MT-15087 Reviews

The Whole Truth (2016)

OK as a TV episode. Not so much as a feature

[19 August 2016]

Just the other day I stumbled upon an animated short called "Sebastian's Voodoo". It runs about 4 minutes with closing credits and was made by a sophomore student on a shoestring budget. It has it all – story, characters, visuals, drama, climax, finale, meaning. Now you need to hear it again – it's under 5 minutes.

I'd have thought that the stuff that runs one and a half hour, features Keanu Reeves and Renee Zellweger (I … guess) and cost at least several millions should be able to offer at least something along those lines, shouldn't it? I mean if it is not by design in the same category as, say, "Mechanic: Resurrection" – that is not a piece of totally senseless action entertainment which does not even pretend for a second to be anything more than that? Unfortunately, it's not the case here.

It's obviously not a movie one would want to write a dissertation about, so let's be brief. Good news first. The story is semi-OK with a couple of more or less legitimate twists. After two decades of preparation Keanu Reeves delivers something that remotely qualifies as acting (at any rate his lawyer here is perceptibly less wooden than in "The Devil's Advocate" and the remnants of his trademark acting quality are somewhat justified in the context of the plot). That's it.

Now, would it be good enough? It's not that anybody asked for my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned – not quite. What would be the justification of a multi-million project with major stars if at the end of the day the outcome feels, as one reviewer pointed out, like a TV show episode? Except for paychecks for all parties involved?

The truth is that the movie feebly hints at some points but they are dropped halfway and ultimately not really made. My guess would be that it might have been different in the script but changed during the production – it would explain why one of the main characters suddenly becomes kind of 'unnecessary'. It is as if the movie was afraid of getting too poignant and chooses to play it safely.

The direction is equally mediocre and all about 'been there done that' (repeatedly) thing. It does not even hint at any original vision. No, that's not true. At some point you can have a glimpse of Renee Zellweger's (still guessing … but definitely not a body double's) naked posterior. Despite the fact that it's not as ample as it used to be, this revelation is commendable. And it's never been done before. But again – that's it.

Then again, since patent mediocrity has always been the main specialty of mainstream Hollywood, this all is not surprising. What is, however, is why people like Keanu settle for it time and time and time again. With his ability as a performer mentioned he is hardly in a position to be picky. However, with his financial ability he certainly is.

Why not to produce meaningful mid-/low-budget projects and finance them with his own money to retain total creative control while minding their commercial potential as well? Reportedly Keanu tried something of the sort recently. But, apparently due to a half-measures approach implemented, wound up with "Exposed" after "Daughter of God" was gang raped by Lionsgate executives.

Well, Neo, everybody falls the first time. Get a decent crew of inventive dudes who actually have something to say and try again. Stir this morass a little. Who, if not you? Because even "Exposed" has more meaning, real drama as well as artistic and, ultimately, overall value to it than "The Whole Truth".

Misconduct (2016)

Misconduct Massively Misfires

[5 February 2016]

The genre of the movie is described as a drama/thriller. In fact, the only thrilling thing about it would be having to decide what's more dubious here – the writing or directing. Or what's less interesting about the lead – his face or his acting. The only remotely redeeming quality of this movie in terms of its performances is the participation of those two gentlemen you can see on the poster in the background. They at least somewhat deliver – a minor feat given the material that they're given. So, obviously, the material itself has none. And the only real mystery you may need to unravel is why three men responsible for a handful of mediocre horrors conspired this time to produce a horribly mediocre thriller which literally contains nothing. If you want a comparatively decent drama involving corrupt corporations and providing some social commentary - watch "The Constant Gardener". If you want a stylish "corporate thriller" subterraneanly reflecting upon human nature - watch "Demonlover". This one is hardly any good for anything. However, there is still something really dramatic about it – it's realizing that this kind of stuff is all Hollywood has to offer to the great ones like Pacino today.

Exposed (III) (2016)

The studio failed – this is NOT a horrible movie

[24 January 2016]

However, the marketing certainly is. It's not as exclusively idiotic as in the case of Cormac McCarthy/Ridley Scott's very formidable "The Counselor" (what you should know about that picture is that it's not a plot-driven thriller about trafficking, but an existential drama so gloomy that "Se7en" seems to be offering more hope in comparison … and now look at its poster), but the poster and the plot summary for this one produced by the studio and featured on IMDb are obviously misleading as well (even after the studio did its totally uncalled for re-editing of the material) and create false expectations. Hence – disappointed viewers and the abysmal rating.

