Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.

Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.

So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans? 

Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.

Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though. 

As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.

To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
negative
I motsats till mina principer, låt mig först komma fram till en slutsats, eftersom jag just har sett detta stycke av "konst", och fortfarande är under starka intryck. Läsaren ombeds ursäkta mitt starkare ordförråd. Den här filmen är helt hemsk, och jag skulle aldrig bry mig om att skriva ett enda ord om den, om det inte vore för det faktum att "44 Minutes" gjorde mig dödssjuk, vilket sällan händer mig. Det faktum att jag betalade för det får mig inte precis att må bättre, liksom det faktum att filmen förtjänade det höga användarbetyget här. Vad är det för fel på filmen? Den har en moderiktig titel - "44 Minutes". Man tänker först på "15 Minutes", som för övrigt är en mycket bättre film, men ändå dålig i min bok, och de två kan faktiskt jämföras i viss utsträckning. Men som tur skulle ha det, de saker de delar är deras värsta egenskaper. De båda har Mr Oleg Taktarov, som med sin starka ryska accent uppenbarligen uppfyller de folkliga förväntningarna och fördomarna. Hans syfte är att vädja till det kalla krigets sinne. Åh, vi saknar den gamla goda tiden. Jag antyder inte att han är en dålig skådespelare, jag är ännu inte bedöma hans sanna prestation, men han är helt enkelt inte en sann individ här, han är mer som en arketyp. Hur någon fortfarande kan hänge sig åt sådant är helt utom min fattningsförmåga. Vi kan här erkänna modern amerikansk främlingsfientlighet. Poängen i filmen när Taktarov förklarar för sin följeslagare att rumäner inte är tyskar, och att de är i Amerika är verkligen skrattretande. Ska vi anta att den eländiga duons största önskan är att bli "sanna" amerikaner? Sedan har vi mediefrågan. Ja, det verkar som om det mesta vi lär oss kommer från kameror, intervjuer och reportrar. Direktören borde ha fått oss att känna rytmen av de förmodade 44 minuterna. Istället tråkar han ut oss med intervjuer genom hela filmen som i ett billigt TV-program, som försöker återuppfinna hjulet. I 15 minuter är mediefrågan den centrala. Poängen presenteras på ett sätt som en lärare vänder sig till en trubbig elev, men det förtjänar en separat kommentar, vi fokuserar på 44 Minuter nu. Jag har försökt identifiera syftet med den här filmen. Vad är det? För att ge publiken god tid? För att förhärliga vapen? För att förhärliga polisen? Porträttvåld? Ja, officeren ger bibeln till den omyndige brottslingen. Så den måste främja fred och förståelse när allt kommer omkring? Jag tror inte det, men fråga mig inte. Jag vet bara att jag inte njöt av det här. Michael Madsen. Jag erkänner, jag är ett stort fan. Jag hoppades att han skulle vara en bra punkt, men jag hade fel. Men det är inte hans fel. Som slutnot, att jämföra "eldkraft" med "willpower" i slutet av filmen var en av de värsta repliker jag någonsin hört. För att sammanfatta, på skalan 1-10, ger jag den en ren, oförfalskad 1. Tyckte den här recensionen positivt eller negativt om filmen? ALTERNATIV: - negativ - positiv
In contrast to my principles, let me first come to a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still are under strong impression. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary. This film is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother writing a single word about it, if it weren't for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me terminally ill, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for it does not exactly make me feel better, as does the fact that the film deserved the high user rating here. What's wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One thinks first of all of "15 Minutes", which incidentally is a much better film, but still bad in my book, and the two can actually be compared to some extent. But luckily, the things they share are their worst qualities. They both have Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the mind of the Cold War. Oh, we miss the good old days. I'm not implying that he's a bad actor, I'm not yet assessing his true performance, but he's simply not a true individual here, he's more like an archetype. How someone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognise modern American xenophobia here. The point in the film when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is really laughable. Should we assume that the miserable duo's greatest wish is to become "true" Americans? Then there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that most of the lessons we learn come from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the supposed 44 minutes. Instead, he bores us with interviews throughout the film as in a cheap television show, trying to reinvent the wheel. The point is presented in a way that a teacher turns to a blunt student, but it deserves a separate comment, we focus on 44 Minutes now. I've been trying to identify the purpose of this film. What is it? To give the audience time? To glorify weapons? To glorify the police? Portrait violence? Yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage criminal. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I just know I didn't enjoy this. Michael Madsen. I admit, I'm a big fan. I was hoping he would be a good point, but I was wrong. But it's not his fault. As an endnote, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the film was one of the worst lines I've ever heard. To sum up, on the scale of 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1. Did this review like the film positively or negatively? ALTERNATIVE: - negative - positive
negativ
negative