This applies to everything in this film - with its plot, and the people who agreed to star in it. I watched it in an unspoiled dubbing version, so I was able to appreciate the acting of everyone in full. Apparently aware of the slag in which they are filmed - the actors did not even try to be convincing in the frame. And if everything is clear with John Travolta (his film career began with lame films, and apparently they will end with them), then it is unclear how Freeman and Jereni were able to get here? In addition to them, there is a pale shadow of herself Janssen and a “fighter with mummies”. Frasier, which without shudder can not look. As already mentioned, neither Travolta nor his colleagues on the set did not even try to brighten up the moronic plot of “Poisonous Rose” with a bright game – all just worked out their fees.
John Travolta, Morgan Freeman, Brendan Fraser, Famke Janssen, Peter Stormare and Robert Patrick - even ten or fifteen years ago, a film with such an actor's selection was positioned as the upcoming hit of the weekend, which, in turn, was subconsciously postponed to the perception of the audience of the film for an early mandatory viewing. The best years of many of them are probably behind us. The authority and love for Morgan Freeman, of course, do not wan, but the paintings with his participation no longer enjoy excitement. Sparkling diverse John Travolta has long lost the army of fans, and a series of scandals left a special unpleasant imprint on the reputation of the brilliant once actor. Brendan Fraser after "The Mummy" & #39; was at the height of fame, but blunders in the selection of films, weak images destroyed so gloriously developing career. Famke Janssen could have become an action star & #39; after participating in 'X-Men & #39; but she was not overwhelmed with offers and pretty quickly she came off the front pages of the tabloids. And Peter Stormare and Robert Patrick were and remain good 'backups' - actors important, but still supporting roles.
Retro-detective was an attempt to recreate the genre and give it a new impetus, but to become in the same line with ' Chinatown' or ' Black orchid' he failed a priori. Even if you take a glimpse of the technical cast of the creators ' Poisonous Rose' it becomes clear that this film could not have swung at something big and worthy of the viewer's attention. The bulky, loaded plot, consisting of interconnected threads from one character to the second, from the second to the third, then turning into a tangled tangle, affects only that the viewer gradually forgets where it all began and who is brought here, and in general, what is happening here? The triviality of such tightness, similar to the classical scheme, created and perfected by Agatha Christie herself, in ' Poisonous Rose' in excess. Someone has their own 'skeletons in the closet', everyone is under suspicion, everyone pursues their goals. Anyone can be accused of a crime investigated by the hero of John Travolta in ' Poisonous Rose' but we are used to the unexpected outcome, otherwise all the detective arrogance will fall from the proposed spectacle, but you could not predict who is behind the crime and what drove them, but in any case the finale does not cause an emotional outburst and is perceived with a grimace of disappointment.
The film was deprived of proper budget content, so the bet that the action develops in the recent past does not work. Consistent investigation, started by a private detective, is crumbs, in parallel with this, we still have to pay attention to the mistakes of the past associated with the hero of Travolta, it is quickly boring, and long and exhausting dialogue, dotted with platitudes and phraseological cliches do not bring any effect and even depressing. But it is impossible not to notice the efforts of John Travolta. In ' Poisonous Rose' he seemed to plunge into the best of his years and really wanted to return to the form he once had, for which he was considered one of the main stars of Hollywood. Strenuously working on the image, retouching all the blunders of the writers who were not able to describe the character in detail and correctly, Travolta not only gave a lesson in the acting skills of his daughter Ella Blue, played in ' Poisonous Rose', but also played, perhaps, one of his best roles from the somb of impersonality and uniformity that haunt Travolta in almost all recent films, where he takes part.
Morgan Freeman, despite his age and quality ' Poisonous Rose', did not lose his strong features and even from a dry and clichéd image was able to squeeze the maximum. Honored actor still holds the stamp and it can not but rejoice. But the appearance of Brendan Frazier is rather depressing. Tight and dashing hero ' The Mummy' turned into a fat man, who faces not a white collar, but a blue redneck uniform. It feels like Fraser refused to take care of himself, forgot about the rules of hygiene and just flushed his career down the toilet (sorry). There's nothing left of Fraser, unfortunately. Famke Janssen looks a strained doll after a long and frequent stint under the knife of a plastic surgeon. She has lost her identity, just as Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Gray and Lara Flynn Boyle once did. It feels like it's not the person in front of you, it's the android. The bloated Robert Patrick does not at all resemble the antagonist from ' Terminator 2' but in ' Poisonous Rose' he was suitable for the role of a cruel and straightforward villain.
