A go-to for a solid heist-thriller that features two great performances by De Niro and Norton with honorable mention to Brando who looked a little worse for wear. Not the top notch in the genre but still a breezy but still suspense-filled watch if you don't want anything thought-provoking. Still makes me chuckle that it was Frank Oz to be the one to direct three generations of great actors... **3.75/5**

Hocus Wokus?
They took one of the best family friendly Halloween movies and injected a heavy dose of far left 2022 politics and took out most of the humor.
So, it pushes "THE MESSAGE" and doesn't little else except insult the fans and the original cast who would be problematic in today's political world.
They made the best movie they could... after checking off the political boxes and ignoring any story telling

Whilst this isn't really a patch on the first outing for the "Sanderson" sisters, it's still quite a decent sequel that manages to reassemble Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy for some evil witchery. This time around it is 16th birthday girl "Becca" (Whitney Peak) and her best friend "Izzy" (Belinda Escobedo) who inadvertently disturb the witches using a magic candle. Needless to say, our tricky trio are ravenous for children to eat and are seeking a little bit of revenge too! It takes a bit too long for the the Divine Miss M and company to take to the screen, before that this is a rather muddled teenage affair, but once they are in full swing it is quite good fun with plenty of faux malevolence from "Winifred" and some mischief from her sisters once they discover that they, too, can zap folks. Ultimately, even the book of spells gets to choose it's own destiny - but whom will it follow? Star of the film is definitely "Billy Butcherson" - or his disembodied head, and a lively reversion of Blondie's "One Way or Another" gets the toes tapping away nicely too. This is an enjoyable family film that does what it sets out to do - entertain all in a gently, engaging and entirely forgettable fashion.

Sometimes wild, sometimes confusing action-thriller that boasts a great cast, but in the end, this wasn't a Carnahan movie that really did it for me. **2.75/5**

I don't think I can tell you that _Smokin' Aces_ is **good**. But I have seen the movie on three seperate occasions in the past thirteen years, roughly evenly spread apart. And each time I have not only enjoyed it, I enjoyed it more than the last time. This movie is **very** dumb. But fast and fun and oh boy what a cast.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

The "Moriarty" inspired "Ratigan" is a nasty piece of work! He kidnaps a toy-maker with a view to making toy that will embody this evil genius with the power to dominate the world! Needless to say, this piques the interest of the formidable sleuthing team that is "Basil" and "Dawson" and so in best "Holmes/Watson" tradition they must examine every detail and follow every trail if they are to find and thwart their nemesis. I did quite enjoy this. It develops a sense of menacing mischief quite engagingly over seventy five minutes with some wittily crafted scripting and some clues for all of us to follow as the future of "Mousedom" is at stake. The whole Victorian scenario allows the animators to capitalise on the costumes, the enquiring scientific minds of the day and, of course, the whole sense of Empire, decency and loyalty. The precarious denouement at Big Ben tops off an enjoyable adventure film that focusses much more on character and story than endless special effects and CGI - and it's entertaining!

**Blitz disappoints in almost every way. Dumb movie with a cast much better than it deserved.**
Blitz parades its dreadful lack of logic and experience, making its short runtime feel much too long. The writing chases side plots and rabbit trails that lead nowhere despite an effort to tie it all together later in the film. The result is a distracted storyline with awful pacing. The score and soundtrack didn’t help either, as grunge rock music punctuates every action scene. The one part of this movie that shines is the casting with several big actors that have significantly risen since their time in this film, including an Oscar Winner. Unfortunately, the horrible directing overshadowed its cast’s great skill. I am a major Statham fan but not a fan of this movie at all.

