lyubitelfilmov

Adventure. A childhood cartoon, given by a beloved uncle on a videotape for his birthday and watched to the holes, also with a bonus after the finale in the form of a great music video for a great song. This is a memory of a distant and carefree childhood, which is gone, but cartoons like this one have become. We burst into tears from an unprecedented feeling of nostalgia when watching, because once again we were worried about familiar characters. It's worth a lot. And here's a brief opinion - A great cartoon that turned the history of animation around. Despite our unbridled love and nostalgia, we will look at both the pros and cons (many of which became noticeable at a more mature age). And this concludes this introduction and proceeds to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. The script - it was revolutionary, and that's putting it mildly. Although the story itself is simple. Shrek, a lonely troll living in a swamp, needs to rescue Princess Fiona from the clutches of a fire-breathing dragon and bring her to the evil Lord Farquaad in exchange for evicting the fabulous refugees that Lord Farquaad himself drove to Shrek's swamp. Along the way, a very talkative Donkey gets involved with the hero, which becomes the beginning of an amazing friendship. There is a lot of humor, references to popular culture, witty dialogues, high-quality Russian dubbing, a lot of fabulous characters and much more. And of course, a happy ending, where without it.

2. Revolutionary - the fact is that the creators of this cartoon used to work for the Evil Corporation, and when they were kicked out of there, they decided to create their own studio with everything they were supposed to. And for this project, they decided to completely turn the world of classic fairy tales around, in which the Evil Corporation "ate a dog", and more than one. They completely shook up the basics of fairy tales, but they retained the most important thing - faith in goodness and love. After all, Shrek is a classic antihero who eventually becomes a hero. Princess Fiona is not just a spirited "lady in distress," but she can also punish offenders. The Evil Dragon is a lonely girl who also wants attention, and everyone wants to kill her just because she guards Princess Fiona. Etc. Here you can describe each character separately for a long time, but we don't have enough time for that. The creators left the ending classic, because you shouldn't break everything, especially if the happy ending works and is served perfectly (and in this case it is). It seems to us that this was the key to the success of this cartoon.

3. The music is excellent, the compositions chosen for the cartoon are just perfect here. After all, music also has a great effect on the atmosphere here. Moreover, both well-known compositions and music written entirely for the cartoon are good here.

So, the cons: 1. A picture - sometimes it looks pretty cheap, and this has become noticeable in the era of high-resolution images. It's hard to see such small things on a videotape, but you can't get away from it now. But we can forgive this, because the technology was not the same then as it is now, although the preparation of the cartoon took time.

2. Animation - sometimes it is quite ragged. Again, technology, and the studio has just tried its hand at new technology. It's not worth much scolding for this, but it's necessary to specify.

What can I say, this cartoon evokes genuine emotions and makes you worry about the characters over and over again, and the songs of the characters are also pleasing. It seems to me that even the creators of this masterpiece did not realize that their creation, based on hatred of their former place of work, would shoot, so much so that it would become a cult, and not just a cult, but a legend.

The cartoon has deservedly gained cult status and the love of millions and millions of people around the world, because it is a great love story that you watch with awe and breathlessness over and over again.

Of course, such success could not affect the box office, which was excellent, so the creators decided to make sequels, the further the worse, but we'll talk about them another time.

I really want to pretend that there were no sequels.

My rating is 10 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!

Historical drama. An epic about the service for the benefit of the Soviet state and its people by the most prominent Bolshevik, the creator and first chairman of the Cheka Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, filmed in 1953, but alas, it reached the audience with cut-out moments only in 1956. The original version has not been preserved, so we have only a truncated version from 1956. What can I say, we've been wanting to see this picture for a long time, and we did, and for good reason, because we were more than satisfied with the result. And here's a brief opinion - An excellent biographical Soviet film. We will talk about some of the comments in a separate paragraph, but for now we will focus your attention on the obvious advantages of this wonderful painting.

