not fully involved in the project. Maybe it just seems like it. We are more related to his antiheroes than heroes. But closer to the topic...
While investigating a string of mysterious dead victims, the feds got confused. In serials (and according to the scenario it turns out that they should deal with a maniac) there is no pattern. To help just need a specialist who has repeatedly helped in the cases of these serious. And helped successfully. John Clancy, an elderly man with the gift of clairvoyance, after a meeting with detective agents, enters the case. The doctor, a psychiatrist who has served the investigation in the past, soon realizes that he is confronted by an opponent of a higher rank.
In fact, the film involves us in a game in which a cool psychic (not the same as those who come to one of our TV shows) involves a parapsychologist. There is no one else for the antagonist. You can see it in handwriting. According to the manner of behavior and throwing tasks for a difficult solution. All the police are turning into scenery. There should be two in the ring. Hence the name. (I don’t want to be the hundredth or thousandth who will reprimand distributors for “creative”).
Afonso Poyart put everyone on a chessboard. Of course, by the writers. Heated passions are achieved thanks to Sean Bailey, Ted Griffin and James Vanderbilt. But we see an excellent picture thanks to the operator Brendan Galvin. So, we can safely say that the camera work is the strongest side of the tape. Which is exactly what I do.
But there are other sides. The picture is not entirely independent. She says hi to Fincher. In the segment where the victim's dress was to be found, it most resembles "Seven." The painting “Eight” was not meant to be. That's right. It's different. The great thing, if you think about it, is that the murders in the city could have been done by more than one person. And for various reasons. It does not bind itself to itself. But here's the problem. As I said, if you think about it, you can come to this conclusion. Trying to equalize the opposing, the creators again roll back the growing protagonist. Unfortunately, without spoilers can not be described further.
You can write a book about Anthony Hopkins. It's a priori. But here is Colleen Farrell here to match him!!! I’m not saying he’s such an actor, but that’s where he’s at an unattainable height. Unattainable to everyone except Mr. Hopkins. Also good and even very good Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Friend John Clancy, and at the same time the link, and the bridge to the further narrative. Of course, the connecting link is by default and Abbie Cornish. But I didn't like her character. Although, to confess, the actress did not spoil the overall impression. This is not a performer, here the role is lame.
It was also fun to watch in those moments where the techniques of the movie “The Prophet” were used (the one with Nicholas Cage). I look like this, so, and where I take everything at face value, and then like this: “Oh, I’m good!”
Maybe somewhere I have devalued the role of a girl. I may have missed the person who started this story. So I just wanted to emphasize the leading roles of two strong personalities whose geniuses are bound even by a certain mysticism. This, in turn, leads to a philosophy. Let it be used earlier, in other paintings, but no less significant.
There is a slight disappointment from the fact that the second time this picture is not as interesting to watch as the first. But there is just this category of paintings.
An experienced FBI detective and his ambitious young partner enlist the help of a reclusive, retired civilian psychiatrist, to help solve a series of murders. When exceptional intuition, manifested in the form of vivid and disturbing visions, brings him to the trail of the killer, the doctor soon realizes that his gift of clairvoyance is equal to the extraordinary abilities of this elusive killer.
The film does not differ from the usual classic action movie, an experienced detective with a young partner looking for a brutal killer. But there's a slight difference that sets it apart from most movies, namely the psychological play of the doctor and the killer, on an invisible, almost intuitive level. This game and the production of frames, in which it seems to stop all the time, make the picture atypical, as well as good artists.
Anthony Hopkins in this film played the role of a psychic psychologist. He works painstakingly and methodically to find the killer, but unlike other films, he knows what will follow. He knows the future, and this is his reward and fate, and for his strength he paid in full, feeling himself the role of the angel of death.
Colin Farrell is the role of a murderer, not new to him, and he played it well, with his inherent charm, with the addition of a philosophy of life, pain and gratitude for the deprivation of suffering on the part of the relatives of the killed, who are not voiced, but who should be in his opinion. But I didn’t like his character very much, because there was a lot of pathos and self-glorification, and there’s a difference for me from the usual angels of death.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is a classic experienced detective who seems to be able to do everything. An experienced warrior, leading a recruit on the battlefield with evil, but I was very surprised by what happened to the character, there was an understatement. While the director’s move is understandable, he decided to focus on playing two more star-studded actors and two more interesting characters.
Abby Cornish - blonde, beautiful and ambitious newcomer, very annoying inconsistent actions that always went against the instructions of the authorities, which suffered good and not very good people. The character is a stupid policeman.