Blitzkrieg Bop.
Jason Statham stars as Brant, a rugged copper with anger issues. He likes a drink or twelve, likes to beat down on bad guys and is a constant source of PR hassle for his superior. When a serial killer known as Blitz (Aidan Gillen) starts killing police officers, Brant takes it personal.
It is what it is really, just what you would expect from a Statham movie, where the tagline says it all, Cop Killer Vs Killer Cop! There's lots of chases, fighting, quips, brooding menace and with Brant teamed up with Paddy Considine's gay Officer Nash, some room for cheeky devilment. Director Elliott Lester and cinematographer Rob Hardy favour a scuzzy colour palette that befits the London locations, all while Ilan Eshkeri's sound tracking pounds away its feral beats.
One sub-plot involving Zawe Ashton's rehab released copper doesn't serve much of a purpose, and you have to take with a pinch of salt how Blitz goes about his business (he leaves finger prints everywhere!) But it's The Stath kicking butt and that is more often than not good enough for a good time, such is the case here. 6.5/10

Next time you are asked to name some famous Belgians, you can add God to the list. He (Benoît Poelvoorde) is a bit of a slob though and lives with his long-suffering wife (Yolanda Moreau) and daughter "Ea" (Pili Groyne). Their son "JC" has moved out and despite his mother's longings, they've lost touch. Now this deity loves nothing more than to cause misery to both mankind and his family, and this irks young "Ea" into doing something about it. She uses his computer to send a message to everyone on earth telling them how long they have left to live - in the hope that is will completely ruin her father's credibility. Not content with that, she decides to recruit half a dozen modern day apostles to change his philosophy a little. To that end she climbs into their washing machine (that's their physical conduit to earth) and sets about recruiting her new friends. Her encounter with the vagrant "Victor" (Marco Lorenzini) makes for a good start as she encounters the whole gamut of society from rich to poor, happy and healthy to anything but, and it turns out that she has quite a decent amount of her own humanity to dispense as the comedy gathers pace and delivers really quiet well. It is satire at it's irreverent best offering a personification of God that could hardly be more different from that put forward by the church, and the surreal nature of some of the characterisations is really quite funny. A glowing fish that just wants to return to the sea; Catherine Deneuve finds new love in a seriously unlikely place; there's some walking on water and when her dad comes after her, well there are some frustrations for him too as he realises that he has no superpowers down amongst the great unwashed. Star of the film? Well that has to be "Kevin" (Gaspard Pauwels) whose message telling him he has 60-odd years left to go encourages him to do just about anything reckless and stupid fearlessly - boy is he in for a shock. Groyne delivers well here as does Thomas Gunzig's writing and whilst it's not exactly sacrilegious, it does ridicule nicely people's psychological dependency on the existence of and belief in an higher power. It's whimsical not spiritual.

> Re-editing the god's creation.
I was looking forward for this since it was from one of my favourite directors who is a very unique storyteller. This is a fantasy and a black comedy from Belgium that was chosen to represent the country in the last Oscars. This is where the critics overtake the film fanatic to like it more. It is a theme that revolves on what would you do if you get a power to write the laws of the nature. A complicated topic, because loopholes are inevitable, but the writer and director did not care much about that and narrated the tale what they just wanted to tell.
The story centres on an arrogant and abusive father who is also the creator the universe, especially the designer of the lives on the earth and this tale takes place in the Belgian capital, Brussels. When his bored and concerned daughter Ea, runs away from home to re-edit his creation as advised by her brother JC, he goes after her to ensure everything stay as he had planned. In an unexpected confrontation between father and daughter, in the end who is going to be victorious is the rest of the narration. Remember, there is a post credit scene, which opens the door for a possible sequel, but I don't think that'll happen.
> > "Giving men knowledge of their own death... Crazy!"
It was a beautiful concept, but I don't think I liked the entire narration, though some of the parts were very interesting. Since it was a fantasy, logics are not required, but the lack of the basic explanation was the setback if you're a broad minded. This film is for the simple minds, especially after knowing the theme you should not anticipate a genuine tale with great adventure and stunts, particularly not visual extravaganza. It was kind of a drama-adventure, something like entering the world that created by you and experiencing all by yourself the positives and negatives of it.
Somewhat it was a fun, so definitely not a bad film, but I felt it should have been a lot more than that. Kind of a missed opportunity and falls into a simplicity. All the actors were good, especially the little girl. But I think it's not suitable for the children on the ground of a film character who is associated with sex related stuff, hence it got a few brief nudes.
The God character was awesome, even though his acts are predictable I enjoyed the comedies delivered by him. The Ea's undertaking was more a serious and which tries to relate with the Chritianity, especially 'The Last Supper' after her decision to help a few selected people down in the earth over billions. All the above it was barely a magical film, so that's where you've to compromise than to expect crazy stuffs out of it. So in my opinion, it was not delightful as it looks nor the best work of this talented director, but a decent 2 hour long film.
6/10