In general, such a selection of actors and such a depressing result. True, it is worth saying that special-tone hope for ' Poisonous rose' and not laid. Big fans of methodical and academic detective can be advised ' Poisonous rose' as a one-time replacement for free time, but you should immediately warn: something special should not be expected.
5 out of 10
From the first minutes, the film declares itself as a noir painting: a hard-drinking private detective with troubled debts performed by the impressively bearded Travolta; his voiceover - explaining the situation; ' fatal' a woman appearing in the frame; typical opposite of GG - ' bad' Freeman; well-fucked Fraser in the role closer to the comic book character. The detective-provincial story of the universal criminalization of the hinterland of North American states.
All this gave hope for a good and interesting noir, but... The authors failed to convey or use the most important element of this image style - the visual series. After all, not only the characters must acquire characteristic features, but also the environment, the angles of filming, even the characters move in noir in their own manner - all this affects the viewer from the usual and favorite side, here is a complete bummer! They did not start from textured performers of roles, blurred their characteristic and not bad justification in actions with an ordinary video sequence. Yes, and Famke Janssen did not show anything in the role of a femme fatale herself and did not bother the attention of the director, although the texture is quite itself, quite. . .
This is really reminiscent of 'Chinatown' or 'The Long Goodbye'. The protagonist returns to the town of his past. Everything reminds him of the past. A forgotten love affair emerges. Family secrets come up. Despite the unpretentious plot, familiar features of the neo-noir of the 70s are immediately drawn. The most interesting portraits:
We see a battered and tired of the life of the main character. The main thing for him is to be charming. And such tasks for Travolta are always on the shoulder.
There is an all-powerful master of the city in this universe. A man clothed with power, hysterically confident that he can decide fate. He tries to win everyone, even at cards. It was only for Morgan Freeman.
There is a beautiful woman who has lost her youth. That's all I can say. One smile from Famke Jansen is enough.
But looking at the fat modest brunette, the least we can assume is that we have Brendan Fraser. And that's amazing.
And while we marvel at the whole carnival, trying to appreciate the quality of acting daughter John Travolta, the film ends. Nothing new. Nothing big. Small. Simple. Calculating. This is very important.
The City of Angels is in its 78th year and a drunken Carson Phillips lives day after day at the bottom of a ditch. This private detective is a typical representative of the profession, sung by cinema: horse-drinking, forever wrinkled, and leading internal monologues in the style of Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade. In the cinematic incarnation, everything is much more prosaic, since the sluggish “Noirchik” called “Poisonous Rose” turns out to be a cheap imitation of “Chinatown” – it could be a perversely bold spectacle and even a funny parody, and as a result, by the third or fourth scene you can understand that the viewer is held hostage. Vile conspiracies are confusing, causing an exceptionally dreary impression.
It starts out promising. Attractive femme fatale hires Carson on a mysterious mission. The client's old aunt appears to be missing, although she appears to be under constant surveillance in a nursing home. That's exactly what Carson likes - taking on the errand of a beautiful and rich woman with a sad history. Everything goes awry when the eccentric doctor (played by Brendan Fraser) begins to drip the detective on his brain, and there Carson’s ex-lover is on the horizon.
What turns Poison Rose into a cinematic disaster are the plot details and strange directorial decisions. The fact is that the script is not able to engage the viewer. Every turn comes out in some unconvincing and far-fetched way. And the denouement, linking all the free ends together, looks very predictable and artificial.
In general, “Poisonous Rose” came out as a kind of boring and fleeting. Even shooting here is very sluggish, and the soundtrack seems to copy existing films. Details of the era of the 70s are worked out lazily, and the general mood is dreary: well, you will not surprise the viewer with hiding criminals, fatal women and long-lost relatives!
Perhaps the strong side could be the actor's side. For all the actors who took part in the filming, “Poison Rose” is an easy fee. Travolta is certainly better here than in recent movies (from Gotty to Speed Kills), but the rest is disappointing. Sad Famke Jansenn can boast of nothing but an outstanding hairstyle, Morgan Freeman (with all due respect to the outstanding actor) as a thief in law already seems to fall into senile insanity, and Brendan Fraser, who delighted us last year with a comeback in the Trust, although frankly rejoicing in his role as a mad doctor, is still not in his place.