In general, a good movie, high-quality shooting, original presentation of shots, star artists. Only the philosophy of the film was not conveyed as I wanted, there was a lot of pathos and irony in the words and actions of both main characters, which I did not like very much.
Consolation - That which brings comfort. Calming a person in a state of sadness, disorder. Bring someone comfort, distract from problems.
Mercy - willingness to help someone or forgive someone out of compassion, humanity.
So what do we understand as mercy? Is it not to help the people around you, to save them from harm? Is it not merciful to help get rid of terrible torments, to save souls from destructive experiences?
In that case, is it possible to call the actions of the “killer” unmerciful? In doing so, he saved his victims and loved ones from pain and suffering. It is much harder for those who do not die, whether they are fighting for their lives or thirsting for salvation in the form of death, harder for those around them. Those who devote themselves to caring for the sick. Their life will become a chain of severe painful trials, the most terrible of which is absolute helplessness before the cold face of fate, the inability to change anything. And for these people, peace does not come with death, they will continue to live, carrying the pain and grief they have experienced with them, trying to reclaim their lives after losing loved ones. Does this “killer” save lives?
Since his actions can benefit humanity, can his mission be called righteous? Isn't separating the grains from the chaff helpful? Is isolating the plagued and infected from the healthy whose lives they threaten a mistake? In that case, can his method be considered natural selection?
But what is life then? Isn't every minute of it precious? Isn't every new event important? Isn’t each breath the deepest? Is not every new thought wiser than the previous one? Isn't every new discovery the most valuable? But it is these, taken, moments that a person may not be enough until his most important accomplishment, gaining love or faith. Is it possible to take away from a person his unlived time, his unfulfilled achievements, ideas, dreams, kisses, hugs, smiles and tears, quarrels and reconciliation, joy and disappointment?
No answers will be given. There are no faces in the movie. There is no good or evil, right or wrong, winner or loser. The script is brilliant in that it doesn’t give us answers, forcing us to break our poor heads over “eternal questions” and try to find the truth. All the actions of the main characters, in the end, have a neutral color, and whether they are correct or not, each of us must decide for himself.
This story is not a struggle of two psychics with superpowers, but two philosophies, different points of view on mercy and humanity. This is not a detective/thriller, but a parable.
But why then does the superhuman tell it, which makes it fantastic, improbable? Is a normal homosapian able to go beyond his own personality and his own problems and feel the pain of the world? Does the average person have the courage to try to change the world, to reduce the amount of suffering in it? Can an ordinary man sacrifice himself for this? And this is not even about his death, but about his life, full of joy and happiness, which he sacrificed, condemning himself to suffering for the sake of other people experiencing less pain.
Sometimes the greatest acts of love are the hardest to do.
P.s. The picture does not bring us anything new - the techniques used in the films "The Prophet", "Minority Opinion" and "The X-Files" (the striking image of a young Scully). A film with such an amazing script could come out simply grandiose, if its creators put a little more effort into the project, made it more original. However, it is a great movie in the genre of thriller. High-quality installation creates an excellent video sequence. Chains of psychedelic images and sounds, reflecting the worldview of psychics, will give great pleasure to sensationalists. This movie feels more than it reads, and that’s probably what makes it so cool.
Vanity is a consolation for an empty and worthless soul.
Anthony Hopkins, in his confrontation, caught maniac thugs goes to a qualitatively new level. This time, Dr. Hannibal was endowed with a heightened intuition, called clairvoyance or extrasensory in the common people.
Clarissa Starling, also an elderly graduate, and a specialist trained in “brain-rights” with a gun at the top of her head, is the main argument if all other arguments and beliefs are exhausted.
After a sharp rejection of David Fincher, refused to continue the account under any pretext or arguments. The creators had to redraw the entire film and rewrite the entire script from scratch, leaving only a vague and intangible prototype of the main character, endowed with extraordinary abilities.
What we got in the end -- I can't even call it a remake, the same thing, only in the setting of the twenty-first century and as "HD," that's it. Despite all this, the picture came out high-quality - the characters worked out and evoking empathy, although some catastrophically lack screen time, as the film takes over and as a locomotive flies through our brains, leaving a through, bleeding with compassion wound.
Why compassion, but because through the film a thin red line, doom is read and stretched. Starting with the facial expressions of the Glavhero, tired of such an all-knowing intuition, which prevents just enjoying happy ignorance and a calm deep sleep at night.
What is the antagonist – the same unhappy, twitched by the nervousness of omniscience, a young man – young and at the same time finished, crushed by a “curse” – “gift”. Games in God without faith in him, fraught with internal conflicts, repeatedly, with geometric progression amplified by extrasensory.