So what else "Exposed" is NOT:

• This is not a movie starring Keanu Reeves. In fact, Reeves' character plays a very insignificant role in the developments. But unlike Emily Blunt's virtually 'non-existing' lead in "Sicario" that ultimately ruins that otherwise interesting and well-directed flick, it doesn't ruin anything here, because this movie more or less manages to get through the studio's irrational indeed interference and somehow remains centered around a female protagonist played by Ana de Armas. And Reeves should have been credited in the same way as Mira Sorvino is – "and Keanu Reeves".

• This movie is not an action thriller either. Police work and corrupt cops are present but seen from a different angle.

What is "Exposed" then? Despite all the carnage caused by the studio's decisions, it's still a legit psychological drama with half of its dialogue in Spanish, which structure resembles those another Spanish speaker Borges found fascinating in many Chesterton's stories – we have two explanations: a supernatural one and a realistic one. While all the story lines are not perfectly pulled together – again, probably thanks to precious alterations introduced by the "suits" – overall, the writing is competent. So is the directing. The acting could have been better at times, but it doesn't affect the movie in any critical way. All in all, it's a quite decent one – slightly above average.

If I'm not mistaken, Terry Gilliam said that after a nuclear disaster there will be two surviving species: cockroaches and studio executives. Well … long live Cockroaches!

The Very Same Munchhausen (1980 TV Movie)

Ordinary Miracle

[31 January 2015]

Although not too many people outside the land that produced this picture have even heard of it, it may be one of the best TV movies ever made, plain and simple. And, probably, the best one delivered by the great tandem of Russian film-makers Grigori Gorin (writing) and Mark Zakharov (directing) – with "The House That Swift Built" being the close second.

The script is nothing less than brilliant. The general concept is original enough as we happen to be presented not with fairly funny narratives invented by the legendary Baron Munchausen, but rather with the fairly dramatic story of the Baron himself. Which is complemented by an interesting take on the title character that turns him from a nobleman and famous raconteur into a noble dissenter and romantic rebel. But the development and dialogue still bring it to another level. The latter is virtually entirely comprised of quotable witticisms. And the whole construction explores serious problems like freedom and conformity, personal happiness and personal integrity, the hypocrisy of a society and the way it tends to treat those who choose to challenge its norms and confines. Since it's a TV movie featuring a cast of superb stage performers, the realization is overtly theatrical. But it is so in the best way possible.

Given that, as far as the dialogue is concerned, all phrases and inflections matter, an excellent translation is of the essence here. But if you manage to get one you won't regret a bit of your effort while enjoying every minute of this piece. This movie is very clever and funny but also filled with some wonderfully moving poetry. So it's likely to make you both cry with laughter and smile through the tears.

Escape Plan (2013)

Back to the Resistance

[31 January 2014]

While this movie is nowhere in the vicinity of "Rocky", let alone "The Terminator" - and obviously was not designed to even try to be - it still feels like a pretty solid one. Which, after a long string of previous disappointments from its two leads should probably be considered a pleasant surprise. It actually has some plot, dialogue, performances and meaning. It has also one definitely refreshing aspect to it.

Throughout the 80s most of Schwarzenegger's characters/movies were either covertly ("Commando", "Predator") or overtly ("The Running Man", "Total Recall") anti-System. Then the guy embarked upon a series of dubious collaborations with it both on- and off-screen: from serving as a Governor to starring in all sorts of propaganda crap like "Collateral Damage". In this one, having fortified himself with some Nietzsche, he goes back to the Resistance with a vengeance. Which, considering that the current mild model of our Matrix-esque social arrangement seems to be on the way to a hardcore Orwellian version, is good news. Let's hope that Dutch will listen to his old buddy Blain, transform into Emil Rottmayer in real life as well, leave the Rebloodicans faction of the Democons gang and join Ron Paul's Revolution.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

Oblivion To Remember

[15 April 2013]

For something, which obviously belongs in the department of mainstream entertainment, this movie is actually quite dense with meaning and even possesses some real drama. Though it begins as just another superficial sci-fi flick, soon enough a series of twists, which are there not to simply add to your amusement but to tell a story that is meant to convey some significant message, transforms the initially ordinary plot completely. And also, if not fully justifies, but at least thoroughly explains apparently perfunctory performances.