“Poison Rose” does not seek to surpass the clichés of the genre and, apparently, even fades into them. Talented names are lost in a sad script and, alas, a lifeless story.
I was interested in this film in the main way because of the cast - John Travolta, Morgan Freeman, Brendan Fraser, Famke Janssen, Robert Patrick, and the less well-known Peter Stormare and Cat Graham. I have seen a large number of films with these actors and many of them have long been masterpieces, but what to expect from this picture and could not even imagine. The fact that they are now not the age to simply run around and take part in endless brawls is a fact, but I wanted to see a quality game, well, and a fascinating plot.
The plot tells us about the everyday life of a private detective, to whom, in the best traditions, a sweet lady comes and asks for help, promising that she will not rust for money. True, the detective does not really want to go on a business trip to another city, especially since he has his own reasons for not loving the town. But who doesn’t want to make a good living?
I would call this movie even noir, but it is perhaps too light in tones for this genre, although there are corresponding notes. Characters now and then despite all the warnings of the Ministry of health grab a cigarette and juicy tighten. Films with a noir hue, I think, are always a hidden propaganda of tobacco smoking, otherwise they all tar up without putting down the lungs. Also, the noir is indicated by the music and narrative voice of the hero, who in a measured voice introduced us to his past.
There are some very instructive scenes with wise words in the film. There are investigations, chases and shootings. But to say that a film with violence can not. This is a classic detective where there is intrigue and investigation. The movie, for me, was very interesting. Of course, this is a detective thriller, not quite my genre, but nevertheless, everything was very exciting and unpredictable. Although in some places I guessed in advance what to do.
Interesting detective, 70s stylization. You can see that the director is enjoying the signs of that time, various trifles and cheap ponts: all these saxophones, the sounds of ice cubes, the clicks of lighters, rain, neon, etc. The whole film is full of clichés and cliches of such paintings, but since this is exactly the clutter under them, then all this works in a plus. The film was shot without sagging, the actors play well, the script is not a masterpiece, of course, but it will do, immersion in the atmosphere of what is happening is. In general, despite the fact that I mostly liked everything, I would not have refused much more trouble, there were good reasons for this. But we have what we have.
John Travolta perfectly coped with the role of former footballer Carson Phillips. According to the plot of the film plays a private detective, prone to alcohol and gambling. I’ve never really listed him as one of my favorite actors, but lately, I’ve been clinging to films with his participation. Maybe a coincidence, maybe something else. This role has been played magnificently. It’s amazing how Morgan Freeman played his role as Doc, helping Carson investigate crimes. The famous actor turned 82 years old on June 1, 2019! You can envy his excellent form and pay tribute to the magnificent acting skills. I just want to criticize Brendan Fraser and his role. Once beloved by everyone, Rick Okonnell from the Mummy looks just disgusting. It was a bit embarrassing to see him on the screen. The character he was also prescribed badly, some stupid doctor, absolutely not pulling on the assigned role.
I recommend it to fans of this old-school detective thriller. Don't be disappointed. To all those who want to watch the new roles of their favorite actors, I warn you that you are waiting for a viscous and measured film that you need to watch very carefully, so as not to miss any little things that may later be important. As for me, I watched an interesting and even to some extent beautiful thriller, of course not the top representative of the genre, but for one view it will definitely go, wasted his time I definitely do not consider.
6 out of 10
The first thing that draws attention to “Poison Rose” is the caste of famous actors. Yes, they are not all stars of the first magnitude, but nevertheless people are famous. And from the first scene, the film kind of takes us back to the time of noir, when detectives talked about everything, saying an inner monologue, beautiful women hired them, and villains were everywhere. Apparently, here they tried to transfer all this to modern realities, but it turned out as always.
I want to say right away that the film itself is normal, if you forget about all its drawbacks. The plot itself does not have the proper continuation and results in a monotonous narrative. And a denouement with an unexpected turn can not cause any reaction. After all, when the script itself is bad, then there is no need to talk about poorly written dialogues and heroes.
Now I want to go back to the actors. The fact that Travolta slid to low-budget pictures has long been known. The fame of Robert Patrick remained in the early 90s. Famke Janssen is immobilized and artificial. Peter Stormare is a good actor, like Morgan Freeman, but they can’t or won’t bring their characters to life. The saddest thing is Brendan Fraser. From a toned and muscular handsome man, he turned into something unrecognizable. Yes, knowing his fate and all the problems, you can understand a person, but how he disfigured himself. But here he is probably the most memorable character, which is doubly offensive.