Euthanasia, raised by the title theme of this film, evokes the same contradictory feelings as in the world of the present and tangible, that is, behind the scenes - in the real, our reality. Heroes fencing - make attacks, fittings and put blocks, but the question remains open, as always.
Moral-ethical standards of morality are left to the choice of the viewer, according to their upbringing, faith, customs and life experience. We all shredded, chewed, and put in the mouth - swallow or not - the choice is ours.
Some do not dock and blunder - do not catch the eye and do not spoil the picture of what is happening. The finale of the chase, on the contrary, caused me a lot of questions, how two agents, who are in the full zone of fire, were able in a split second to separate and deal with the situation in this way - people X, nervously smoking in the sidelines.
The FBI notorious power structure, using even the help of psychics, is shown to be completely helpless in this confrontation between two extraordinary things. She is like a lamb at the slaughter, follows strictly according to the script of the antagonist, and this we also observed and witnessed, only a quarter of a century ago.
The focus of the projector and the following eyes behind the agent, mockingly, only underlined all this. Katherine-Starling, visiting the Glavroy in the clinic and the dialogue between them - this is the past, the present and the vague shaky future - nothing is yet over and predetermined, like everything in our turbulent, unpredictable and interesting life.
For a qualitative, completely new approach to the classics of the genre.
8 out of 10
Sometimes the greatest acts of love are the hardest to do.
What is the greatest act of love? In mercy and compassion for others? Have you ever felt like a master of destiny? Such a mysterious and so-called cold-blooded serial killer who “gives” people freedom from suffering and pain. It’s hard to know how you feel about him. On the other hand, he believes that he is doing better, saving the terminally ill from a painful death. But who is he to deprive people of the last days or months of their lives?
That’s what I thought throughout the film. The subject of psychics in the detective was extremely interesting to me. In general, the film combines an exciting story of the investigation, a kind of struggle between 2 people able to foresee the future and captures the themes of humanity, the value of human life. The plot is interesting and unusual in its own way. The camera work was good. The timeline of the film is filled with many frames of visions of John Clancy, successively, which do not cause dissonance when watching the picture, but give in my opinion more sharpness and unpredictability. I also liked the moments of visions that occur in reality and in fractions of seconds are replaced by new events in order to avoid the foreseen psychic.
The cast was pleased, especially the unsurpassed Anthony Hopkins, who has not lost his charisma and talent over the years. Perfectly fit into the role of a psychic who survived the death of his daughter. What the scene with his daughter was worth when he decided to alleviate her suffering. She touched me deeply and touched me. Against the background of Hopkins, Colin Farrell seemed to me weaker and did not look convincing, did not cause a feeling of his superiority in psychic abilities. His gaze was agitated or frightened, he did not feel the power of that most dangerous serial killer, unfortunately. Nevertheless, their confrontation was interesting. I also noticed Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbey Cornish. I think they did a great job with their roles as well.
For me, this film turned out to be a good thriller, with a certain psychological message and an interesting detective component. In no way did I think of comparing it to the movie Seven. I was very surprised by the very low rating of the film, because for myself I appreciated it highly.
8 out of 10
Sometimes the greatest acts of love are the hardest to do.
Psychics is a thriller with an admixture of a detective staged by an especially unknown man Afonso Poyart. Before that, he created only one painting called “2 Rabbits”. This factor, coupled with a modest budget of $ 40 million, should have been marked by a failure at the box office. Which is exactly what happened. The film has barely recouped half its value! Let’s understand why this happened, because the picture is not bad!
The plot of the film tells us about a certain John Clancy psychic, who many times helped the FBI in the investigation of intractable crimes, who faces the most interesting case in his life. Together with FBI agent Joe Merriwiser and Agent Coles, he will solve a series of mysterious murders.
The plot is a good cocktail of detective and thriller with mystical overtones. When I watched it, I found myself thinking that the plot of the film reminds me very much of another picture, only from David Fincher called Seven. It is not surprising, because initially the script of the film was to form the basis for the continuation of the cult film and had the working title “Eight”. The idea of a sequel was rejected due to the objections of director David Fincher, and a separate film was made as a result. But the plot and script of the film very intersect with the failed "ancestor".
The script is strong and thoughtful. Dialogues are well written. The plot branches are dynamic, many interesting turns. But unlike "Seven" we are not allowed to enjoy the mystery, and almost immediately reveal the identity of the antagonist! The motivations of the antagonists are essentially similar. They both think they are doing good. Both think they're gods. Suspense in the film is enough, but he is frankly weaker than what I experienced when watching the creation of Fincher.