So, here they are: 1. The scenario - the picture, which has another name "Felix Dzerzhinsky", shows the difficult service of Comrade Dzerzhinsky in the most responsible positions in the Soviet government starting in the summer of 1918 and ending around the middle of the twenties. From the civil war and the restoration of the national economy to the beginning of the industrialization of the country and the struggle against the opposition within the RCPb. We will see a brave, determined Bolshevik who is not afraid to go up against a clearly superior opponent, can convince unstable masses of their mistakes, guide them to the right path, deftly expose a pest, a spy, and finally take care of the people around him as much as possible in his power. We will see an indomitable revolutionary who passed through tsarist prisons and exile. Knight of the Revolution. At the same time, nothing human is alien to him. The Bolshevik Party set difficult tasks for him every time, which he successfully carried out. The fight against the left Socialist Revolutionaries, the fight against counterrevolution and foreign spies, the protection of the party leadership and important facilities, the restoration of the national economy after the devastation of the civil and imperialist wars, the establishment of railway transport, the fight against homelessness and much more. At the same time, Felix Edmundovich was not a physically healthy person already in 1918 (prisons and exile do not add to health), he had a sick heart, but Felix Edmundovich's energy was so strong that he had the strength to be in the ranks at the right time for the country and the party, namely from 1917 to 1926, when His heart stopped beating. The script, though cursory, runs through the main points of Dzerzhinsky's service, the Left Socialist-Revolutionary uprising of 1918 is especially well shown. And the rest also looks interesting. The finale is filled with hope for the best, faith in the triumph of justice and that communism will win. For this alone, the painting earned the highest praise.

2. Atmosphere - the creators managed to immerse the viewer in that era, both with the help of costumes and decorations, and with the help of excellent music by Dmitry Kabalevsky. And this is not surprising, because the creators caught that time and could talk to the participants of those historical events, and after that they embodied them well on the screen. Of course, we personally missed the excellent performance of the famous revolutionary song "Hostile Whirlwinds", after which the picture got its name. It certainly sounds, but almost in passing.

3. The ideological message is true, it is true. It is a pity that this message was not heeded by those who began to lead the country after March 5, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three. It seems to us that the final scene of this painting was intended for them (but the censors in 1956 only cut out Stalin without paying attention to it). Only communism will save Russia and the whole world, only communism can give people everything for a decent life in the world, but the irreparable happened, traitors and opportunists who got to power distorted the words of Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Engels, betrayed their bright ideals and the work of a lifetime, betrayed the work of millions of Soviet people, and now we still We are reaping the fruits of this betrayal.

Now about some remarks. For example, in reality Felix Edmundovich was arrested almost immediately after the murder of the German Ambassador Mirbach, and only after finding out that he was not involved was he released and allowed to put down the Left Socialist-Revolutionary rebellion. Dzerzhinsky did not personally go to the anarchists and did not arrest their leaders with the help of saguited rank-and-file fighters, this scene was invented for the picture solely to reveal the character. And the restoration of the national economy of a huge country was not as smooth as shown in the picture. But all this can be forgiven for the painting, because artistically it was a great success. Although it is sad that the scenes with Stalin were cut out, and the original painting was lost.

Well, the acting is great, which is only worth Vladimir Yemelyanov as Dzerzhinsky, Georgy Yumatov as the leader of the street kids, Alla Larionova and Vera Ivolgina, and of course scoundrels of all stripes performed by other colorful Soviet actors.

It's a pity that such a movie is not shown on TV, but it makes you think about a lot.

Our rating will be 10 out of 10 and recommended for viewing!

