Well, first about the good: the movie turned out. “Wow effect” from three days is present in full, the film is very beautiful, I would say visually luxurious, almost equal to “Avatar”. Very pleased with the respect for the universe of "Aliens", which, however, is not surprising for one of its creators, the film fits perfectly into the line of films about "Aliens" (with the exception of savory miscarriage of Ostriches). True, alas, as in the prequels of "Star Wars", the techniques of the previous generation turned out to be much more advanced than the generation of the next generation - computers and control systems of "Nostromo" and "Sulako" for technical advancement cannot be compared with their analogues on " Prometheus. Well, yes, this is understandable, excusable, and even praising - if you can remove more beautifully, why stupidly cling to the canons? It was possible for the authors to catch up with the scammers - a couple of times they startled. The soundtrack is beautiful. In general, the film is worth its money and money paid by me for watching. But.
But. If such a film were made by the talentless cobbler Bay - I would simply applaud. More from the usual entertainment movie should not be expected. But it was shot by director Scott, but for the first-class director in the film there are infinitely many jambs. For example…
... a collapsing plot. The original steel base is visible to the naked eye - the Aliens prequel. Which they began to mercilessly ryhtovat and stuff, pushing it under the ecological drama, then under the philosophical parable. And this vinaigrette was not brought to mind - on the biomechanical basis of the original tetralogy, this ecology with philosophy hangs like a saddle with a plow on a cow. And the cow is no longer a cow, and plows badly, and not to milk normally and it’s not realistic to go. There is no iron logic at all that connected, for example, “Aliens” into a single monolith, which looked at one go. The narration stomps and sausage, the motives of the actions of people and nonhumans are often completely incomprehensible and inexplicable, questions like "why does he do it?", "And why did he do it?", "What for?", "What for" can be so arranged that would ... "pour carriages. And it would be fine if these were questions from the category “let the viewer think out by himself” - there is nothing to think out because there is no intelligible information. Just the authors of the film themselves do not know, stupidly did not think through.
... ragged dynamics. The narration periodically brakes on philosophical speculations and visualisms. And extremely primitive and short - so as not to cut off from the screens no-beamers. No, I do not mind, let it be, but if you are philosophizing, then philosophize, please, and do not stand for a second in the pose “that bi, about that bi note” to say something like “you have to believe, faith is eternal and helps everyone "... and continue to cut circles on the walls of the terrible Crank.
... excessive quoting. On the one hand, references to previous films are absolutely necessary, they link films about the universe of “Aliens” in a single chain, but not on the same scale and in such a form! You can not just stupidly retake the original tetralogy with pieces. If in the first part of the detective a killer turns out to be a driver, then the presence of a driver in the second part is already somewhat annoying, and if he turns out to be a murderer too, then you feel a little deceived.
... common secondary. Although this claim, as it were, there is a certain tension. The same “Avatar” is also not a sample of originality, but still it’s not very pleasant when the ears from the new “Something” stick out, then the ears from something else ...
In general, overtake himself 30 years ago, Scott failed. Catch up too. Cinema somewhere on a par with the third part. You can look, you need, and the fans of "Aliens" and just necessarily. But not a masterpiece. And could be.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий