Films that have received an approving characteristic of the "classic cinema" from the public over the decades really have their own special atmosphere and, as a rule, develop themes that have been, are and will be relevant. So, the screen version of one of the pages of Agatha Christie’s immortal art has turned into a frequenter of various kinds of ratings and tops for almost fifty years, especially in conjunction with the sub-genre of judicial drama. Although in the 1950s color cinema was no longer something outlandish, the "Witness of the Prosecution" is remembered largely due to the traditional black and white palette, or rather to one shade.
What made Witness for the Prosecution so popular and expressive. In fact, a whole combination of factors, including the literary original, the cast, socially relevant topic. Although the feeling of cinema magic does not arise, and the film cannot be called exciting, it really absorbs, to a certain extent, two hours of viewing. The audience spoiled by modern cinema can simply pass by, in view of prejudices, contrived moral obsolescence. In fact, the "Witness of the Prosecution" laid a lot of those elements that we still see in court dramas and detective stories, based on a kind of intellectual challenge. While watching every now and then in my head there are associations with what he had already seen, of course, in favor of the 1957 film.
As for the plot itself, then from the height of what has already been seen in the genre (I confess, it is not quite an objective argument), there is no all-consuming intrigue that would shower bright emotions with a cold shower. Much of the time we spend in the courtroom, depressive and gloomy, where the jury will decide the fate of the accused in the murder of an elderly widow. Interestingly, the twelve jurors here are given exclusively a secondary role, and the attention of the viewer is paid precisely to the confrontation between the Defense and the Prosecution. For me personally, Marlene Dietrich was not the brightest performer, the benefit of which is difficult not to mention, as well as her appearance in a respectable 50-year-old woman.
About this film I was told only good things. Friends who saw the creation of Robert Zemeckis. I put everything off and put it off. Yesterday's calm and quiet evening at home, I was not afraid to include this film.
The first part of the film, where the viewer demonstrates the usual routine of a successful employee of a large company specializing in deliveries, honestly, is boring, I was not so interested in looking at it. Fortunately, the director did not delay this part, but smoothly moved into the main one. There is a plane crash and the hero Chuck Noland is completely alone on a desert island. This is where the most interesting and exciting begins.
You know, I watched the Frank Darabont film Escape from the Shawshank. The prison in the film seemed to me not only an ordinary prison in the most usual sense of the word, but also a prison in which one can be, being even at large. So the island in the Robert Zemeckis film seemed to me an island in which each of us could be. Generally, what to do on the island, if you get there? Kindle the fire, find drinking water, get food, rebuild shelter from the showers, and most importantly - you need to learn how to survive. An island is a place where a stranger, like Chuck Noland, no one and nothing will help. You must try to help yourself. Someone may panic and calmly let himself die from hunger and exhaustion, while someone struggling with clenched teeth will try and stay alive. The same thing happens in our daily life. If a person in society has no connections, cool uncles in the state. institutions, the planned inheritance, then he will have his own island, where he will have to survive and fight for his happiness. I think it is at such moments when it seems that all the soil disappears from under your feet, you can recognize yourself and your own abilities. Excuses like "I can not" or "I can not" are definitely not acceptable here. The hero of Tom Hanks managed, he could, he did not give up. But he was on a real island.
Sometimes it seems, but why fight, why go ahead or go around, if all the same nothing changes? The fact of the matter is that nothing will change. It is important that you change yourself. Just compare Chuck Noland before and after the crash. And listen to his monologue in the last part of the film.
The setting is brilliant. The island of Fiji turned out as picturesque, so distant. The absence of music, as such, has brought its exceptional zest to the plot narration. There is only silence around, the sound of waves, the ocean, showers, some living creatures. After all, unity with nature has not been canceled. This state of oneness with nature is sometimes not enough for people living in large metropolitan areas. Camera work gives a complete sense of the presence of the viewer next to the main character. The work of make-up artists is also impressive. It is also striking that it took a whole year (!!!) for Tom Hanks to lose 20 kilograms and grow his thick hair. Well done Robert Zemeckis, neither appease nor add.
The film is strongly recommended for viewing. Big timekeeping should not scare you. Time spent will be worth it. And after watching it will make you sit quietly and enjoy listening to the music of the waves during the final credits. And for fans of Tom Hanks, this film will become its outlet and one of the favorite films.
This is one of the main objects of hysteria critics in 2014, grabbed a bunch of awards. There are two reasons for this. The first is a terrific soundtrack. I myself, being a chuu-bit musician, often completely dissolved in the rhythm. Another major reason is J. K. Simmons, aka J. John Jameson. In fact - 50% of the film rests on it, and the other half on the music. It is also worth mentioning in some places a good direction. It is noticeable that the director watched Wright's films.
The problem is that in terms of everything else, the film is not particularly surprising, and even bored. All the methods for creating VOLTAGES are standard here: sound attenuation, amplifying noise and so on. But add to that the sometimes shaky camera, meaningless subtitles like "SUMMER", and the budding direction starts to pass.
But even this is not the biggest problem. The problem is the plot. He looks scrappy and unfinished. All other plot lines such as the girl of the protagonist or father who wants to talk to the teacher here look inserted for a tick. The hero throws the girl in order to be great, then calls her and asks her to come, and she already has a boyfriend. God, what an important line. The father speaks with the hero for two minutes, after 10 minutes we suddenly find out that the teachers of the group dismissed him. And again - wow, how it was worked out and important.
In fact, the main line here is the clash of the main character with his teacher, who believes that the musician will not be great if he is encouraged. It's great, but we are essentially being shown the repetition of the same situations, during which you gradually stop understanding the logic of the behavior of the characters. I would describe these situations, but I already sued in a review, so it's not worth it.
Finally, many scenes with the game often look drawn out. This is especially true of the ending. Yes, I am impressed with the game GG, but why is it so pull and pull?
The biggest association I had was the film "Black Swan", but he knew that he could not be carried away by scenes of ballet and ... showed lesbian sex. Khem, well, not only that. I say that there is a lot of narcissism of the game, but very little plot.