The rest is up to you to see and understand - the movie is, in fact, pretty rich in metaphor. And despite its post-apocalyptic futuristic setting it's not an escapist fairy-tale. It's about us today. It's about people who've accepted the mode of existence when you do "not ask too many questions". When you simply "do not want to know". When your "job is to not remember". And you choose, as one prominent character from another, even more poignant, sci-fi feature put it, "living your lives oblivious". But it can be termed differently - you choose sleepwalking into an abyss. So to really appreciate this movie do not expect just a piece of pop-corn entertainment.

Unfortunately, the movie has some totally unnecessary supplement at the very end that seriously diminishes the dramatic effect and dents the way in which it expresses its overall message. But if you get out of the theater right after the first phrases of the main character's afterword you'll indeed have enough to think and feel about long after. The questions this movie poses are serious: do we live to forget, to refuse to know or to look for the truth? And when we ourselves are on the brink of becoming just a memory - do we want to make it fighting or crawling?

The Others (2001)

An Ingenious Adaptation of James' Novella - If That's What It Was

[11 April 2011]

Since the comparison between this movie and M. Night Shyamalan's "ghost" piece is inevitable because both of them are based on pretty much the same idea allow me to start with saying that while the latter works out perfectly (its predictable but still formidable resolution included), the second implementation of this idea provided by Alejandro Amenabar seems to be a little less effective.

In the case of "The Sixth Sense" the viewer - even if equipped with five basic ones only - can start to suspect something at the very beginning of the movie. Somewhere halfway into it it's simply impossible not to know what's going on there. But due to the inventive way in which the feature is structured nothing happens to be ruined through it. And despite our possible foreknowledge both the first and second part of the movie can be described as equally fascinating.

"The Others" is another story. Here it's also possible to figure out what's going on somewhere in the middle of the feature - it must be admitted not without a little help of your being acquainted with "The Sixth Sense". But - albeit the movie is very well made in terms of its atmosphere - nothing particularly holds your attention neither prior to nor after that moment. Besides, if Night Shyamalan manages to implement the original idea in question with great consistency and without a single instance of cheating, Amenabar's flick does not seem to be completely impeccable in this respect - for example, I might be missing something but should we presume that before the curtains happen to be altogether removed the "real" family never tried to open them? Nevertheless I believe "The Others" can be considered a minor masterpiece. All you need to do to let this miraculous transformation happen to the movie is to perceive it not as a somewhat epigonic attempt at exploiting an idea which has already been properly utilized once, but rather as a quite ingenious screen adaptation of Henry James' "The Turn Of The Screw". Indeed, parallels between the two pieces would be multiple.

In the case of James' magnificent novella what we have on the surface is a "ghost" story about two children being haunted by apparitions of servants and their governess who is in a desperate attempt to protect them. However, according to more recent interpretations - which seem much more plausible than earlier readings - the story that had really been written by James and skilfully hidden behind the first one is a horrid drama of children betrayed by their protectress - not out of malicious impulse, but on simple and unfortunate grounds of being mad. Which would be the core structure and meaning of "The Others" exactly.

If we go into details we find numerous other correspondences: two children (but in James' story one of them survives the ordeal), a totally isolated abode where events take place, apparitions of servants who supposedly pose a threat, occasional attempts of the children to rebel against imposed "protection". Even the reason for madness is probably one and the same in both cases - the passionate love turned by circumstances into an impossible one. But the main thing is connection between the structural frames of these pieces with exactly the same pattern transpiring in both of them: we follow the story of children haunted by ghosts and come to a shocking revelation - there is no ghosts, but the tragedy is deeper than we could ever imagine. So if this movie was, in fact, inspired by James' work, what we have here is a perfectly accurate rendition of the original idea into the language of film. And, probably, one of the most brilliant screen adaptations of a literary work among all ever undertaken.

Last Days (2005)

"A Rock And a Hard Place..."

[7 June 2006]

The first fifteen minutes of Gus Van Sant's "Last Days" strike you as the last days of the movies as the auteur - who not for the first time embarks upon such merciless cinematic techniques - offers shots, which look like ones made with the equipment borrowed at a nearby pawn-shop. In a while you realize that it wouldn't be the only instance of the director repeating himself - those Rashomon-like time loops emerge - the device had already been used in "Elephant", and in that case its purpose was somewhat more clear. You begin to doubt whether it's worth it. Make an effort. It is.