This film marks the end, the absolute end of Oliver Stone's work.
Alexander wasn't great, but you still had that Oliver Stone vibe when you watched it. You still knew who was making it.
World Trade Center is Stone directing a Lifetime movie with an enormous budget. It's competently made...but it's doesn't feel like it's Oliver Stone signed sealed, and delivered.
Once upon a time you could sit down and watch a movie and knew he directed it without even knowing the title. Now, well, after Alexander, you can tell he had a hand in the script and that's really it.
WTC doesn't have the mark of Oliver Stone on it and, honestly it sucks because of it.

When three men go missing from their small-town Mississippi home, the FBI sends a team to investigate. "Anderson" (Gene Hackman) is very much the more hands-on of the pair leading the team, with "Ward" (Willem Dafoe) more inclined to play by the book. Their arrival exposes them to an open culture of racial hatred that's not only tolerated by the local sheriff "Stuckey" (Gailard Sartain) but enthusiastically supported by his deputy "Pell" (Brad Dourif). Their arrival only seems to empower the bigots as more Negro property is trashed or razed to the ground and the people themselves subjected to increasingly dangerous violence. The audience watching this know the local dynamic and who is pulling the strings, so the thrust of this rather potent look at the ghastliness going on here comes as we follow the differing styles of policing these men use to get to the bottom of things - and in a way that will make the equally complicit judicial system sit up and take note. With a media carnival only fanning the flames and tempers flying on both sides, the agents put into place a complex sting operation to turn the weapons of these intimidators into the very things that will hopefully entrap them. Hackman and Dafoe make for a formidable coupling in this well written and presented thriller that shines an unashamed light on the toxic attitudes of the white population whose concern for the missing men amounted to little more than "they got whet they deserved". Dourif is also on good form as his truly odious character emerges - not just against his black neighbours, but against his own wife (Frances McDormand) too. Alan Parker and Chris Gerolmo have created a palpably criminal scenario here and the ensemble deliver well that sense of fear, loathing and superiority. The photography captures well this increasingly menacing, dark and swamp-infested environment and by the denouement I did feel that this was all a perfectly plausible train of events in the mid-1960s USA.

"Mississippi Burning" has both insight and intelligence and it is an incredibly uncompromising scrutinization of how racism blighted American society and it is frightening to think the residents of Jessop in Mississippi possess minds much smaller than their town. This film also prompts you to seriously examine your own conscience in relation to the matter of the race issue, but how many people will actually be enthusiastically prepared to carry out such a thing? And how many of us will be shocked to discover something of Mayor Tilman in ourselves: we know all about what is going on and yet we choose to do nothing about it? That is the real lasting power of this superb film and that is why it will continue to have great longevity and deservedly so.

I cannot imagine the hoops Spike Lee must have had to jump through to get any form of investment into either the concept or the production of this truly groundbreaking study of a man who divided opinion in a way few others have since the end of the Second World War. I say a study of man, but this is way more than just about him, it identifies and develops themes about inter and intra racial and gender attitudes and leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. All of that said, it does struggle as a piece of entertainment. I don't mean to trivialise the subject matter, but if it wanted to be a documentary then it should have been more tightly focused on fact and less on the dramatisation of events, some real, some not. As a biopic, it kind of falls between two stools. We are presented with, essentially, a collective of unpleasant individuals who either started out that way, or were corrupted by the environments in which they existed and/or created - clearly illustrated, for example, by the way the women are treated by their husbands/bosses etc. This left me with an overwhelming feeling that had there been more general respect and decency on offer here - across the board - then a lot of the violence from both "sides" might have been avoided. It is a must see movie, but perhaps time has robbed it of much of it's potency and left us with a sad reflection of a time when vileness didn't care about your colour.

