This week, a film dedicated to the tragedy at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was released on screens. What to expect from the film “Chernobyl,” whether it is worth going to the cinema and why you will need new glasses after watching, read in our fresh film review.
Surely many will begin to compare the film by Danila Kozlovsky with the eponymous series from HBO. Still, between them, the difference is in the tone of the narrative and the acting characters.
If the series was almost a complex documentary retelling of events from the point of view of all those who were somehow affected by this disaster, then the full-length Russian film is focused only on the liquidators and their duty. The film does not try to find out who is responsible for what happened. It shows how terrible the struggle with the exploding reactor was in the first hours and how terrible the price of inaction could be.
Danila Kozlovsky here acts as a director, producer, and performer of the main role. In the past, he had the same experience with the film “Coach,” which was received by the public without much enthusiasm and said, “maybe it was not worth it to spray like this.” Perhaps he should have concentrated on one thing this time?
No one doubts his acting abilities, Kozlovsky knows how to give out strong roles, but this time in the role of director, alas, he still could not follow the entire team of the film, and some went into the woods, who on firewood. Worthy of praise is all the actors, from whom, apparently, the eye did not take off and were forced to work every penny. Oksana Akinshina, who played the role of a friend of the main character’s heart, is also traditionally good, and it is difficult to reproach her for inconclusiveness. Many can be praised for the performance of the roles, but the realism of the characters (which are fictional here) still leaves much to be desired.
Who you will definitely remember in bad words is… Operator. If the film has lost its presentability and beauty, it is because of the person with the camera, making the viewer feel completely short-sighted. The film literally turns into visual torture, as Ksenia Sereda (this name appears in the credits as a cameraman) all the time strives to rest the camera close to the faces of the actors, then turns on the approach in the most dynamic scenes and forgets about stabilization in the scenes quite static. The only exceptions are a couple of worthy moments: the moment of the reactor explosion and the flights over the burning and extinguished power plant. Otherwise, the film rocks your eyes so that after the cinema it is quite possible to go to an appointment with an optometrist.
If we talk about the positive aspects of the picture, we should mention the composer Oleg Karpachev, whose music emphasized both the tragedy of the situation and the touching. Such compositions would sound appropriate even in some “Interstellar,” so they are good. Good here is also decorators who worked just for glory and realistically showed us Pripyat, which has not become a ghost town.
As a result, we have a confused salad of good actors playing not particularly prescribed characters, quality music, wildly unpleasant camerawork, and scenery made on conscience. Should I go to watch the movies? The question, we believe, is rhetorical.