Actor cast picked up not frail: Anthony Hopkins, Colin Farrell, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Abby Cornish. The performance of the actors deserves respect. Anthony Hopkins has been a fantastic performer! Great game! He's as good as ever! I will also note the excellent performance of Colin Farrell, who, despite the short screen time, well revealed his character. Coped with her role as “cool girl” and Abby Cornish. So there are no complaints about the cast.
The soundtrack of the film is good! Brian Transo gave a beautiful and appropriate audio design in the picture.
From the video sequence I can say that the picture turned out gloomy, corresponding to the narrative. According to the camera work, notes of borrowing and intersection with the film “Seven” are visible.
In general, the film turned out to be good: with an interesting plot, a strong script, a beautiful acting, a wonderful soundtrack and with a gloomy, atmospheric picture. I recommend the film to view fans of the genre and just anyone who wants to pass the evening watching a good movie.
Initially I thought that again some fabulous mysticism, but then, when I saw Anthony Hopkins in the lead role, I realized that the battle on magic wands here, most likely, will not be.
The score of the film is small, however, I watched with pleasure (watched during the trip on the train). Each actor plays his role on a level, Colin Farrell especially liked (such a pitch with such a small amount of screen time is very masterful).
The script is not beaten, the ending is quite unexpected.
There is not much mysticism here (no more than on TNT), the film is more like a thriller - the investigation of a serial killer.
The film is low-budget (only $40 million), and I believe that almost everything went to the actors’ fees (at the box office the film completely failed).
Once David Fincher was offered to do a sequel to his first worthwhile work – “Se7en”, but the director refused in a rude form, without even familiarizing himself with the script. After a rather long time and having undergone some modifications, the film was given a green light, but as an independent picture.
Leading, seemingly hopeless case agents in the person of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abby Cornish turn for help to retired because of the family tragedy FBI consultant, played by Anthony Hopkins. And yes, he is clairvoyant, as was his opponent (Colin Farrell) during the promotional campaign.
To the aid of a primitive plot, devoid, thanks to marketers, of the main intrigue, comes a little-known director Afonso Poyart, and plunges the film into a visual mess: throughout the timekeeping, the picture seems to be in search of its cinematic language, going through many methods of setting the frame, but sometimes gets lost and tries to imitate Se7en. Alas, in vain. There are moments, only moments, when Solace pleases a good production, but soon the euphoria disappears under the yoke of visual madness.
One can only sympathize with the famous actors who spoiled their filmography, and rejoice for Fincher, because even he would not save a hopeless script.
Is there mercy in taking the life of a suffering person? I don't think so. The main villain, who played the role of the Creator throughout the film, according to the laws of the genre, it was necessary to show a greasy fig and say: no, my friend, a person and is beautiful in that he is able to drink the cup to the bottom. And at the end not only figs, but also a bouquet of flowers: Farrell not only proved right in all his foresights, but also found a successor, with experience, so to speak. Hopkins certainly holds the film, you expect that it will unfold the plot on 180, and in the end it just turns out that there was no intrigue. So you are left with this feeling alone and even begin to think: who will prove Farrell that he was wrong, if everything turned out for him?
However, the film still keeps in suspense. And you wait with pleasure, and the finale with hints. That's just not clear whether to wait for the sequel or flip the page, they say, okay, and so everyone said.
This film of the minute from the 20th begins to copy the beautiful film “Seven”: a gloomy atmosphere of the narrative and a maniac with the canonical idea of mercy. Everything would be fine, but the director clearly could not turn the script into a masterpiece of cinema, it is a pity, the idea was still good. Trapped a thousand times phrases, stupid play of secondary characters, which even in critical moments do not worry, excessive blackness and whining, very boring development of the plot.
Only after the appearance of the maniac, the film animates, adds dynamics, Farrell and Hopkins here coped well, but also not on “hurrah”, the feeling that even these beautiful actors were instructed: “Your face must look like a wax mask!”
In general, there is nothing more to write about this pseudomasterpiece.
Boring, template, predictable.
Revisit “Seven” a second time, you will have much more fun.
5 out of 10
I miss those movies! Oh, I missed you... Such a situation has gone now that in order to find at least some suitable movie, it is necessary to shovel the mountain of trebucha. But time after time, good movies still catch your eye. How did this film come to me? Just the boss said: we'll watch the movie "Psychics"!!! But how can you contradict someone who pays a salary?
Yes, after such a lyrical preface, I will get straight to the point. I didn't want to watch the "Psychics" file. Only because of the direction of the genre. I'm always worried about detectives. They often sin because they are long and heavy. I strained. But I soon noticed that I was looking with excitement.