Based on a true story, and on the facts - insofar as they will ever actually be known - this is a gritty and quite depressing depiction from Kathryn Bigelow of one traumatic night in the city. It was during a night of rioting that a squad of police officers respond to reports of gunshots at a city hotel. Upon entering they discover a group of black youths, a couple of white girls - and what follows is a potent mix of racial hatred, bigotry and violence as the boys in blue leave what integrity they might have had at the door and leave again with three dead bodies and nine others savagely beaten to show for their policing efforts. Will Poulter sheds his nice but dim "Harry Potter" image and is really effective as the lead officer bent off exacting his own stye of justice, Ben O'Flynn also works well as his complicit sidekick and there are strong performances from Anthony Mackie, Algee Smith and from John Boyega as the state policeman trying to do his best to tread the very perilous line between law enforcer and African American. It shies not from presenting us with a ghastly human face for the spontaneous and plausible attitudes of superiority and disdain held by the polices and depicts with some menace how their captives are terrified and humiliated by the people they ought to heave been able to trust - and that extends to the "slutty" two white girls too. It's really one ensemble effort, the direction is taut and at time the whole thing just has a relentlessness that does make you wonder (I am not an American) how the hell this could ever have happened in a land that purported to be civilised and free (in 1967). Not an easy watch, but the events in Detroit 50-odd years ago still resonate with issues of policing and racism just a potently now, as when this is set.

An important story to tell no doubt, but as a film it's a disappointment in my opinion.
Of course I cared for the characters from the first second due to the obvious subject matter, but that's as far as I ever got. It's a long 143 minutes, with one scene in particularly lasting an age without really doing much; except the final act of it. A film needs to do more, if this was a documentary - even a docudrama - then fair enough but it isn't.
It also wastes a pretty top notch cast. John Boyega is in this, portraying Melvin Dismukes. The amount of times he's just there standing around doing nothing is frustrating, he has a few moments where he gets to act and you can see his phenomenal talent - especially one time where you see the effect of events on Melvin - but that's about it. A waste.
Similar can be said for Anthony Mackie, star of one of my favourite films in 'The Adjustment Bureau'. He plays such a minor role, you cast someone like Mackie you gotta use him more surely?
Will Poulter gets most of the screen time. He's good I guess, not sure we need to see quite as much of him as we do - given his character is an open/shut case. Elsewhere, you have other familiar faces like Tyler James Williams (shoutout Noah) and John Krasinski.
I don't intend to crap on this film. It's clearly well made, has great intentions and relays a notable story. I'm just disappointed with the end product, I judge films as films and 'Detroit' is rather underwhelming.

All things considered, Carpenter's absolute peak. He's always shuffled between 3 modes, often within the same movie: campy, spooky, and horrific. But this is the first time he didn't shatter the test tubes. Don't expect a true-to-the-source Lovecraft movie; this one's pure Carpenter. Watch it with the volume LOUD.
"I think, therefore you are."

Bad!

lifechanging, thank you so much the guy from shrek and the white mask man who kills. You did a good job creating a masterpeice Xx.

