Now I will write the text as much as possible without structure, because when the pucan burns, you just want to share the sore. But it is worth saying that Sacha Baron Cohen three years later rolled out on the big screen adventures of another of his alter-ego. And this creation received a rental in our country. But the subject is not the most successful, since the humor of the Baron is not understood by the vast majority of Russians, especially the object of satire - sexual minorities. This movie can easily turn you away from yourself. Next, I will share my impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this work.
A narrative criterion or narrative. Sacha Baron Cohen again shocks the audience. Unlucky presenter of the show about fashion, Austrian gay Bruno, goes for fame in America. Bruno is a native of Vienna and directly associates himself with Hitler, and our attitude towards this historical character is sharply negative and cannot be revised. This time, the line of ridiculing American values and ways of life continues, but this time sexual minorities are the object of satire. Therefore, there are many members in the frame and relations between men, but at the same time even greater destruction of moral values and the line of shocking healthy humanity. Overdose with vulgarity affected the quality of humor. Personally, it seemed to me that there was a vulgarity here for the sake of vulgarity and it greatly eclipsed a good idea. World peace and gum. The problem is that we don’t like turning reality upside down and taking a low-genre work at face value. The rent is cheering up, and fine. But there is no artistic value.
Visual criterion and technical support of the tape. The operator is well equipped with the camera, especially deftly build close-up plans of necessities. Uncle Freud, if he were alive, would rub his hands with a smile. And we are a lost generation, since we are so ready to surrender to the influence of means, forgetting the original purpose. The views, though beautiful, but I do not advise anyone to put these shots on the desktop, it is painful. The music is good, each melody emphasizes the mood and creates an atmosphere of absurdity and confusion. Some songs will be guests of your playlist.
Acting jobs. This time Sasha Baron Cohen duplicated Vasily Dakhnenko, a lot of Austrian accent does not prevent to perceive his voice in this character. This role was not easy for him, there were deals with conscience. Cohen himself was well transformed and turned out to be a completely different person, different in psychophysics from Borat. The second plan wasn't particularly interesting. A lot of cameos - Sting, Bono, Snoop Dogg, all came by and made a good ending.
As a conclusion. I do not recommend acquaintance, since it is difficult to prepare for the perception of this particular film. Here you are looking for at least some advantages, and the mood for viewing depends on whether you will find dignity in the tape or not. Not every viewer will understand that. All health, good and good movie.
Deeply underrated film by genius Sacha Baron Cohen
The other day I had the chance to see another masterpiece by Sacha Baron Cohen. I was thrown into a frenzy by the rating on Kinopoisk and I realized that I can no longer be silent.
This masterpiece of cinema touches on a large number of important topics: social stratification, show business, self-control and love (which eventually wins in the arena).
In addition to a deep philosophical concept, the film is replete with luxurious couture outfits, professional dances and songs, as well as members.
But these are all conventions, let’s get to the point, why watch this film, other than to amuse your inner and destroy the external aesthetic?
The film teaches healthy relationships, conflict resolution, the ability to appreciate those who love you and defend your position, even if the whole world is against you. In addition, Bruno demonstrates that you can find a common language with anyone (but in the end, you need to find a common language with someone who loves you, of course) and overcome any adversity that fell on the shoulders of someone who makes his way through the thorns to the stars. Even if you have to give an iPod or a Macbook for it.
I especially recommend watching this movie for couples (the film works great as a test of compatibility and sanity of your partner), but if you are single, then I advise you to watch this film too, because it is full of perfect and versatile skates. For example, you might say that a bear ate all your clothes. This kick is well suited for both singles and those who have quarreled in the process of relationship and need to reconcile. Is that genius? Don't know. But I liked it.
In summary, I would like to emphasize that Bruno is a film about accepting yourself and that happiness is closer than it seems. You don’t have to be Hitler to be happy, but you can always try.
A delightful journey across America to make heterosexual men feel clearly awkward in the presence of a blue foreigner wearing a net-shirt.
The genre of comedy has several facets and each of them is good in its own way. Some comedians prefer to be on stage and play classic humorous stories for their audience, almost without flirting with the audience. Others, on the contrary, try to perform mainly in clubs, where the line between the speaker and the audience is erased to the maximum. Often in such cases, any random person can be in the epicenter of the performance and he will get just unforgettable emotions. Subsequently, many of the comedians, acting both on the theater stage and in the club, try to try their hand at cinema, where the responsibility is not as great as during live appearances in front of the audience, since on the set there is always the opportunity to reshoot an unsuccessful take and at the same time hide certain emotions from those who should not have seen it. As you can see, it is cinema that often connects comedians of various directions and partly averages their talents for the sake of mass. Many famous artists, whether Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy, were ready to take this step, but the British talent Sacha Baron Cohen decided to go a slightly different way. In his work, he decided that he should unite all the existing comedy trends and create a special, evoking precedent that will bring the genre to a completely new level of development. And he actually succeeded.