With its low budget, Poisonous Rose has nothing to surprise or interest. Everyone will forget about this movie, and very few people know about it at all.
Private detective Carson Phillips was a good football player in the past. He played in his hometown, Texas, set records and was predicted a brilliant sports career, because such a quarterback had yet to be found. But life turned out differently and now Carson is a private detective. His new business is to travel from Los Angeles to his hometown, visit an elderly woman in the hospital and make sure she is okay. Arriving on the spot, Carson Phillips seems to return to the past, as he meets old friends and teammates, and comes face to face with his ex-wife. The seemingly simple case of visiting a woman takes a bad turn when the detective realizes that there are too many white spots in this story, and corpses begin to appear in the town.
At first, the plot of the film is intriguing and ready to give the viewer a good impetus due to the mysterious story with a woman from the hospital, because after arriving at the scene, Carson Phillips faces medical silence and probably recalls the film “Island of the Damned”, where FBI agents were looking for an escaped patient, about whom many spoke reluctantly. However, after the case of a private detective begins to grow, it becomes clear that the director failed to build the script component at the proper high level, since the plot turned into a real sieve due to the weak relationship between flashing events and the frankly bad detective component.
The story of “Poison Rose” seems to be good, but, in my opinion, the director overthinked the plot, trying by analogy with a double espresso to offer a double detective story – the whole story came out with a lot of heaps, it turned out to be too heavy, and given the fact that there are few dynamic scenes in the film, the whole film came out boring and sedentary.
Sadly enough, the actors involved in this film went into circulation. A few years ago, they were popular and in demand in the film industry. John Travolta, Morgan Freeman, Peter Stormare, Robert Patrick, Famke Janssen and Brendan Fraser – the cast is impressive, but, unfortunately, it was practically useless. Yes, faces and names are known, but even they were not able to do anything with the script that appeared before them.
Morgan Freeman is already quite old to appear on the screen and if before his eyes were astute and clear, now he has become as if the actor does not quite understand what he is doing. Famke Jansen appeared too powdery, as if she had left the frames of advertising some anti-aging cream. Either she made plastic, which gives her age, or makeup artists overdo it with makeup. Peter Stormare and Robert Patrick played secondary roles and if they went to little-known actors – the film would not lose anything. As for Brendan Frazier - hardly he fattened specifically for this role - the actor turned into a shapeless balding bag.
Maybe he is sick with something and takes hormonal drugs, but from the talented adventurer from the Mummy, alas, there is no trace left. And the performer of the leading role John Travolta also turned out to be out of his plate - already aged, with a fairly solid belly, but still trying to show his coolness. It was very difficult...
The film tries to return to the years of romantic detectives with fatal beauties, saxophone music, a couple of corpses, passionate kisses, but it does not work. Those days have passed and those who know firsthand what a really beautiful detective is can create something similar.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Usually, in movies, I am sometimes interested not only in why the movie turned out, but also why it didn’t work when everything was there for it. There are mega-stars Morgan Freeman and John Travolta. But not only that. The intended look catches Brendan Fraser, as well as the once brilliant and now catastrophically aged Robert Patrick. For such a picture, it would be enough for one of them, and there is a whole “Kurch 13 chairs”, plus Travolta’s daughter on the pickup.
The plot resembles too memorable detectives of Raymond Chandler or Carter Brown. Why could this be filmed today? Well, at least for the sake of playing retro, which requires some skill and citation. It didn’t work out – we didn’t see any special retro in 1978. Or in order to reshoot stories with a beard with new technical capabilities for the younger generation. It didn't work again. It looked like it was actually in 1978. But the worst is Travolta himself. Suspiciously rejuvenated, he is not at all interesting here. For him, neither the original text nor the original action are invented. It's just killer.
John Travolta and Morgan Freeman from the poster of the picture in the audience. Isn't it 'pompa' in anticipation of success? Duo mega stars passed on their way ' and Crimea, and Rome'. What did they not play for their long life, what genres did not open to the surprised viewer? It's almost 150 years on this couple. 65 to John, 81 to Morgan. Nothing. They still dust on the cinematic roads, tearing up the applause of an enthusiastic audience. Until then, you ask? As long as there's gunpowder in the gunpowder, of course. There's still a demand for face gloss. Until the force left. So far, earnings ambitions have cooled. Bye. That's enough, though. Leave it alone.