Decent watch, might watch again, and can recommend, but more for older audiences.
While "The Cat in the Hat" is a famous children's book, this is clearly just aimed at the folks that might have read it when they were children. That mixes the nostalgia factor with the slew of adult oriented jokes (like infomercials) and the unnecessary addition of mother being single and dating. Kids aren't going to find humor in those situations.
The material that is closer to the original book is much more charming and I imagine that kids will relate to it more as the kids are much more involved, or even the focus of the scenes.
The Cat in the Hat, even though he is the title character, is a support character to the two kids, played by Dakota Fanning and Spencer Breslin, who both do all they can with the writing to balance out Mike Myers as the Cat. I don't feel like Mike Myers understands the idea of being a supporting character: he gives me a very Tom Cruise / Jimmy Fallon vibe where if there was a pause, then would just center himself in the camera and do something to draw attention. "Oh yeah!" is a good example for this movie, a repeated, unnecessary line that doesn't once help the scene let alone the movie.
One would think after Jim Carey's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (2000) there would be a formula for how to adapt Dr. Seuss books (20 pages) to full length feature films, and someone clearly figured it out later in "The Lorax" (2012) and "The Grinch" (2018), so I'm....gonna blame Mike Myers.
Him aside, the movie has a lot of charm to it, and Alec Baldwin manages to work an unnecessary part to at least be a believable antagonist, though the best acting in the world can't make a bad part good.
If you're just really into Dr. Seuss, then give it a watch, but you're not going to miss anything special if you skip it.

I have just watched it and I have no clue as to what it's message was. Just a pointless movie really.

I'm a little split on 'A Perfect World', but one thing that is for certain is that I definitely enjoyed watching it.
The reason that I'm split is because of how it portrays the lead character. I completely get the angle the filmmakers were going for, I'm just not convinced they pull it off. It's fun to watch, but I never once felt a connection to root for Kevin Costner's Butch.
There are many a time where I was just like "Huh?". It shows a number of events that you can tell are supposed to make you connect to Butch, but I just couldn't - he is super unlikeable, like the very first thing we see him do 'on the outside' defines him and the whole film. They could've wrote him in so many different ways, to give him a positive reason for what he does.
Yet, despite that it is entertaining, I cannot deny. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it works as a film for sure, but given it tries (too hard?) to attempt thought-provoking and deeper meaning I think it falls over itself - logically, I couldn't get on board. As a popcorn flick, I'm all in.
P.S. How amusing to see the 'Casper' connection, given the directing/acting Clint Eastwood would later make a cameo in the live-action film almost two years after this was released.

Bit of a disappointment, to be honest.
'Hereafter' spends the majority of the 2hr (or so) run time building up the intrigue, but then proceeds to do hardly anything with it. As the credits rolled, I felt like I wanted more from this 2010 release. The three stories take too long to connect, even if each one is actually quite interesting.
I like the performances of Matt Damon and Cécile de France, while youngsters Frankie and George McLaren do well. Bryce Dallas Howard is also involved, she and Damon have good chemistry - it's not quite Damon and Emily Blunt in the phenomenal 'The Adjustment Bureau', a film that in fact caused a production delay for this film, but they come across nicely together onscreen. I also recognised George Costigan ('Line of Duty') and Mathew Baynton ('You, Me and the Apocalypse').
For how long it takes to connect and how little satisfaction the end product gives, I can't help but feel disappointed with this flick from Clint Eastwood; who worked alongside 'The Crown' creator Peter Morgan, interestingly.