Since his youth, Cohen has never felt too shy before performing. Even if he was overcome by some complexes, he struggled with them with public comedy sketches, and the sharper they were, the better Cohen felt, literally destroying the germs of restraint inside his consciousness. Continuing to gain popularity, the promising comedian managed to make his way to British television in one of the programs, and then personally appeared before the audience in a solo show & #39; The Ali G' Show, which was Cohen’s first serious step towards uniting a variety of humorous branches. At the same time, the actor acted in a very original way and built his plots as interviews with a variety of people who, until then, had absolutely nothing to suspect about what was happening. In ''Show, Ali G. Cohen experimented, experienced a variety of comedy techniques, used good moments and skillful staged shots. And just here he came up with three of his cult heroes, namely Ali G, Borat Sagdiev and Bruno Gehard. The first attempt to bring such extraordinary guys to the big screen, namely “Ali G in Parliament” & #39, was relatively quiet, although it gained some success. But ' Borat' has become a real box office phenomenon and is known as a comedy that does not know what decency is and why you need to restrain yourself. This film for many years became a true business card of Sacha Baron Cohen, and later he got the opportunity to make a third film based on the characters ' The Ali G' Show. And as it is not difficult to guess, we are talking about Bruno, who received his solo story in the format of a full meter.
Directly the plot of the film introduces us to Bruno Gehard (Cohen himself), a columnist of modern fashion trends. Bruno has a sense of style and sophistication, but he has a number of shortcomings that have not served him well. First, Bruno belongs to the category of non-traditional sexual minorities, secondly, he is capable of antics that will not bring him anything good, and thirdly, he is obsessed with the desire to truly become famous. Bruno has special problems with the latter, because despite his status in the fashion world, he has not yet achieved worldwide fame. But everything changes at the moment when Bruno makes an absolutely unimaginable antics at Milan Fashion Week and he is shamefully kicked out of the room, putting his former career derailed. And yet Bruno has no intention of giving up. Taking for the company of his assistant Lutz (Gustaph Hammersten), the hero goes with him to America to become a real celebrity. But in the new land of Bruno with his eccentric behavior, no one is in a hurry to accept with outstretched hands. nevertheless, Bruno does not give up and tries himself in the genre of interviewer, tries to shoot a sharp erotic video and even hopes to reconcile Arabs with Jews. Enthusiasm of the hero can only be envied, but it remains to be hoped that he will be able to find his true happiness and understand what is most important in life.
As in the case of 'Borat', in the work on 'Bruno' again crossed the creative paths of Sacha Baron Cohen and director Larry Charles. Both creators hold approximately the same precepts of comedy and are only happy when the level of absurdity and general intolerance easily bypasses other works that the public considers offensive. Without changing the general canons of half-documentary humor, partly filmed by a hidden camera, Cohen and Charles go to the streets of America to properly laugh at those who are ready to interview, and sometimes it turns out really funny, hilarious antics. makeup specialists have worked great on the appearance of Cohen and it does not recognize Borat Sagdiev, who after the previous film knew the face of almost all Americans. This time, Sacha Baron Cohen appeared before us in the form of a bright blonde, dressed in tight clothes. There is nothing in common between Borat and Bruno at all, and Cohen’s habits show us all the classic stereotypes about homosexuals, no matter how caricatured they are. At times, Cohen even took risks when, under the guise of Bruno, he clinged to people who did not accept such behavior at all, and it was actually fun to watch. Not without 'Bruno' and Cohen's favorite theme of racial and national conflict. So he again properly laughed at the age-old confrontation between Jews and Arabs, but in view of the fact that he himself has roots in the Jewish community and has already shown himself in all its glory in ' Borat', this time he did not receive particularly fierce criticism in his direction.
In his explorations of America with Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen met the famous politician Ron Paul, who had absolutely no idea what was happening. Cohen also tried to cling to Harrison Ford in one of the most provocative scenes of the film, but this communication was not particularly long. Also in 'Bruno' there were other celebrities who later agreed that the footage with them were placed in the film, or simply did not show their dissatisfaction. Of course, in the same ' Borat' there were many more provocative, funny jokes, but ' Bruno' not very inferior to him. So if you want, you can safely spend time with this comedy.