Directing trio ' Poisonous Rose' with a thriller stuffing for our dining table. American-Italian tape, where George Gallo patronized Hollywood younger Francesco Sincuemani, Luce Gilberto. What else is remarkable? Daughter of D. Travolta - Ella Blue Travolta in an unpretentious prank to his father.
What's the plot? What conflicts are proposed for consideration? What are we going to worry about?
First plan, First Star. From the scenes of the court he almost does not come out. Holds attention to the grace of plastic gait, the usual movements of the head tilt. It seems that just yesterday came this Vincent Vega from the cult ' Pulp Fiction' Quentin Tarantino. And right here. Right to the makeup room and the new machine. Play what? Who? I'll do it now. It does indeed. The sequel, that me. Yesterday. It's from 1994. However, time flies. Is he or isn't he? Who's gonna take it out? Carson Phillips is now his name. Field? Private detective in Los Angeles. Little routine on him. Missing people, adultery, stupid fathers. Okay, nothing serious. Stay at a hotel, a resting place. Only the cat. His family is nothing in the world. Of addictions, three things are drinking, smoking and betting. Gold, not man. Treasure.
Perhaps this detective would have lived out his leisurely age, but an unexpected proposal turns the usual way of life. The customer wants to go to Texas. The price of the contract is very tempting, high. The fate of the woman being cured in the clinic requires clarification. It doesn't seem complicated. But. There is one ' but' We are talking about the same provincial town, where more than 20 years ago, not yet a detective, but an athlete-loser, fled. And now, he's caught up in his past. What's in that faraway place? What skeletons will fall out of the closet? What's up? What do I do? What is that? Chance? Fate? The player's excitement takes over.
Yesterday. What is it like for each of us? Are we ready to touch him? And come back?
Who will meet me there,
When I get hugged,
What songs will I sing?
Private investigation in his / #39; old & #39; city. And the recognition of your face by many. The interweaving of personal and professional. And the trump cards in the sleeves of those who have bypassed you in life. Who are they now? What drives them? What games are they playing? Is it possible to unravel the plans of the charades of intricacies? And a life threat? Got it? Didn't come home to die, did you? In a circle, like a hound, unravelling the traces of detective work master. And the viewer is drawn into the whirlpool under cover.
The end of the 70s of the last century by drawing scenes. Phones only stationary, clothes and urban decoration revived second hand of yesterday. Convincing? Yeah. But to a full impression, the spectacle does not reach. Average between five and six.
When you see the names of John Travolta and Morgan Freeman on the poster, the film is definitely worth watching. “We live in a world full of risk,” says Travolta’s character. Today, watching new Hollywood movies is really a big risk, too much nonsense. Director George Gallo, who once directed “Bad Boys” showed this time a really interesting story.
John Travolta plays former football player Carson Phillips, who has become a private detective and a predilection for alcohol and gambling. Phillips spends days in a semi-stupor, drinking, dating women, and one day he is assigned a new business. He travels to Texas to investigate the death of a popular high school quarterback. In the process of investigating the case of missing people, Travolta enters the international mafia, which controls the results of football matches. Unexpectedly, a private detective finds traces of a missing daughter.
Morgan Freeman, who plays Doc, helps Philips find the killer. A week later, the Hollywood master turns 82 years old, but despite this, he is quite cheerful and perfectly (as always) played his role. Also in the film involved a lot of great actors who together create a great atmosphere because they all know how to play well. Brendan Fraser plays Dr. Miles Mitchell, the aged but still charming Famke Janssen playing Jane Hunt. As always, small roles went to Robert Patrick (Chef Walsh) and Peter Stormara (Slide).
Since the film is co-produced with Italy, in addition to Gallo, two more local directors Francesco Sincuemani and Luc Gilberto participated in the shooting. This is probably why the film was so successful. Light detective, noir style.
So what do we have? Interesting, not sagging plot, professional game of famous actors. What else would a detective lover want? Go to the movies or watch at home!