The deeper you plunge into a sombre atmosphere of the movie, the more hypnotic it feels, and the more congruous the techniques chosen by the director to approach his subject appear. Unlike "Elephant" - where the same austere ways work out well only at the beginning of the movie, but acquire a staggering quality later into it, and, in the end, leave the audience bereft not only of a conventional resolution, but also any sensible substitute. In this case nothing stumbles halfway and a dramatic tension increases unabatedly.

Despite the seemingly rambling narrative - or rather a virtual absence of it - this Van Sant's "meditation on the theme of death" is, in fact, pretty strictly structured. In a certain way following the tracks of Travis Bickle from Scorsese's "Taxi Driver" we will be following Blake (an exceptional minimalist performance delivered by Michael Pitt, who also provided a song which is to become the main contribution to the most powerful scene of the movie) through all the circles of total isolation. The outer circle is represented by various accidental characters like a kind of salesman who expatiates in a benign manner on massive opportunities of a new repair station while looking at someone who is actually dying in front of him. The inner one - by an array of "friends" who do not seem to find it appropriate to interfere in this quiet passing away unless something really urgent arises - for instance, they occur to be in need for a jet heater.

But what we encounter here is not Bickle's alienation from the world which still exists out there and, however ugly it might seem, inspires his final Bloody Mass which can be interpreted as nothing less than a breakthrough to it at all costs. It's something else. It's the total, utter and complete loneliness of a man forgotten on another planet at the moment when he finds out that his home one has just exploded. And as Blake turns to his last refuge - music, we begin to anticipate the imminent ending as something that might be not an end, but an exit.

The main character is muttering almost all his lines in the way that makes it almost impossible to comprehend him. This device applied throughout the film is reminiscent of the design of that celebrated scene from M. Antonioni's "The Adventure" where the characters are roaming the deserted island calling out to each other, but unable to establish any real communication. So it's been here. Until this scene comes along.

The one that justifies all the exertion the movie might have required from you to get to this point. One room, one man, one guitar - and a heartrending account of the desperate search for a ray of hope in the world where there is none left. With its inevitable ultimate conclusion - if you are not to give up your quest, you'll have to look outside. Which he does - a naked man on the naked earth. On a Saturday evening eight hundred years ago in Umbria St. Francis of Assisi died in the same way.

Although this movie, produced by a modern film-maker, is touched with an almost Bressonian austerity it's worth your efforts. If to name just one thing, you're going to be rewarded with the scene which, along with that gazing through the dance studio's windows from P. Almodovar's "Talk to Her", for instance, contributes to the collection of genuinely dramatic moments provided by contemporary cinema.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

A Con Hid Vice, Det

[1 June 2006]

It was utterly predictable an outcome - a much anticipated screen adaptation of Dan Brown's indeed horribly written, but quite entertaining (and even somewhat thought-provoking - quite a feat for the area of contemporary mainstream entertainment) in terms of its plot, and certainly humanistic in terms of its message, "The Da Vinci Code" turning out to be a disappointment. What has become a surprise is the extent of it. Actually, it was an announcement of Ron Howard to become a director on this project that instantly turned a cheerful anticipation into a concerned apprehension. Mr. Howard is commonly known as a conscientious workman, but nothing more than that. While in this case some real creativity was needed. Well, judging by the result, even the director's not quite imaginative craftsmanship seems to have been seriously exaggerated.

The way in which the movie is made clearly suggests that its creators assumed that their potential audiences were acquainted with the book. I might be mistaken, but it's immaterial - a good portion of those who wound up as the viewers of this one, if not the overwhelming majority of them, WERE familiar with it. So I wonder if it ever occurred to the creators that they were actually supposed to come up with some idea in order to overcome this unfortunate circumstance? And if you come to think about it there was only one approach that gave a chance to stay faithful to the book and, at the same time, provide people with something which wouldn't reduce their experience to a dubiously entertaining undertaking of getting themselves acquainted with a weather forecast for yesterday.

To illustrate this point allow me a brief deviation. For any sentient viewer the ending of M. Night Shyamalan's minor "ghost" masterpiece is more than predictable - after all the answer is being delivered in plain words somewhere in the middle of the movie. Nonetheless, the finale with its "revelation" works out superbly and is indeed quite overwhelming. It's just that it's rather strikes you with its dramatic than surprising effect. That was exactly the way to go on this occasion.