A delightful journey through America with the goal of making heterosexual men feel clearly awkward in the presence of a blue foreigner in a net-t-shirt
Scandalous American comedian Sacha Baron Cohen can cause audiences completely different feelings, which, in principle, and calculated his work. He never tried to please the audience, often pouring smelly sludge on that scoundrel and at the same time hinting that all these impurities are the result of human life. The audience should not be comfortable on his films and programs - he cuts the truth to the uterus, completely uncovered and often so exaggerated that it is impossible not to pay attention. The degree of vulgarity in Cohen’s paintings is simply off the scale, and sometimes it seems that he literally enjoys all those shocking revelations, giving one pearl after another. But if you think about it, this attitude to form is not only a desire to play on outrage for the sake of populizing your own creativity, but also the intention to pay attention to this or that problem by ridiculing all kinds of human prejudices, phobias and stereotypes. And you know, he's very good at it. Yes, not everyone can withstand everything that happens on the screen, but sometimes it is useful to look from the outside not only at yourself, but also at the whole situation.
Bruno is one of the images of Cohen, who migrated from his popular TV show ' Ali G' to the big screens. The film follows an Austrian fashion columnist who is fired and blacklisted across Europe after he disrupted Milan Fashion Week. Bruno is gay, who probably carries all the stereotypes that can be collected about people of gay orientation. He dresses in everything bright and shiny, speaks deliberately in a manner, walks gait from the hip and constantly pesters men. And suddenly, having lost his job, money and popularity, our hero decides to fly overseas and become a big Hollywood star! I don't think so. Arriving in America, Bruno faces endless homophobia, whether in life or in the film industry. And now the guy will have to work very hard to find the chip that will shoot and make him a star! To do this, he will have to go through crazy adventures in the third world, meet all sorts of strange fanatics, experience the full power of human intolerance and at the same time try to remain himself.
The main theme of the film is the attitude towards people of non-traditional orientation in America. Yes, this is now we see how Hollywood should not be in almost every high-profile project necessarily shows same-sex relationships, not to mention a lot of festival and arthouse projects, some of which receive the same ' Oscars & #39; the main prizes. In the last decade, it turned out to be a little worse. Cohen’s approach to this issue is very specific. He is not trying to convince conservative citizens that all their thoughts about gays are stereotypical and incorrect, on the contrary, he ridicules their fears and prejudices. And the traditionalists respond to their aggression with even greater outrage, pretending that they do not understand what so embarrasses the guardians of traditional values? No, if you close your eyes to a certain overkill with vulgarity, which still compromises the same gays, because surely not all of them are, and throw it all at the fact that the author intends to banter, then this satire looks very impressive.
On the other hand, we are now beginning to see what excessive play with tolerance leads to. Many directors for the sake of hype begin to shove gays into their projects, without thinking twice, but does the film need it? Or even a cartoon. No, if it fits harmoniously into the plot, then fine, but if it looks like something superfluous and unnecessary? Should I? After all, many films were made before, the heroes of which were homosexuals. I am against all intolerance and aggression. I have never understood any homophobic or different haters of anyone or even anything, but to go from one extreme to the other is, in my subjective opinion, no hood. Everything has to be in moderation. And there is nothing strange in the fact that reading the dialogue of Jerry Maguire at the audition, being crooked and maneuvering like a port prostitute, you will be puzzled by all sorts of agents, producers and directors. Here I may object, they say, and what, a mannered person can not be an artist? Why can't he? Yes, but not as Jerry Maguire. And if you want to, and you are an actor by nature, please reincarnate! After all, the world of cinema has known and knows many actors with a non-traditional orientation, who played lovers even better than straight artists. And the curves will be appropriate where they are appropriate, no more.
The tape evokes conflicting feelings. On one side of the scales, albeit sleek, but still in some places very subtle satire, and on the other - weak cinematography, if I may say so. The film is similar at the same time to a campaign video - however, it is not always clear in which direction, since there is a lot of compromising on those for whom they agitate - and at the same time to a collection of plots from the Cohen show & #39; Ali G'. Which, in principle, is not surprising, because, as already written above, the character of Bruno migrated from there. It doesn't feel like you've seen a big feature film. As for humor, though it carries certain thoughts and messages, but in general its toilet beginning, well, very protruding, leaving a rotten aftertaste. A lot of overkill. I don’t know, at least for subtle natures, no matter what orientation, it will be uncomfortable to look in places. Cohen himself, in my opinion, is almost always the same. A kind of eccentric, constantly conducting experiments on his characters, God forbid, you never know what he will throw out in the next episode. And already at some point you get so used to it that at the next revelation you no longer hold your hand to your mouth. Yes, a contradictory personality, but it is worth paying tribute, in all this of his 'shit' it is brewed organically.