A death story begins. It looks like a ritual. And then the Febeers come to an old friend. And then I was thrilled that the role of the old man went to Anthony Hopkins. . (Yes, I didn't even know what the movie was about or who was in the lead role there). Time has shown that he is not just an old man. At the moment when the detective girl touched the one who got in this life.
In addition to Anthony Hopkins with an honorary badge plus noted his role Jeffrey Dean Morgan. He had a partner (from the film, from the set) – Abby Cornish. It's one of the first bright ones. Of course, Anthony Hopkins is not so bad at pulling the blanket over himself. On the snack left Collin Farrell But the latter can be the first, as we were once commanded.
Of course, Anthony Hopkins does not loosely pull the blanket over himself. But it warms the soul! This is the same horse that will not spoil the furrows, but will also plow deeply!
The film is somewhat reminiscent of “The Prophet” with Nicolas Cage in the title role. But in the picture Alfonso Poyart "Psychics" another foundation. The film, I think, is quite modern. And not just the release date. He responds to the spectator's demand. It simultaneously strikes with dynamics and action (despite the fact that the rhizome is a detective), but also it is quite a life film.
I can't understand where these long-suffering projects come from. The script of the film lay on the shelf for more than 15 years. At first, they wanted to make this film as a sequel to the movie Seven with Pitt. But after Fincher rejected the idea, through a string of overbuying studios from each other, this scenario settled with Reliviti Media, which by the way did not have enough money even for a normal distributor. As a result, the film called “Consolation” was safely leaked into the network, pathetic attempts to cut down money from the world box office were not successful and I am baffled by the launch of the film in re-release March 31, 2016 in some countries.
I have repeatedly written about the fact that it is regrettable to see the stars of the 70-90x in passing films. Pacino, Willis, De Niro, and Hoffman have already got into kakakahs of different varieties. Sir Hopkins, the famous Dr. Hannibal, has arrived. I can't find a logical explanation for how Hopkins got here. Money? Although considering that Galimatya has a budget of 40 million, it may be that Hopkins 10-15 million and bitten. And the young director, who is practically a debutant (by the way, Hollywood has a new topic - to entrust big / old / needy stars to unknown directors), on the joy that he got Hopkins in his project, built the whole story around a swinging and tired star.
I approve of the desire to create the atmosphere of “Seven”: the gloomy atmosphere, the slow manner of shooting, but... Not every director is Fincher. Poyart managed pseudo-hotplexing, unnecessary flashbacks and reflections to lull and alienate the viewer to the maximum. In the 40th minute of the movie, it doesn’t matter what’s going on, who’s who, who’s who, who’s who, doesn’t care about Farrell, Hopkins tires and by the end you exhale: wow, it’s over.
Cardboard characters, fake problems, contrived confrontation - everything is bad in the film. This is neither a detective, nor an action movie, nor a thriller, nor even a mystic. In short, everything. A murky, dark and stupid movie, which is unclear how it was made, it is unclear how it was released and it is unclear for whom it was shot at all. Fans of Farrell and Hopkins definitely pass by, so as not to spoil their opinion of the actors. Slag.
P.S. The movie is so bad I watched it and forgot it. And I began to rejoice that now comes out “Psychos” with Hopkins, not even suspecting that this is tortured by me “Consolation”. My brain wiped out this movie. And you did the right thing.
2 out of 10
Immediately, which catches the eye, a significant disadvantage of the film is a sluggish narrative. The first 40 minutes in the frame is absolutely nothing interesting. The usual investigations, which we have seen a million times in many films and TV shows, are not shining with anything refined or mesmerizing. A good half of the film, the viewer is forced to watch the arrival of cops led by a psychic to the crime scene and dull arguments about the nature of these crimes and the alleged motives of the killer interspersed with absolutely incomprehensible to the viewer fragmentary and disorderly visions that chaotically come to the psychic. It seems to me that if Anthony Hopkins’ hero were not a psychic, but simply a super smart detective who helps criminologists investigate extremely intricate crimes, nothing would have changed. The same applies to Colin Farrell's character, although then the film would have lost its last highlight.
Colin Farrell, for whom I started watching, appeared after an hour of timing, although I could have appeared earlier to dilute the gray, boring narrative of the picture. And when he did decide to come, the film finally played colors. It didn't make much sense to hide it for so long. This did not add to his mystery, but to reveal his personality, his personal drama, as a result of which he failed. It also shuddered that the cunning killer, as his opponents believed him, in his first scene reveals all his motives and trump cards. It's rare in cinema.