Clint Eastwood has once again proved himself to be a formidable director. The style and structure of storytelling used in Hereafter will not appeal to a large audience, but something tells me he knew this all too well but honestly, didn't care and rightfully so. Because let's face it, he can afford it and it's certainly a privilege he has earned. And with Hereafter, it seems that all Mr. Eastwood wants to do is share a story. A very beautiful one at that.
Hereafter is divided into three story lines, spread over three different countries. We have Matt Damon as a reluctant psychic in the United States, Cécile De France who plays a journalist in France and a young pair of twin brothers (Frankie and George McLaren) in England. All of these peoples' lives are in one way or another affected by different aspects of death, whether that be a near-death experience or the passing of someone very dear. Or, in Damons case, the ability to establish a certain connection with those who are no longer with us. Eastwood has decided on a particularly art house-like approach, which, like I mentioned earlier, will certainly back off a large amount of potential viewers. However, I personally very much appreciate his decision. He has obviously chosen not to make this some big, hyped-up monster movie about all things paranormal. Instead, Hereafter deals with its subject with great integrity and subtlety. Although, despite said subtlety, it features a few moments which are, by contrast, incredibly intense and shocking (in a non-scary way). In fact, I would even go so far as to say it is not for the faint of heart, but I mean that mostly in an emotional sense, rather than a spectacular one. On a side note, I would actually not recommend this film to anyone who has, in any way, shape or form been confronted with the 2004 tsunami, or even the London terrorist attacks. It might be really confronting, so be advised.
I personally think the film's user rating is a bit low, but on the other hand I do somewhat understand why this film has not received the appreciation it deserves. Simply put, not everyone (actually, many people) will not understand it. It is a small story, for a small audience. Also, anyone watching this because they think it's all about Matt Damon will be somewhat deceived. I fully understand why they put his name and picture on the poster, since he is the only big name on the payroll. But this is really not 'his' film, he just plays a part in it. And he does it well, but the rest of the cast actually deserves a great deal of credit, because they are quite simply phenomenal. And I mean *all* of them. Cécile de France is really impressive, she plays her part with great dignity and empathy. She truly carries every scene she's in, and she will definitely do her country proud. Personally, I was most affected (both story- and acting wise) by the 'London segment' of the film. The story of the two young brothers is absolutely heartbreaking, and the McLaren boys do a superb job at translating this onto the screen. Anyone who doesn't at least feel a shudder of emotion when watching their story unfold, well... honestly doesn't have a lot of heart. I refuse to give away any plot points at all, other than what I already have. This is really the kind of story you just need to surrender to in order to really appreciate it. The pacing demands some patience, but if this is your kind of film it really won't be too much trouble and you will be greatly rewarded.
The way the story unfolds (the three-way structure, which doesn't come together until the very end), inevitably evokes comparison to 'Babel', but honestly, that one cost me a far greater deal of effort to sit through than Hereafter. But that is entirely personal of course, and the structure is really the only similarity between the two; the stories are completely different. And I also think Hereafter is actually far more accessible than Babel, despite its subject matter. The stories are told with such tenderness that it didn't actually bother me at all that they were three separate stories which, until the end, had nothing to do with each other. They all intrigued me in their own personal way.
Actually, I could go on and on...
It's been a long time since a film has really touched my heart, but this one has. I've been thinking about what rating I should give it, but honestly, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't give this film a 10. Hereafter is a film of true beauty, a real gem. Which, unfortunately, won't be understood by many people, but who knows... Perhaps someday, its time will come.
_(August 2011)_

Clearly, no the best movie directed by Eastwood.
The performances are quite OK but the story is flat from the beginning to the end.

A shallow, mediocre film that can't be saved by its fleeting moments of humor.
Zookeeper is about a low-confidence man who is looking for love and manages to keep messing things up. You'll be able to guess the plot within just a few minutes. ...and you'll be right, because it's incredibly predictable.
The flick is filled with crass/lowbrow humor and physical comedy that mostly falls flat, but it does have the occasional bright spot that is genuinely funny. Still, it's overshadowed by many more moments where it's just trying too hard, the gag is too stupid, the character is too cringey, and so on. There are multiple characters that are outright annoying and the longer you watch and the more you encounter these characters the more the entire experience just ends up feeling like a chore.
It doesn't offer much for adults, and there is enough lewd humor, cursing, and religious slurs in it that I wouldn't offer it to children either. This one's going in the rejects pile.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Kevin James and Rosario Dawson give a good carry, though they have an excellent range of supporting characters and then Adam Sandler as the voice of most of the animals.
While I would prefer him to lose his mind about the animals talking to him, we instead get a "Do Little" approach where Leslie Bibb and Rosario Dawson fight over a middle aged fat guy without big money.
With a certain suspension of disbelief in place, you can really turn your brain off and enjoy this, and the zoo setting add some fun, if ridiculous situations.

