Beat the first, Daddy

In the heat of unbridled film, we lost sight of the fact that the genre almost disappeared from the screens, which was always considered the most cash and mass: the genre of a cool action movie with a modern hero. After a long break, the fourth “strong nut” with Bruce Willis seems to be removed. But another famous movie series “Deadly Weapon” with chalk Gibson sunk into oblivion. It is all the more notable that on the next Thursday, November 24, two bloody American militants - “justified cruelty” David Kronenberg and Domino Tony Scott are going on our rental. It is noteworthy, however, that both are originally listed in the category of albeit not art house, that is, cinema for completely elected, but art kino. Although they go out in a wide rental. The militant is increasingly suitable for both artistic experiments and copyright statements.

Of course, we, of course, will not dare to put “justified cruelty” on a par with “domino”. In the first case, we are dealing with a really original work, which are all, made by the Canadian skeptic, a researcher of human mutations, a cult David Kronenberg. It is not for nothing that “justified cruelty” - as, however, all the last tapes of Kronenberg - was selected into the competition program of the Cannes Film Festival, where, however, she received nothing, but she earned the highest press marks. (Not all. For example, the film categorically did not like the President of the Film Critician FIPSIES Figure Teacher Andrei Plakhov.)

In the second case, you will find just a very good movie. You can even say that partly made according to art-standards of commercial cinema, but pleasant and not beaten. For example, the innovative characters of the stems are marked in Domino with captions. The installation is sharp and torn - not so much clip as “dogmatic” as the followers of Lars von Trier. And the color of the frame is sultry (the benefit of the action takes place in the “Mexican” landscapes around Los Angeles) and too contrast: strong changes between light and shadow lead to the fact that part of the screen is shameful. Previously, this was considered a technical marriage - any advanced amateur photographer knew that it was impossible to shoot in a bright noon when not to avoid such contrast. Now such a picture is a sign of a truly artistic work.

But more.

"Justified cruelty." The stupidity of our distributors manifested itself in the fact that they changed the name of the film. The phrase “justified cruelty”, for my taste, sounds boring and moralistic. And the film is just that modern people have no morality. At least when they are faced with the need to protect such a primary cell of society as a family. The name "History of cruelty" (Ahistoryofviolence), as the film is called, would seem more incomprehensible to the public, respectively, intriguing.

Returning to the Cannes festival: almost everyone has a case when a certain director addresses the press with a special wish not to give out the plot of his film. So, Lars von Trier asked at one time not to retell the final “dancing in the dark” in the reviews. David Kronenberg went even further: he thanked the press in advance - on the first page of the booklet “justified cruelty” - because she would generally escape any mention of the turns of the plot. I agree: to give out the plot of this film - means not to love either Kronenberg or the audience.

We use bypass tracks. We are talking about the family: husband -crude - a son of 17 years and a little daughter. The idyll from the first frames is such that the soap opera. Something, however, does not fit into the "Domostroevsky" style of the Latin American series. Firstly, the bloody beginning of the film - it, however, turns out to be a dream of one of the characters. Secondly, a super-circuit sexual episode between husband and wife, at the sight of which respectable soap-poperleys will certainly pretend that they fainted. Croenberg met such frank sex only in the scandalous "car accident".

So, you conclude, not everything is so simple. Cronenberg conceals and cooks something.

The steepness begins when two bloody killers, whom we saw in a dream of one of the heroes, suddenly penetrate reality. And they are trying to solve the inhabitants of the diner, which is contained by the main character - dad. He is played by Wiggo Mortensen - Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings. It is in the “justified cruelty” for the first time you really evaluate what a good actor he is. To the amazement and guests of the eatery and even, it seems, his own, dad suddenly wets both maniacs - deftly, also bloodily and suspiciously professionally. Then this begins ...

Kronenberg built a satire - both funny and evil - to human nature. Perhaps the most skeptical in relation to homomo sapiens over many years. Normal people seem to be capable of, according to Kronenberg, to wild acts, and then again they begin to live as if nothing had happened.

The ending of “justified cruelty” is incredibly optimistic: the capa hero (after all that I have to keep silent about not to bring Kronenberg and spoil the impression of the viewer) home! Hooray! Nothing happened! It only happened that the dad was tired, and it is not necessary to disturb him with unnecessary questions - you need to let him go away, allowing him to calmly dinner.

I laughed strongly, having read in one of our economic cinemas, that “justified cruelty”, perhaps the most moralistic film of Kronenberg: he de says two important values ​​- conscience and family. In reality, it’s not at all like that. “Justified cruelty” is a continuation of the cornbergovskiy cornbergly, not repeated studies of different human mutations. Having paid tribute to the mutations with physical (“fly”), Kronenberg has recently been more and more passionate about mental: sexual (“M. Butterfly”), sexual (“car accident”), cybernetic (“eczisteni”), and Freudian (“spider”). Now he decided to investigate the mutation of human morality, which he sees the reason for the fact that modern man has very much developed that basic primitive instinct that Paul Vaulu once studied with the help of Sharon Stone, - the instinct of survival.

Separately, I note that fighting scenes were fantastically shot in the film. There are few of them, they are short - but I have not seen this for a long time any Hong Kong.

"Domino." Being a militant more standard, Domino is nevertheless also a rare example of a film with an unusual plot. Tony Scott - a director with a reputation as a strong pro - was carried away by the story of the real domino Harvey (I, I believe, is invented). She died in June of this year at home in Los Angeles at the age of 35, and at 20, out of boredom, she threw the profession of the model and went to work as a “head hunter”-in the company of male rods with pistols and pump-shock rifles, which are looking for and passing the police who escaped from justice.

Kira Knightley is amazingly good, slightly reminiscent of Domino Nikita (to whom, but it sincerely seems to me one of the rare beauties and good actresses of today's screen). It's nice that Mickey Rourke has seriously returned to the cinema - he is one of the "hunters". I won’t be surprised if he, like Agassi in tennis, rushing at one time almost in the fifth hundred world rating, will again be able to enter the number of superstars of the first row.

Meanwhile, like Kronenberg, Tony Scott uses a militant genre for a conceptual statement. Unlike Kronenberg, just moralistic. This is a statement (it can be formulated as follows: “Any person with a gun is bad and immoral”) would seem banal if Tony Scott did not poison him. According to his film, the worsening of all those people with a gun who use weapons to solve big problems - at least commercial, even state ones. In this sense, he puts an equal sign between the mafia and the FBI. But “bustle hunters”, although scumbags, are much better: they do not work for money, but from excitement, in their midst there are at least there are concepts, sorry, brotherhood and mutual assistance.

Do not want conceptuality and morality - do not. See Domino just as an action movie. Rarely now they shoot beautifully on the screen. And Kira Knightley in the finale know how to shoot! So only Istvost shot in the final of the "non -obscene".