I thought the film would be in the style of the movie Red Lights with Cillian Murphy, but I was wrong. There's almost nothing in common. Except that some kind of disagreement in the finale unites these two films. Although, of course, the understatement in "Psychics" is not comparable to the understatement in "Red Lights"
The title of the film "Comfort" or "Mercy", in my opinion, much more conveys the meaning of the picture, but the name "Psychics" entailed a greater number of interested viewers. I wouldn’t watch a movie called “Consolation” either, which is probably for the best, because I wouldn’t have lost anything.
In the film, the theme of the death of a loved one is a red thread, which makes sad dialogues and sad scenes can lead the viewer into a melancholy mood and plunge into gloomy reflections. It's not a hood. The motives of the hero Farrell (I don’t know if you can call him a cold-blooded killer) are easy to understand and justify, and in the polemic of two psychics, the viewer takes the side of one, then the side of the other, since the arguments of both sound very convincing. I have not been able to determine which one is right. There is a middle ground here.
As a thriller the picture does not manifest itself in any way. Tension and interest in the identity of the killer is almost not felt until he himself appears on the screen and tells his “story”. Against the background of all that is happening, it would be more appropriate to christen the film only as a detective drama.
It is obvious that the creators, having invented this idea with a merciful crime, with all their desire to make a film on this topic, could not come up with a sane scenario on this topic, and therefore the film turned out to be so crumpled and confused. Antagonist, in a nutshell which fit all his philosophy, which appeared in two or three scenes and so absurdly derived from the film, although the confrontation of psychics could turn out really worthy of an exciting plot. But no, the creators would rather go on a thousand times trampled path and show visits to crime scenes and their study, with planted evidence from the maniac (hello to Dexter, etc.).
Acting play. Colin Farrell has long established himself as a first-class actor. In this film, he again confirmed his status. Thanks to his presence, the picture is possible at least to see. Looking into his already pitiful (in a good way) eyes, you believe that he genuinely sympathizes with his victims and takes on their burden. Little! Unforgivably little was his presence in the picture. And in the personality of the hero Anthony Hopkins, who is allotted all the time, I did not see anything interesting.
The verdict. Depressive film, catching up with sadness, with a share of philosophy from which it was possible to develop a sane and interesting plot.
5 out of 10
I wanted to go to Psychics at the time when it was just released in the cinema, but I was scared of negative reviews in several sources, and on Kinopoisk its rating gradually dropped to 6.5. I understand that all the ratings here are very subjective, but I can’t help but watch movies only after watching the rating here, and if it’s not green, then there are a lot of doubts. Meanwhile, many films with a total rating of 7 to 8 were rated 4 to 8 by me (and some even received lower ratings). I returned to this film when I began to go through the filmography of handsome Colin Farrell. Indeed, the name paints completely different pictures than it actually is. Don’t look at the title, it doesn’t reflect half the meaning of the picture.
It all starts out like an ordinary detective. A series of murders, the best minds gather to catch the perpetrator, but it doesn't help and the killings continue. To catch a killer, you need to understand the motive. And that's where the fun starts. After all, our criminal turns out to be not a bloodthirsty or brutal maniac, his motives are in some ways even noble, if one may say so in relation to murder. I was extremely pleased with this, as I am tired of looking at the sea of blood, perversions and psychopaths disliked in childhood, whose motives are reduced to revenge and envy of their own insolvency. Our “hero” takes sins on his soul not because of anger or dislike, not because of a dysfunctional family, but simply because he has the ability to see the suffering of people from whom he (in his opinion) relieves them. His actions will clearly cause mixed emotions. But for myself I can say that not a drop of evil or condemnation in me, the hero of Farrell did not cause.
Very interesting topic by the way, very deep and dramatic. Anyone who has ever faced the death of a loved one due to a terrible illness will understand. I believe and will continue to believe that euthanasia should be allowed in every country. Let it be a huge number of signatures, papers, let it be individual, taking into account the possible selfish meaning, albeit only in exceptional cases, but most importantly, the very possibility of such a “service” was. So that a loved one does not have to die in terrible agony, living the last days of his life in hell, so that he does not have to beg his relatives to inject them with a lethal dose of drugs, so as not to take a sin on his soul, committing suicide. In the same film, the maniac was a salvation from future pain.
I liked the moment when two psychics speculate about the future random guy (to kill or not?), who is also terminally ill, but does not yet know about it. And their dialogue.
- You can't play God.
- No, I do not play God, but God himself did not regret the guy.