The similar shift of emphasis - enigmas giving way to drama - might have saved this adaptation. Through creating a dense atmosphere, arranging meticulously all elements in every scene, introducing, if necessary, sensible alterations to the original developments, and engaging some real acting it was possible to try to shift accents from mysteries to the dramatic meaning behind their resolutions, characters' feelings about them and gradually transpiring behind each of those events the general message. Thus it was possible to repeat the effect as it occurred in the process of reading of the novel - despite the fact that, strictly speaking, none of those revelations would be something actually new to the audience. Consider, for instance, Mr. Shyamalan's ingenious use of a chain of subplots for deviating our attention in a very organic way from contemplating the obvious truth and creating the perfect emotional landscape which in turn is then used to sweep us away in the end. So it can be said that such an accomplishment was well within the capacities of a mortal. But, obviously, far beyond the abilities of two creative "corpses" who teamed up here to write and direct.

And , unfortunately, what we are offered instead as a result of their joint efforts is just an idiotic recountal of the novel's well-known events in pictures - obviously meant for those who failed to develop their reading skills. And properly speaking those pictures suck. The performers exchange their lines in a hasty manner which would be more appropriate for a first reading rehearsal. As to Mr. Howard's directing skills in general manifested here they simply seem laughable up to a certain point in the movie. After that point it ain't even funny anymore. Though the director has certainly managed to provide one single contribution to all the original mysteries - when for some profoundly enigmatic reasons decided to make Jurgen Prochnow with his "a working class hero is something to be" looks pose as a refined French aristocrat.

It also should be mentioned that Mr. Brown had probably made a mistake when he rejected the initial proposition to turn his book into a TV production. Had the material been properly rendered it might simply have exceeded all the reasonable time limitations applicable to a theatrical release. As it is the movie does the same thing - but in terms of its quality. And now what can be said? - A CON HID VICE, DET.

Sin City (2005)

"A Darkness Is Here in the Nursery"

[7 September 2005]

There were feeble screen adaptations of comic books. There were quite ingenious ones, like, for example, Tim Burton's "Batman" movies. "Sin City" sticks somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, with its nose definitely towards the option number one. There is a refrain in the movie declaring: "In this City you can find anything". Actually, it' s quite opposite to the truth - not a lot, in fact. And the main weakness here seems to be an obviously incongruous combination of the movie's sheer gruesomeness and its utterly superficial attitude.

The latter manifests itself in almost every element. The plot situations are insignificant. Had the characters happened to have at least some dimension they could have been considered cardboard. As it is they are transparent. While justified in a way - since the material derives from comic books, all this shallowness could have made a fit for another Rodriguez's endeavour in the area of entertainment for kids or some half-comedy like his "From Dusk Till Dawn". But it's hardly appropriate in the movie where every next minute someone dies having previously vomited a gallon of his own blood.

Some performances do not improve the situation either. Nancy Callahan, who is quite convincing in her incarnation as a child, instantly ceases to be so as soon as is transformed into her grown-up Jessica Alba version. Apparently, it's a full-time job to conjure a spark of something genuine out of this cute but totally inexpressive and utterly phoney, especially as it comes to anything sex related, starlet. It partially saves the day for her, but hardly for the viewer, that she happens to be accompanied most of the time by another unabashed paragon of creativity and invention - soon to become an Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters Mr. Willis. Who is customarily delivering his two and a half expressions of a badass with a heart of gold we have already seen on a zillion previous occasions. Other performances are pretty decent, including Mickey Rourke as Marv, who through a few pounds of make-up delivers another brick into his welcome comeback, and Elijah Wood as a sinister unblinking man-eater. But the actors are unable to drag the movie by themselves.

So, as a result, all this Rodriguez/Miller collaboration's infernal playground with all its pretentious "darkness" happens to be suspended in the void - in the wake of its unfortunate players. But if the creators didn't forget to supplement their performers with a CGI background, they have completely missed all the opportunities to add any substance to their work in all other respects. And in the end the viewer is left with just a series of visual attractions the degree of attractiveness of which is sometimes controversial.

In general, I would just say that to stick to such a superficial approach while making a movie for adult audiences is not good enough - of course, if we are not in the realm of pure visuals meant exclusively for such audiences, but it wasn't the case here, was it? Oh, yeah, talking about dirty pretty things - special thanks to Carla Gugino. Her nonchalant moonlit walk brings the only definite touch of allurement to this not highly compelling construction. I saw another review on this title summarized: "An overrated movie, nobody will remember in a year". In a year? Dude, you're being way too generous. Of course, apart from its inevitable sequel.

