survivor-master-1

“Survivor” – a masterpiece?

Before reading, I recommend stocking up with ice bags to cool flaming farts. And even yes, I am nobody to call me in any way, my opinion does not bother anyone at all, I don’t understand anything in the cinema, and I myself have not achieved anything in my life, you may not talk about it about it.

“Survivor” is 10 out of 10? Masterpiece? The film is a five -year plan? This is your first film in life or you have never seen anything like? I do not argue, the film is quite unusual. But if you discard all the specifics, there will be just the story of the father, who takes revenge for the dead family.

Yes, all this is wrapped in a huge number of details, but nevertheless. It is terribly protracted – half the scenes can be thrown out at all. In addition, there is disgusting operator work. There are two types of personnel in the film: a general plan of the surrounding nature and a close -up of characters’ faces. You are aware that you can shoot and differently? The close-up of the face is a good technique when it is necessary to show all the wealth of the actor’s facial expressions at some special points and demonstrate in detail the character’s reaction to a certain event. Why is it stretched here for the entire timing of the film? I saw this only in two films. Of course, in the “Birdman”, but there it was somewhat more justified, because the action takes place mainly in make -ups and narrow theatrical corridors, that is, the places are not enough. And also in the series “School”. Cute, isn’t it? And the episode that finally knocked me out is when the hero of DiCaprio crawls to his dead son, puts his head on his chest and cries. The scene lasts a few minutes and all this time we are shown by the open mouth of his son on half a screen. The creators of the film, apparently, wanted to cause pity and compassion, and in the end they only caused laughter. And I do not exaggerate, people in the hall laughed during some scenes.

And this is the first case in my https://www.game-roulette.info/ life when the audience left the hall during the film. After the scene with the bear, a woman sitting nearby said something like: “What kind of nonsense?”I got up and left the hall. And even if in the end, not many people went away, but there were such, it says a lot. I had not encountered this before, because I did not go to everything, but when this happens at the film session, which everyone is praised – this is at least a reason to think. Most, as I understand, did not like cruelty. And it is prohibitive here … Constantly, again, a close-up, bleeding festering wounds, cut fingers, and the insides of animals show. Some spiritualized personalities apparently believe that this is a high and bold art. After all, if they show what is usually not accepted, it is cool. I am not saying that everything should be sterile in the cinema and, in general, not against cruelty, but when the film intentionally concentrates on such things, this.

I will not argue, the actors laid out in full. DiCaprio – in general, as if screaming: “Give me an Oscar! Well, give it!“True, because of this, he sometimes re-plays very much. If you think that, for example, the characters in this film are some unique, then I can’t agree. They are quite flat and clicked. I do not believe that there is at least one person who, from the very first minutes of the film, did not understand who is good, who is bad, what will happen next and how it will end. All turns are guessed in advance, including those that were planned as “sudden”.

As a result, the film is drawn by 5, maybe 6 out of 10. Well, even at 7, but not 10! What kind of idiotic habit is to divide the cinema into masterpieces and? The world is not divided only into black and white.

And while the mass viewer does not cease to ignore the shortcomings in the cinema simply because he liked it and does not want to offend it, Hollywood will continue to palm off the shit in a beautiful wrap every year, receiving loot from him, high marks and enthusiastic reviews.

But despite all the above, despite the fact that at times I was very bored, I generally received a certain pleasure and did not regret the viewing. I repeat, the acting is wonderful.

So, again: the film is good. It’s just not a dozen. Not a dozen.

I almost forgot to say. The “survivor” in spirit was very reminiscent of the not very famous film “Fountain” with Hugh Jackman. He was just as boring, just as protracted, as pathos. However, he came across enthusiastic reviews about him several times. It is seriously positioned as “a film that makes you think”.