7 out of 10
Strong, but in years, detective Carson Philipps (John Travolta) is engaged in solving sensitive family (and not only) cases, vocabulary accompanying his adventures with a voiceover text - one of the recognizable attributes of the noir genre. Why do I pay attention to this? About that later. From the beginning of the film, we are introduced to the fussy life of the hero - he lay down to rest, but this was not the case here. The costs of the profession make you forget about leisure and urgently take your feet out of the cereal nest. After telling about his sniff, a nervous cat and releasing a pathetic ironic joke to his detractor - also an important attribute of the genre - he finds himself in his office, where he is met by an ineptly youthful aunt who is eager to find her mother, locked in a dope in the distant state of Texas. The hero, smoking (also pay attention to this - then he permanently smokes like a steam locomotive) fights off - outside of Los Angeles with no foot. Here the secretary of the hero gets into the conversation - you would do well to go somewhere and wink so cleverly. In general, a kind word and the family of Benjamin Franklin will do more than just a kind word - and our hero is still in Texas. There must be a caveat that Detective Philipps himself comes not only from this state, but also from the city in which the mother of the client must be found in a fool. Then begins already textbook, familiar from dozens of films (again – emphasize here in red) the story “the hero returns to his native Mukhosransk” to friends, enemies and skeletons in the closet. All of them were chewed by moths, dried up and trimmed with hair. Only the hero of Travolta looks cheerful with his noble bristles and the young voice of the actor of dubbing. However, over the years, the detective has acquired a strange hairline - such as it writes academician of the Russian Academy of Arts Alexander Maksovich Shilov. Here begins the coven with "pink" - since the appearance of the hero in the club of the same name. The feeling that the writer climbed into the dictionary and wrote out all possible variants of phrases with this word - the author of kakbe hints at something, only it is impossible to understand what exactly. Moreover, the word in the title of the film is associated with a completely different character - not the main character. All mentions of objects, people and concepts with the root of the word “rose” have nothing to do with the character of Travolta, in the film do not manifest themselves and are not plot important.
Let us leave aside the task of the hero to find the mother of the client and immediately say that on the spot he immediately overgrown with multiplying tasks that his former lover throws him. Here we will make a lyrical retreat and say a few words about the operator - Terry Stacy in this film has a strange mania as close as possible and from unprofitable angles to shoot older actresses, when all manipulations with the face are visible with the details of the illustration in the textbook of plastic surgery. Next, the hero staggers around the city ala RPG, encounters the head doctor of the fool (Brendan Fraser), the gray cardinal of the city (Morgan Freeman) and the local head of the Department of Internal Affairs (Robert Patrick) - all say something with hints, then threaten, then persuade. The film, meanwhile, begins to overgrown with melodramatic details and genre invasions: walks at sunset, sudden bouts of childishness, etc. techniques known to us from romcoms and melodramas are also important. Towards the end, the story makes a spoof, and it turns out that the hero has found more than just a missing aunt from a mental hospital - if you come to a session with a girl, she will like it. I'm a more cynical person and laughed into my voice given the cast - a very subtle move. The film ends on an even more melodramatic note - quite mimimi - the hero finds not only answers to the plot questions, but also to existential ones. At least the last phrase in the film Kakbe hints.
I have all noted the different attributes of genres, such my keen attention was due to the writer’s attention to them. Let’s call these attributes an even more specific word cliché. When I saw the Italians, as I said, I had hope for a fruitful fusion of European film traditions and American industry. But unfortunately, it turned out differently. The author, having typed a bunch of genre stamps, simply made them into an average story about the average film detective in average film circumstances. Heroes do not live any individual life, they are assembled from dozens of characters in other films and exist in the same collected circumstances. Perhaps this is a kind of tribute and love of the author to the genre, when he collects a handful of everything he loves as a movie lover. Yes, and this has the right to life – Taratino does something like that, a movie about cinema, but there it is done with fire, irony and self-irony, with obvious references and hints to other paintings. It's kind of dreary and clumsy here. There is absolutely no subtext in the dialogues - everything is said as it is, what is said, what is meant. All the information necessary for the understanding of history is not given cinematically, i.e. harmoniously interspersed in the plot, but is bluntly spoken by the heroes as in a radio show. What is this?
What good in the film will ask an inquisitive reader.
First, if you are a lover of the genre of noir, this film will suit you, no matter what shortcomings there are in it, in general, there is a history there. And if you go with a girl or wife, then everything will be normal, your second half will like it.
Second, the cast. Although the director did not give them tasks, but even just their charisma and background Travolta and Morgan pull the film. It is interesting to see the older T1000. Separately, I will say about Brendan Frazier - he is the only one who has worked his role one hundred percent. Apparently, he did not wait for the decrees of the directors (remember, there were three of them) and collected his character himself - he felt the past of the hero before the events of the film, in his behavior, “fenechki”, assessments and reactions.
Third, you need to watch different movies - not only masterpieces.
7 out of 10