spiderbat-863-656723

I like action movies with fights, even when they escalate into something unbelievable, and, in spite of being a retired physicist, do not complain when the basic laws of nature are violated (very often, the conservation of momentum, as when Ip Man, with the touch of a finger, sends back a charging moron whose weight Is two times that of the hero). That said, the fights in JW3 are so long that they might become boring, while the plot is almost inexistent. Nevertheless, I might have enjoyed this movie, but for the ubiquitous show of sadistic cruelty. I know that this is just a question of personal taste, but sadism, sexploitation and bad taste (in this case, just the first item) make any movie completely unpalatable.

First of all, I must confess that I have a bias for Russian movies, because I spent considerable time in learning (at least, to some extent) the language and now being able to understand a movie in Russian gives me a special satisfaction. This war story reminds me of the US classic "The Bridges at Toko Ri": Brubaker and Soshnikov are both motivated by their sense of duty to take part in a war far from homeland, both have wives and families they love. Compared with other recent Russian war movies (e.g., "Tanks", "T34", "Devjataev") the tone is much more realistic, a total or partial happy ending is not foreseeable, but I've found in this movie the pathos of older Russian war movies about the "great patriotic war" (the name they use for WWII) I like so much. All in all: were do we get such men?

Luc Besson has realized many movies based on the same concept: a main hero with - almost - superhuman fighting skills who disposes of a myriad of enemies to achieve her/his goal: let's recall the "Transporter" and "Taken" franchises.

This movie is (sort of) a remake of a previous one by the same author, "Nikita" (1990), but in "Anna" the killing (and sex) galore prevails on the other components. Anna, the main character, mutates from a drug-addicted misfit into an ultimate killing machine in just a scene change, while the training of Nikita takes some part of the original movie and allows the spectator to have somehow a look into the humanity of the protagonist and of her teachers. In general, characters in "Anna" are void of any depth, like the targets that appear abruptly in the shooting ranges of police academies, and most of them end up the same way. I think I must make a partial exception for the KGB operative played by Helen Mirren, but maybe it's just the depth of the actress that shines through in her character. Coming to the central point, the killings, the fighting scenes go far, far beyond any credibility, well into the realm of preposterousness: they might be acceptable in a parody, but, alas, the movie takes itself very seriously. I got bored before the end and finished watching the movie with half an eye, while doing something else. On the plus side, there are a couple of not completely obvious plot twists.

All in all: should you, being eagerly in the mood for a "shoot 'em all" movie, watch "Anna"? I don't know, but I'd say that you should answer this question first: how many heads would you tolerate for the attacking shark of a movie by Asylum?

BTW: as an individual who spent a considerable amount of time and energies in learning the Russian language, I'm very annoyed when I see, in the title of a movie or another work that has something to do with Russia, "mirrored" western characters.