indraya Reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Quest of accomplishing the impossible continues

[9/10 · 9 February 2003]

A reader amazed by J.R.R.Tolkien's world might say that 'The Fellowship of the Ring' makes justice to the book. Not all such readers would agree, but in my opinion, 'The Two Towers' makes something more. The first film had just to visualize the story from the first book with minor changes. The second one had to give the story a new and clearly defined structure. This task was almost perfectly accomplished. Also, it is a delight to see TT being different from FOTR. The first film often reminds of a colourful fairy-tale. The second one is more like a historical movie. Realism of one of the main storylines makes such movies like 'Gladiator' and 'Braveheart' look a bit like a fantasy. Of course, there are amiable fairy-tale like moments, but character development and action are primary elements. These are perfectly balanced. There is more character development than in the book, and the performance from the actors adds a lot to it. Aragorn is perfectly depicted as firmly stepping towards his kingship. There are all aspects of Frodo's psychology, what makes me to abandon all fears about the ability of the third film to express the darkest ones. Gollum, based on astonishing performance, is alive. His big eyes make him similar to Frodo, a nice visualization of a not too explicit writer's idea. The action, especially the battle, is as capturing as 'The Matrix', while avoiding trivialization of death, so common in the movies.

The film is impressive on all levels. There is a digital army, which does not look as such, and there are lots of subtle details like a flag of Rohan landing under the feet of Aragorn's horse. Visual effects? There were two or three. Everything else was REAL. The cinematography is breath - catching. The score is amazing. A certain theme is enough to remind a viewer of a location or event without naming them.

What could one expect after FOTR and TT? The 'Return of the King' most likely will complete the seemingly impossible quest of moviemaking. 'The Lord of the Rings' as a whole will certainly be one of the best films ever made. For many people, at least.

Minority Report (2002)

movie permits minority reports in its interpretation

[7/10 · 7 October 2002]

This is a good movie for several reasons. It has got good acting. It has got really special look, merging best visual aspects of modern and older films. But the main reason is the story. (SPOILERS are possible). Many people think it is quite stereotyped one, with unnecessary extension and unsuitable happy-end. In my opinion, the story is not that simple. There is a minority report on 'Minority Report'.

The plot has many unexpected turns in the first part of the movie. That part could have been a quite good film by itself. (And it could have had two alternative emotionally strong endings). The scene of jailing does not disrupt the continuity of the plot. Yet, as the story develops, one can feel something is different. Obstacles are overcome easier. The psychological aspects of the events are not analysed in such depth as before. Finally, one can see that the end is not simply good – it is illogically good. But was not all done this way intentionally? It is very easy to see a typical thing if one expects to see it. But if one tried and recalled the scene from which everything went to that end, one could hear a short phrase allowing completely different interpretation. Do we need a character to walk through a looking glass or to disappear after putting on some queer ring to understand that story switches from one reality to another? There could easily have been such a turn in 'Minority Report', but the evidence is not absolutely compelling. There is a bifurcation point with two equally probable paths leading from it. That is exactly the thing I like about this movie best. It analyses problems, but it does not provide made-up answers. It leaves one in the state of indeterminacy – the wisest way to end a story questioning the significance of fate and free will.

The Matrix (1999)

film is a masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 August 2002]

Words like 'classics' and 'masterpiece' might be more convenient alongside titles like 'Casablanca', yet they are not incongruous with 'The Matrix'. Sure the ideas used in the film were not new in science fiction (and philosophy). Of course, there were lots of plots about ordinary people getting familiar with troublesome job of saving the world. There were audio-visually astounding movies with inventive fights and action sequences. There were self - ironical movies. Maybe even cinematographic inventions of 'The Matrix' were not completely new. But perhaps never all the elements were fused together with such a skill to produce so impressive entity. Every detail of the film, while beautiful on its own, is integral part of the whole, occupying exact place and performing exact function. Generally, I'm offended by violence on screen. But in this film, all the brutal scenes are there for a reason, and they are delivered in aesthetical way. Dialogue might seem unrealistic, yet it is perfect as a part of the whole. It is amazing how quite sophisticated ideas are translated into simple, yet metaphorical language. People don't say 'as far as we have materialistic explanation of subjective idealism here...'. They say 'there is no spoon' instead. The acting could be better, but it is not bad. At least, Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving really do act.

Last of all, there are few words on effectiveness of the film in my case. When leaving the cinema after the 3rd viewing a month ago (yes, one can watch 'The Matrix' in a packed theatre 3 years after its release!) I thought that, at last, the experience was more like of having fun rather than being hypnotized ... just to find myself on the wrong trolleybus going to the wrong end of the city afterwards. Guess that people might watch this movie even 50 years later – forgetting its age, feeling its power.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions

[10/10 · 29 August 2002]

This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. As the title implies, there is an archetypal journey, a motive repeated for thousands of years. This motive was always used not only to depict a trip in space and time, and beyond, but also had rich philosophic meaning. The film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions. It is not just an odyssey of a person; it is an odyssey of our species. The film is great by itself, yet, in my case, the impression from it will always be mingled with that from the book. I've read it at the age of 10, really not thinking about problems like 'what is the relationship between evolution of humankind and development of human morality'. But the impression was great enough to make me fall for entire genre of science fiction.

The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Film is worth the book it is based on

[9/10 · 19 August 2002]

That's not the best film I've seen. (The best is 'Stalker' by A. Tarkovsky). I'd give FOTR 9 or 8, if Tolkien meant nothing to me. But being amazed by his books can't suffice to rate this film 10. There are more reasons. I've always believed the books could only be made into slow, subtle films with accent on acting, not effects, preferentially by Russians. So I was afraid to see some sort of 'Xena', knowing that FOTR was an effect-packed action film. But the only wish after the first viewing was to have a ten-minute break and to watch the 2nd part ... and then the 3rd one (cliff-hanger ending fulfilled its purpose). Amazing cinematography, music, quite natural-looking special effects, good acting, and that's not all. There's extraordinary attention to accurate detail everywhere, from costumes to Elvish. That makes possible multiple viewing with new discoveries. Treatment of the story is really good. Alterations help to visualize some points. Excluding something shows knowledge of the limits of action film (or we might have had Jar Jar Tom). Expanding the role of Arwen isn't just an attempt to attract more audience with a love story or to please women (I'd be pleased only by a film not worse than 'The Matrix', where a woman would be the main hero). Arwen's storyline is very important in respect to the symmetry of symbolical layer of the plot, although not as explicatively told as Frodo's. A battle 3000 years ago and episode in Mt Doom aren't just a pretext to show special effects - they are crucial to the plot. The structure of books itself is based on mythology. A novel should have an unpredictable ending. The end of a myth might be clear from the beginning. LOTR tricks reader into thinking it's a novel, although it is more like a myth from that point of view. (SPOILER?) Simple algorithm applied to those old events would show one the culmination of the story (END). Hence FOTR is really worth the book it is based on. However, the book is subtler, more poetic, conveys more ideas. It's nice lines in the film are taken from the book or written in the same style. By the way, the language in the books is amazing. It was the first thing I fell in love with after reading them. Never thought English could be so interesting, rich, expressive, and able to convey so subtle shades of emotion! But sure there was an advertising mistake. FOTR should be marked as 'Part 1' demonstrably, because not everybody knows that's not all. The 2nd part might be even better, and the 3rd one should rock the world!