P.S. Sometimes subtle, sometimes to nausea gola, sometimes funny satire on the topic of intolerance to gay people in America. Or maybe just a flamboyant comedian's desire to make heterosexual men in their country feel awkward at the sight of a blue foreigner wearing a net-shirt. After all, it seems that initially, though unofficially, this film project was called. Eh, you can expect anything from Cohen - hardly anyone will be surprised.
6 out of 10
A well-designed, well-executed political humour that includes such slippery themes as gays, blacks, modern art and juvenile justice. Fearless movie, fun and a little more provocative than just a hamstring. According to the filmmaker, police were called 91 times. Those who want to see more are lucky. There are a whole hour of deleted/alternative scenes!
Sacha Baron Cohen is so talented! However, it’s quick to call this whole parade of stalking thrash as top aerobatics in the field of satire, because we have not yet got the world peace that we all want.
I love Sasha Baron Cohen.
This is an excellent comedian who knows how to expose the most vile and unsightly facets of the personality of even the most seemingly “decent” people. I really liked "Borat", "Dictator" and "Ali G in Parliament".
In all these films there was a lot of fecal-genital humor and obscene language, but behind them there was a sense - a mockery of the hypocritical in its "civilization" society of England and America. Yes, politically incorrect, yes, tough and uncompromising, but always honest, angry and hilariously funny. And the "Dictator" in some places issued a first-rate political satire on the "exceptional nation" and its desire to "bring democracy" where they are not asked to go.
With that in mind, I decided to watch the film Bruno, the final part of the Ali G trilogy.
And I have to say, Cohen really disappointed me this time.
This time, the main character is Austrian gay Bruno, the host of the fashion show. Since the film is built on technology "Borat", the plot here is conditional, and is only an excuse to bring together the cuts of sketches showing the interaction of Cohen in the image of Bruno with various real people, including Harrison Ford (two-second scene with him is one of the funniest in the film) and Senator Ron Paul. The geography of filming has expanded: now, in addition to Europe and America, Cohen has rustled in Africa and even in Israel, among real radical Arab and Jewish groups.
It would seem that it turned out the same as Borat, only more concentrated and with several other accents in ridicule. But why was it that I was only able to watch the movie a second time and threw it in the last third? There are several reasons.
First, humor. I knew who Cohen was and what his style was. I was ready for vulgarity, mat and vulgarity, and had nothing against it. But... was it really necessary to show such naturalistic scenes of homosexual intercourse and, sorry, “dancing a singing penis”? Excuse me, what am I supposed to laugh at? My complaint with Cohen and this film is not that it is vulgar, but that this vulgarity is completely unmotivated. Therefore, here, unlike his previous creations, it is not funny, but disgusting and disgusting.
Second, a message. Of course, you can say that this is a “dumb filmmaker to beat.” But other paintings by Cohen and Shaw Ali G carried more than "hahaha, he showed dick." In the same film, except for scabies, mat, homosexual humor and shocking there is nothing. If “Ali G” was mocking the social hierarchy of British society, “Borat” was a sizzling walk on political correctness, tolerance and racism, and “Dictator” left no stone unturned from Western democracy, here Cohen, I think, failed to find a basis for the banter. Everything looks clumsy and incoherent - a banter against homophobes and LGBT, conservatives and pop stars, African Americans and residents of the American outback. Even an attempt to make fun of the Arab-Jewish conflict and the celebrity mania of having adopted children from other countries looks tortured and unnatural. The film looks like an incoherent set of sketches, which, in fact, is.
In summary, I think Bruno was a very unfortunate film. It is weak both as a satire and as a humorous work. Sasha, I love you, but almost every creator has mistakes, and unfortunately, this is yours.
For a few funny moments, good jokes (they are here, albeit in a very small number) and just out of respect for the creator and performer of the main role of the film,
4 out of 10
I love stalking. I love outrage. It is clear that having such a passion, I will try to watch movies with Cohen. And, you know, I don’t want to watch them.
