Reviews on movie Tears of April (3)

I think this time I’m going to overestimate the movie a little bit and put as much as eight points on the basis that there aren’t a lot of quality films about the war that happened a hundred years ago and the war in general. Here, not just the embodiment of some conceived plot, but the adaptation of the novel by the Finnish writer Liina Landera. Unfortunately, I have not been able to read the novel yet, but the film seemed very convincing to me.
There is no beauty and romanticism of war, everything is shown with extreme cruelty and rudeness, all the characters carry the spirit of their time – this is a very important component of historical films that reflect the morality of another society. But at the same time, in all this filth and fear of war, in this inhuman time, the thread of love is weaved, which is the core of this film. The topic is sensitive by right - not everyone can reveal it, having sustained the balance, this is possible only for talented people who are able to keep the rhythm of the narrative without excessive sugar. Fortunately, all my fears have been dispelled, as it raises the main question: “Why are we making sacrifices?” Each hero has his own motives, his own understanding and his own perception of this war. The three sides are Miina Malin, the brave woman of the red side captured, Aaro Haryula, the white officer accompanying her, and Emil Hallenberg, the poet and judge who delivers the verdict. Their interweaving of fates throughout the movie reveals their characters in a new way, we see their evolution, their weaknesses. For cinema, it is important how much the camera and actors manage to convey the spirit of the characters. It will be difficult for me to forget the amazing play of Pihla Viitala (Miina Malin), since her image absorbed everything - hatred, love, compassion, pride, courage, honor, and the experience for what is happening on the screen touches not only pampered female souls, but strong male hearts.
8 out of 10

He and she are the power of this movie. He and she are not impersonal war, but kissed. He and she are burnt in souls, but opposing. He and she are the light of this world. He and she...

What was the idea of the director when he preferred these two violins of his orchestra? Clean as a tear. Bet on them. An accident? Or the degree of contrast to the environment? She is a Red Guard soldier and she is a white soldier. Different worldview poles, but personal unity embedded by nature. People of the same life mission. Close in spirit, feeling of life, its feeling. I thought so. And there's a bunch of animals nearby. Two legs and two hands. Living by instincts, aggravated by military actions, is the year 1918. And if so, then in war as in war, all means are good, and everything is allowed. Alcohol is an additional doping of disinhibition, a drug-hallucinogen - shooting so shooting, violence so violence, morality and the law trampled...
Young ranger Aaro Haryula accompanies and escorts the arrested Miina Malin to the military field court for an objective sentence. What happens next? What storyline did the director lay down with his plan? Alas, all this has already happened somewhere and with someone - "Forty-First" (1956) - a film directed by Grigory Chukhray. Red versus white. He and she. A convoy. The island. Loneliness together. Human nature in nature. And of course... but you can’t go on. For those of you who haven’t seen it, it’s a good movie. Well, who has seen - compare-click "pictures"... As for “Tears of April”, the finale “above the roof” (as they say) – in the spirit of today’s European morality with its Tolerance and Tolerance – the artistic delights of the Highest Organism. Highest. No further comment. Otherwise, I will “fall” into solid pee-pee-pee (this is when the obscene vocabulary of television is silenced by squeak). We enjoy the warmth of Finnish.

Yeah, I forgot to tell you. Take the children away, or God forbid... then for the rest of your life you will swear your “uncouthness” and euro opuses.
It all started out so beautifully.

6 out of 10

I don't know, guys, why would my acquaintances be so positive about this movie and so insistent on asking me to see it? In my opinion, if you compare with “Cuckoo”, to which “Tears of April” are the closest in spirit – the film is significantly weaker, although they reveal, by and large, the same topic [but this time – monstrously primitive and with a solid share of abomination].
The main weakness is the terrible stereotype of the heroes of almost mushroom-eating times. Here's a brave guerrilla. She's good. Raped. That's a bad captor. He's also good because he's young and handsome and they'll have love. That's cattle. Three grand. Bad. Boat. Alone. Drown. How, who, where, why – no information. And the dialogue pours out of them ... at first glance just boring, and if you look, you remember the style of bad patriotic films of perestroika times.
And well, if the picture told something interesting about Finland of the past century, so no – also zero. It is absolutely certain that the identical can be filmed on the Åland Islands, in Hollywood, in the suburban forest. No originality or originality. The creators clearly twisted in some other direction, instead of the plot, contenting themselves with not very authentic pieces of military operations and shots of the type “the muzzle of a fly, close-up, in motion.”
Therefore, the rating of imdb seems much more true, well, does not gravitate the movie to the eight.
6 out of 10