In general, this is the best motif of all the films I saw about maniacs, and when I saw that this film was considered as a sequel to the movie “Seven”, my jaw almost fell off. Now attention, fans of the movie "Seven" move away from the screen. It’s the only movie I’ve ever given a rating of 1. I have not seen more abomination, vulgarity and at the same time meaninglessness. These two paintings can not be compared and put on the same bar. Only in “Psychics” the offender has a motive, his victims are not chosen by a random generator, his murders caused minimal pain to the victims, if you believe the film, then they did not have time to feel something, since death occurred instantly. Therefore, who likes dirt, a sea of blood, vomiting, disfigured bodies and monstrous murders, let them reconsider their favorite film “Seven”, which is in the top 250 for your joy (subjectivity is off the scale).
To sum it up, it's for anyone who likes detectives, who likes to analyze criminal psychology, who likes Colin Farrell or Anthony Hopkins. This is not a thoughtless empty picture, it is a pity that the rating does not reflect this.
9 out of 10
As soon as the title of this film was not translated when it appeared. And the domestic implementers stopped on the version "Psychics", which as if expresses the whole essence in a literal sense, but gives a sense of banality and harsh reviews with an unwillingness to even view this tape, which turned out to be not so bad.
Very often, the creators of such films twist the plot so strongly that they refer to the presence of paranormal phenomena in the films and explain everything by the fact that it was so “necessary”. On the one hand, this film may at first seem as well, while the viewer begins to show the plot with the terrible and perverse spectacles faced by valiant guardians of the law. So terrifying and inexplicable that without the involvement of “otherworldly forces” can not do. Everything changes when the counterweight to one “super-human” is another person and begins a tough battle of psychics with the development of the theme that all visions come true. At the same time, the viewer is shown the lives of people who cannot come to terms with reality, do not understand why it happens the way it happens. And in the end, the story divides viewers' opinions into those who accept such mercy, and those who could not understand why such abilities could not be used for better purposes.
The picture is very dynamic and aesthetically exciting. The scenes of the film echo the surreal inserts form a sense of tension and interest in what is happening, demanding explanation. Quite unusual shooting together with some plot twists against the background of the mysterious music of Brian Transot looks juicy and intriguing. I think the work of the operator Brendan Galvin is very nice.
And, of course, about the cool cast. The solid Jeffrey Dean Morgan, the lifeline in the plot of which was very sudden, looked great. It doesn't seem to change with age. His partner was Abby Cornish, who showed courage befitting a service agent. The hero of Anthony Hopkins, who, by virtue of his abilities, had already lost his taste for life, tried to do everything possible to make life easier for others. The most striking phenomenon of the film was Colin Farrell, whose hero chose a “merciful” mission that was not accepted by society.
"Psychics" - a good detective thriller with a mystical component, leaving some feelings of unusualness after watching.
7 out of 10
“Consolation”: Crime and punishment – cycle of events.
The attempt of Brazilian director Alfonso Poijart not only to change the status of a little-known non-English-language director of B films to a promising Hollywood novice, but also, bypassing a number of professional stages, to move to work with world-class stars, turned into a demonstration of the undoubted talents of Anthony Hopkins, Colin Farrell, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abby Cornish. In addition, it confirmed the validity of Poyart’s ambitions and the need for very painstaking script work when addressing multigenre.
“Consolation” was planned as a prequel to the cult thriller David Fincher “Seven”, but, for various reasons, the conceived remained unrealized, and the picture turned into a psycho-criminal-mystic-existential drama about a police duo, a psychologist with paranormal abilities and a maniac who imagines himself a messiah. The plot tells about the investigation of a series of murders, the victims of which, at first glance, are not related, so a cop named Joe and his partner Catherine, having exhausted all traditional resources, turn to a criminologist - old John, who uses supernatural skills in the profession.
The first and main problem of Consolation is the lack of a declared dramatic connection between the general plan of the story and its heroes. For a little more than an hour and a half (timekeeping, which is clearly not enough to embody the intention of the director, who stated some philosophical component affecting the circumtheological concepts of mercy and consolation), the figure acting as the main character is repeatedly changed, and the logical transitions between scenes are completely formal and are explained rather not by the development of drama, but by the need to move to the finale.
The viewer is invited to study the background of one, then another hero - because of which there is not only a switch between major and minor tonality, but also there are sharp transitions from genre to genre. “Comfort” then appears as a police drama about agent Joe and his son, then goes into a female melodrama about blonde Catherine, then turns into a stylish thriller about an elusive criminal. At the same time, each of the narrative lines is interesting and thoughtful, but, due to the limited screen time, the potential does not become relevant, and a particularly impatient part of the audience may consider “Consolation” an illogical set of pictures with famous actors in the lead roles.