Melodrama. The film adaptation of the novel of the same name by the French writer Alexandre Dumas (son). It is considered one of the best film adaptations (if not the best). The author of this review has not read the book itself (but is aware of the main events), so he will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. The picture came across purely by chance, since the cinema of the thirties was not a frequent guest of the author of this review, so he wanted to fill in this misunderstanding, and just came across this film adaptation (there will be more reviews for "Serenade of Sunny Valley" in 1941 and "The Big Waltz" in 1938, but later). Moreover, the director of this picture was George Cukor (who directed the favorite picture of the author of this review, "My Fair Lady" in 1964). And the author was pleased with the viewing, although there were enough tedious moments. And here's a brief opinion - A good Hollywood melodrama of the thirties. The picture has both advantages (without which it is impossible) and disadvantages (alas), so you should finish this important introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, the advantages: 1. The script - the picture tells about the romantic and passionate love between the famous courtesan Marguerite Gaultier and the romantic young man Armand Duval, which is full of twists and turns, scandals, breakups and reunions. Armand has his first love and a brilliant career as a diplomat ahead of him, and Marguerite also has her first love, because she is a courtesan who spends money quickly. Of course, there is another man here, the Baron de Varville, who is rich and therefore able to support Marguerite. Add here the appropriate environment, the need for Margarita to choose between love and money (and she has a lot of debts), the illness of the main character (tuberculosis)) and you get a tragedy (in the genre sense). If you don't take into account the original, then the script turned out to be good, and the ending too, but if you keep the original in mind, then, alas, the script here is not bad.

2. Costumes - beauty, extravaganza, extravaganza, just a sight! These words can describe the costumes that are used here. They look gorgeous, and they "fit" perfectly on the actors. Literally a feast for the eyes. The costumes seem to have come off the canvases of Paris in the first half of the nineteenth century. With men's tailcoats, everything is clear - classic, but women's outfits are just a blast. The costumers did a great job. The painting is literally full of colors (and this despite the fact that it is black and white), it is difficult to achieve such an effect, but the creators succeeded.

3. Acting is overplayed, but then it was the norm, so you shouldn't scold for it. And so the whole palette of human emotions was shown. Here you have passion, and jealousy, and expectation, and hatred, and much more. It's a pleasure to watch.

So, the disadvantages: 1. The scenery - it is clear that this is a pavilion, and not the real Paris, so there is no sense of Paris at all. Although it is clear that the creators tried to create its atmosphere with all sorts of buffoonery in the frame, and in some moments they succeeded (for example, in scenes in the theater), but in general they missed it.

2. Tedious - some scenes are just too long, and you really want to fall asleep to them. Perhaps this is a purely subjective approach, but the author of this review insists that some of the scenes could have been safely cut (for example, several breakups or a long conversation about separation).

3. There is little tragedy - the ending of the picture is too slushy, unlike in the book, where there is much more tragedy. Some of the important episodes in the film adaptation are missing (for example, the beginning, Armand's affair with another woman after Margarita broke up with him under pressure, and the finale was already mentioned above). But they said that this is the best film adaptation, well, maybe it's the best against the background of the others, but the book version looks better. But if you forget about the book, then the painting itself is good, you can't take that away from it.

A little bit about the main characters: 1. Marguerite Gaultier, played by Greta Garbo, is a famous Parisian courtesan, terminally ill with consumption, who falls in love with the young man Armand at the end of her life, which became a delight for her tortured heart and tortured soul. Greta Garbo is great here. The author of this review saw her only in the terrible capitalist propaganda "Ninochka", but here she did her best. Despite her illness, her Margarita shines here. Bravo!

2. Armand Duval, played by Robert Taylor, is a romantic young man, a future diplomat, who is predicted to have a brilliant career, who fell in love at first sight with the courtesan Margarita. He remembered this love for the rest of his life. There was passion and jealousy, the pain of separation and the joy of reunion. This picture was the second in Robert Taylor's career, and he only confirmed his status as an excellent actor here. Bravo!

3. Baron de Varville, played by Henry Daniell, is a wealthy aristocrat who supports Marguerite for well-known services. It is not clear to the end whether he ever loves or loved her, because at first he shows a certain sympathy, and then literally humiliates her in front of other people. Henry looks great in such roles, and this picture is no exception. Bravo!

The picture was well received by the audience, and the critics were satisfied. Greta Garbo was even nominated for an Oscar in the Best Actress category, but she failed to snatch the prize.

Rating 7 out of 10 and recommended for viewing!