Once and no more

Rating: 3/10 (4 May 2006)

I haven't read the novel and seeing rating of this movie climb up this high, I suppose this was actually necessary to enjoy the movie. Because I didn't at all. I presume this is the novel which contains what the movie misses and what is necessary to make it worthy of watching - an absorbing glue of story. Without it the movie is falling apart to its non-existent matter, empty meaning, paltry visual effects, tasteless soundtrack and overly bombastic acting. It is not convincing in any way. Is this supposed to be a persuasive storyline? Take a 17th century way of solving government issues into nearest future and play a game everybody supposed to believe in? Having pompous behavior of characters as a way to ensure that? Not smart. Is this the way to depict a totalitarian future? With a couple of TV shows and a really big chancellor face on conference screen? Ridiculous. It might as well be a way to save on budget. See 1984 for example of totalitarianism. Is this a way to entertain the public? Showing historical buildings of London being demolished to a tune of 1812 overture? Well, i must admit, it wasn't that bad from rhythm standpoint, but it's still not more than vulgar. See Night Watch for example of a city demolishing. Not smart, not entertaining, not thrilling. Still, having a couple of episodes which raise arduous moral questions, actually not even incidental to main story. Pity. But why I'm so indignant? There are lots of worse movies and better ones, and I'm not a fan, again, I didn't read the novel. Because its Wachowsky brothers who did the screenplay and James McTeigue who was assistant director on Matrix. Because these guys set their own personal and industry benchmark in storytelling, visual effects and overall depth of movie. Because they known for making impressive movies without prerequisite reading. Because they had set their benchmark so high, it's a shame they make so shallow movie later on.