Fun, heartwarming dramedy with Kevin James, Rosario Dawson and… talking animals
RELEASED IN 2011 and directed by Frank Coraci, "Zookeeper" is a dramedy/fantasy/romance starring Kevin James as a (you guessed it) zookeeper in Boston who enlists the aid of the zoo’s animals in his attempt to win the affections of model Stephanie (Leslie Bibb) or, maybe, fellow zoo-worker Kate (Rosario Dawson).
This amusing and heartwarming movie succeeds where “Doctor Dolittle” (1998) barely gets by. It’s also more relevant to adults in light of the romantic shenanigans, albeit still family friendly. Everything hinges on whether or not the movie can pull off the animals as (talking) characters while keeping you invested in the drama. And it does, incredibly. I actually found myself caring about one of the animals in particular. As always, James makes for a likable every-guy protagonist. And Dawson is winsome.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 42 minutes and was shot in Franklin Park Zoo & Boston, Massachusetts, as well as Central Park, Manhattan (for the bike race). WRITERS: Jay Scherick, David Ronn, Kevin James, etc.
GRADE: B+/A-

Despite Oldman's involvement, it lacks all the dark charm of HBO's Citizen X. There is less of a dual examination of both the system of the USSR and Chikatilo, and the film suffers from that.
It's a little less compelling, the situation that unravels seems more incompetent than meddled. And the commentary that is left is more of the "this is what life was like under communism" and less of the "this is how the communist system interfered with the investigation and postponed his arrest"
You can kind of taste the difference between the two, as they are both important, the cops look more incompetent with this version, and that is, I think, doing them a bit of a disservice.
On the other hand, I doubt one would see either criticism if it were made today, so...take what you can get.

**An overly ambitious film, but still an interesting one.**
Honestly, I expected a little more from this movie. I found it on television, just by chance, but I had already heard about it, I'm not sure for what purpose, but I had the impression that it was a very good film. It's not as good as I expected, as it gets a little lost between politics and police mystery, and that ends up compromising the pace.
It all starts with a drama where an MGB agent named Leo Demidov tries to protect his wife after a political prisoner denounces her as his accomplice. The effort pays off, but it's so obvious that he wanted to protect her that his superiors send him to an industrial city on the outskirts of Ukraine. Meanwhile, he will have to tell a friend that his son died in an alleged train accident, but it is clear that the child was murdered. In the new city where he is posted, Leo discovers many more cases of children in the same situation, deducing that there is a murderer killing children along the railway line. The problem is to convince the Soviet police that these crimes are not exclusive to the capitalist world.
The film has good dialogues and the script is very good, but I felt that it is too ambitious and that it ends up not being able to handle it well. The difficulty in reconciling the two subplots (the criminal on the loose and the protagonist's conflict with the fanatical authorities), both equally powerful and relevant, is palpable. There is another plot point that leaves me with a lot of doubts, and that has to do with how Leo's wife changes radically, from someone passive and without relevance in the story to an active and cooperative figure, central to the following events. If this change, on the one hand, made it possible to put her back at the center of events, it also seems to be an inconsistency. The ending isn't bad, but it's inelegant: the atmosphere of tension and suspense gives way to more action, in absolute contrast to what the film had been doing.
The cast features several well-known actors, starting with Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace in the lead roles. None of them were bad, they are both quite confidant and the interpretation they bring us is solid and well concepted. Joel Kinnaman is a convincing villain and plays the political fanatic well. Vincent Cassel and Gary Oldman are well-known veterans and pretty safe bets for the most prominent secondary characters. The only negative point I have to make (and I think it's not the actors' fault, but director Espinosa's) is that terrible pseudo-Russian accent that the actors tried to emulate, and which should never have been done. If the director wanted that kind of accent so badly, then he should have looked for Russian or Eastern actors who could speak in English.
Technically, the film relies heavily on cinematography and camera work. They tried as hard as they could for these elements to convey a variety of sensations to the public, from the biting Winter cold to the inhospitable, gray, unfriendly and distrustful atmosphere of Soviet cities during the 1950s. I also really liked the cars, the uniforms, costumes and sets, as there was a good effort at historical reconstruction, in general. The soundtrack does its job, but it doesn't stay in the ear.