New review: Invulnerable 18.06.2017



I apologize in advance if my perception of a film is at odds with the view that this is not a superhero movie. But that’s the way I perceived and, given that the General background of the painting is a comic book, this view believe it is fair. M. night Shyamalan, using psychological tricks and genetic properties of the main characters of the film created quite a film about the superhero and the villain with the only difference in the more, I believe, the mundane vision of the concept of “super-powers”. The mysticism that surrounds the two main characters comes from attempts to push off from possible diseases in the future is based on the traditional vision of the balance, when all things meet their opposites, striving to captivate the viewer from the normal logical point to logical conclusions. This basic style of M. night Shyamalan, whose mysticism is a kind of logical conclusion traditional data.

I think this film is better than many superhero movies, because the more close to the real ideas about how I could lead a person in the place of David Dunn. Indeed, as it behaved in reality the man who was simply solid as a rock?

Between the history of the characters is a parallel with the comics and that’s what I didn’t like that was leaking some kind of narrow-mindedness of the plot, with its strictly regulated by the concepts of good evil how it’s got to be each other opposite in their essence. I understand that the essence of the film, but I’m not against comics, but specifically this feature I hate.

Almost no one disputes that the ending was unexpected, but be that as it wrote, it was also quite clear, though with his string of questions, which I think came to any who understand, who have seen the movie.

Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and boy Spencer Treat Clark to complain about nothing. All have played great.

8 out of 10



New review: Invulnerable 18.06.2017

Поделиться в соц. сетях

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus
Share to LiveJournal