Collateral (2004)

Not That Bad ... But Not for Mann

[6 April 2005]

The nature of criteria Michael Mann uses to choose scripts for his projects in general seems to be just as enigmatic as the essence of things which might have taken Jamie Foxx's character 12 years to be pulled together on this particular occasion. After "Heat", one of the finest and most influential features of the 90s, he came up with "The Insider" and "Ali". Both these movies probably fail to reach the same level of grace and emotional profundity as their predecessor but still are based on sensible scripts and deliver meaningful messages.

But now we bump into "Collateral" - not that bad a movie in a way, but one with shortcomings that can hardly be fully redeemed by its strengths. And as we plunge into it we have to embark upon this roller-coaster ride - from indisputable "ups" of Mann's directing to unavoidable "downs" of this time overtly poorly developed screenplay. The only thing that works out steadily throughout the movie are performances. Michael Mann always surprises his audience with what he can extract from his cast. "Collateral" also happens to possess several unforgettable portraits - Javier Bardem as a crime baron for one. But it's naturally Cruise and Foxx who do the main job. Cruise, whose character is almost totally deprived of any emotional dimension or development save a strong bias to declaiming quasi-existentialist passages and seriously reconsidered since being a sports agent attitude to jazz, manages to emanate menace as perfect as his icy looks even in general shots from behind. Foxx is also quite adequate as an ordinary man under extraordinary pressure - to tell the truth, not a huge surprise after "Any Given Sunday".

Unfortunately, all the rest doesn't seem to be maintained at the same level. And the least satisfactory scene comes at the end of the movie. It's not just that in terms of its setup and resolution this scene is practically a duplicate of the final shoot-out from some fairly recent flick with two major stars involved, it also contains blunders like, for instance, firing an entire clip at close range and hitting nothing but air - probably one more divine intervention? or another incarnation of agent Smith, maybe?

So, despite this movie can certainly be considered a pretty solid action entertainment marked with a touch of neo-noir and some experiments in cinematography, it's still very far from a kind of revelation that could be, should be and, as a matter of fact, has been expected from Michael Mann. Who can only be encouraged to resume applying his indubitable proficiency to ideas and scripts that actually deserve it. Otherwise, one day you are old and what? Did not happen?

Cast Away (2000)

An Unconventional Piece of Mainstream

[29 March 2004]

Though this movie belongs to the department of Hollywood mainstream, it can boast a couple of devices that distinguish it from productions, normally spawned by this machine, and, at the same time, taking into account these devices' quite daring nature, render its tremendous box-office a bit puzzling.

The first one of them is, of course, that uncompromising with no breaks, regular dialogue or music island sequence which shows a quite memorable encounter of the hero with the "benign indifference of the world". This part of the film, especially the detailed description of the first days on the island highlighting how important our every step or action can - and, probably, should - be, reminds me of 1956 Robert Bresson's "A Man Escaped" that contains a meticulous report of an escape endeavour undertaken by a French prisoner during WW2.

In his usual merciless manner not only Bresson manages in his movie to render extremely important the main character's every single action and movement. He practically makes the audience "fulfill" them along with him, and thus creates tension beyond conceivable providing us with an actually "physical" notion of what it takes here to succeed (F.Truffaut called Bresson's movie one of the most accomplished attempts at creating a real time out of an imaginary one).

Similarly, Mr. Zemeckis in his one doesn't take the path of least resistance, and instead of just delivering a sympathetic character and emotionally involving situations makes us literally spend some time being encircled by the beautifully ruthless ocean and conjuring a spark out of damp wood (by the way, the French lieutenant's whispered recounting of his actions somehow corresponds to the dialogues with "Wilson").

And when the "man escaped" there comes the second device - which, I guess, has surprised, if not disappointed, those viewers who had been expecting a more conventional structure. And which evokes another allusion - this time to the similar structural device used in A. Hitchcock "Vertigo". In his masterpiece Hitchcock suddenly reveals the secret somewhat forty minutes before the actual ending and thus elegantly shifts the emphasis. He eliminates the mystery as a driving engine, but significantly amplifies for the viewer the dramatic effect of the heroine's final metamorphosis.

Here the escape from the island doesn't triumphantly round off the film either, but opens the third and, in a sense, most dramatic part of it - in which the protagonist goes back to the world that didn't get frozen when he had left it. And this part leads to the resolution that might seem not entirely satisfactory to some viewers, but, in fact, makes a perfect ending for this movie. Which does not probably avoid all clichés of conventional mainstream but, at least, gives it a good try. And, at the end of the day, manages to provide the audience with a fresh, in some ways bold, and in many ways touching contents.