In other words, the declared amount of material, information about each character is quite enough not for two, but even for three feature films. And this redundancy, testifying to the rich imagination of the writers, makes it difficult for the director Alfonso Pojjarta to create a holistic work, which he turns into completely impossible, paying excessive attention to visualization. On the one hand, there are a number of spectacular scenes (a car chase, for example), as well as competent work with color, forcing to admit that the picture has a style. But at the same time, Poyart abuses, like many aspiring directors, formal details. This is expressed in numerous clip inserts (neon inscriptions, crosses, full moon, blood flowing down the face, etc.), unjustified close-ups and slow shooting.
And yet this tape does not allow to go into the category of parodies on the police detective is not so much the brilliant play of actors, each of whom, thanks to the talent and negligence of the writers, is fighting for the main role, coupled with an entertaining, exciting plot. But, rather, the positioning of Alfonso Poijart himself as a serious director, engaged not in craft (which he with varying degrees of success, of course, succeeds) and operations on the composition of frames, but considering the film as a kind of meaningful statement. Let the drama in Consolation be lost behind the flashy visualization, the plot tension is slightly leveled by mysticism, and existentialism and the claim to creating value meanings are lost due to the abundance of special effects, of which the last third of the film is almost entirely composed. But the director made an undeniable attempt to move in the direction of not interpreting, but delineating the problematic field of the term “consolation”, located at the junction of religious and secular consciousness. Therefore, all the detective inconsistencies in the plot are not so important.
Criminal thriller Afonso Poyart (who is it?) “Psychos” (in the original – “Mercy”), frankly, waited a long time. And the cast is not bad, and the description seems to be intriguing, and Farrell, if he played before bad guys, then necessarily those who sympathize with. In fact, a pretty good movie came out, in which there was still a place for some “white spots”.
The film revolves around a serial killer who leaves no trace of his crimes. At the same time, all of his victims are completely different people who do not fit each other either in description, age, gender or skin color. The method of killing is always the same - piercing the neck in the back of the head with a sharp object with brain damage. Every corpse left by an unknown maniac is invariably in the pose of a living person, which is why the FBI, investigating this case, and the viewer involuntarily gets cold on the soul. Unsuccessful attempts to cling to at least something lead FBI agent Joe Merivetter (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) to an old friend - psychic John Clancy (Anthony Hopkins), who, having broken down a little, decides to help his comrade.
Having received such a serious ally to the agents, and the psychic himself, it does not come to mind that the serial killer is actually not so simple and the lack of evidence at each crime scene is not at all an accident.
What I especially liked was the obsession that happens to the hero Anthony Hopkins. Not those that appear in his head when touching someone, but those that are associated with modeling the situation, building further developments. And, I think, when the viewer reaches yes to such an episode, too, will be slightly puzzled by how everything turns out.
In addition, I liked the fact that Poyart, introducing a psychic assistant to the FBI, introduced a rather difficult maniac into the game. Agree, when you are followed by a person who knows how to look into the future, it is difficult to remain invisible and build your further crimes.
I didn’t like Abby Cornish as an agent. Some too masculine and healthy face pretty like a blonde, combined with her ostentatious game in the “brave cop” (not particularly managed to get used to this role), not that rejects further viewing, but still does not give much pleasure. Yes, and the version of voiceover in dubbing leaves its imprint. In combination with the above claims, a robocop is generally obtained.
And of course it's a rosy subject! Where else? I feel that soon in cartoons will begin to talk about freedom of choice and demonstrate how a puppy boy “friends” a kitten boy. Or something like that...
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
The theme of duality, of super-capable people echoing over the heads of the uninitiated, of false or genuine malice-mercy. Quite an ordinary plot, with stereotypes, but the pleasure is a lot.
Yes, Dr. Hannibal does not bother to search for a new image, remaining the same squinted purring aesthete and in a positive role. You believe in this positivity as you believed in Hannibal sinisterness. How impeccably Hopkins goes out to Lecter to drive, once again.
In general, I recommend to all fans, and I wish the artist health, strong as his brilliant role.
I was very impressed by the low ratings of the film. I think we have a chic representative of the good old detective genre about maniacs. Anthony Hopkins plays his part beautifully, creating the atmosphere of dangerous mystery inherent in the films Seven and Silence of the Lambs. In a complex and confusing plot there are no particularly noticeable holes, everything looks competent and interesting.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to praise the Russian localizers, who translated the name “Mercy” as “Psychics”. Apparently decided to play on the love of the consumer to the TV channel TNT. A cheap move, in my opinion, which can scare off the audience of skeptics, and after all, the extrasensory in the film is not the essence of the plot, but rather a means of expressiveness, thanks to which we are forced to think about mercy and the limit of what is allowed in it. The film is rather dark and pessimistic, which further emphasizes its dark charm.
No one would waste their time watching this movie. Fans of the work of Anthony Hopkins must watch.