Sacha Baron Cohen's doing shit. But I want to point out an important detail: he is very talented. He is not afraid to banter everything around, is not afraid of experiments and is not afraid to get used to the role, even if at first glance unremarkable. Oh, you know, a rough journalist from Kazakhstan. The dictator of a totalitarian state, Charlie Chaplin of our time. Yes, you think, a stylist of non-traditional orientation, not many of them! But no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. 92 times to call the police because Sanya just decided to create another picture.
When I first went to see my British-Jewish namesake (which was The Dictator), I asked my brother, ‘Look, have you seen The Dictator?’ How is it? To which he immediately replied, “Sacha Baron Cohen!” Now I know what he meant.
Cohen's scripts really have their own style. If you see such items on the screen as a banter that goes beyond the permissible, urogenital humor, many, many frames from which you want to close your eyes with the thoughts “What is happening here?”, but meanwhile – a clearly visible storyline, a little drama and a guaranteed happy ending – do not doubt, this is definitely a sweeping and bold handwriting of Sasha.
It's disgusting. It's immoral. That's gross.
The difference between Bruno and Borat, I think, perfectly illustrates the difference in public attitudes towards racism and homophobia. Many people laughed at Borat because of the ridicule of stereotypes and racism, but for some reason few laugh at almost the same mockery of homophobia. And it's very strange, because both films are technically made the same way, so the problem is only human perception.
Some people think the film is offensive to gays, but, man, it must be the opposite. Here are ridiculed and idiotic Christian “converters straight”, and a huge percentage of homophobes among sports fans, and the stereotype of gays in fashion, etc.
The humor in Bruno is as wonderful as in Borat, mostly based on real human reactions. And it seems that Sacha Baron Cohen was much more dangerous to play the role of Bruno than the role of Borat, which deserves attention. Sacha Baron Cohen, by the way, the role of Bruno played very well, as evidenced by the fact that no one noticed in Bruno the actor, who not so long ago starred in the comedy, which collected $ 260 million.
Considering all the factors, the film is very good and deserves a higher rating.
8 out of 10
First of all, I didn’t just look at this creation. A few years ago, I was “lucky” to come across the movie “Borat”, the same Larry Charles and the same Sacha Baron Cohen. It took me 10-15 minutes to watch the movie and the basket was sent. And recently, while exploring the expanse of the Internet, various kinds of critical articles about these two films and their creators came to the eye. Therefore, in order to be as impartial as possible in the review, I carefully studied the opposite and neutral opinions, and literally forced myself to watch both films from beginning to end, which was very difficult, believe me. For what? I think that the goal was to understand the psychology of both viewers and creators of this work, because films have definitely caused a great resonance around the world.
First, an unusual format. This is not a pseudo-documentary, but rather a pseudo-artist. They filmed them as filmed programs such as "Naked and Funny" or "Run", that is, a team of actors led by the director with a plan of "set-up" filmed scenes with unsuspecting people. And these "set-ups" were not innocent jokes like "Naked and Funny", where after the shooting laughed and actors and those who "caught." And not even like the “Prank”, where the “victim” could easily have a heart attack or knock out the actor. The goal was much more sophisticated - under the guise of a comedy (rather low-grade) allegedly ridiculing the hidden vices of society - to make people look like fools, homophobes, cattle, etc.
To give Baron Cohen credit, he risked not only his health but his life. What is it that only the reworked anthem of the states is performed before the patriots of America (which you will not do for the sake of art, but seriously someone wanted to shoot already).
The analogy to the film (both films, for "Bruno" is a remake of "Boratha") is that if a person portrays a dog that invades a herd of cows, starts throwing at them, barking at them, showing the burrows a naked ass and genitals? Animals are likely to be perplexed, will try to move away from sin, and if it is a herd of bulls, then someone will not withstand and will try to plant this dog with a naked ass on the horn. That’s about the same reaction people had to Cohen-Borat-Bruno – that is quite adequate.
No one argues that man and society as a whole suffer from different complexes, cults, fanaticism, aggression, nationalism, patriotism, lack of education, etc., but strangely enough, most of these “sick” people saw Borat and Bruno even more sick than they. Yes, they were humiliated, they were ashamed for him and for themselves. Some were loyal, some were aggressive, but the thing is that it was provoked, and Cohen himself was left as if nothing had to do with it. Like, how else to show the shameful gut of each, if his reaction is not the most natural?
Now second. Another emphasis was made, which was supposed to catch the life of hidden racists and xenophobes. And then the scale began to capture not only the people, but also the power. Politicians began to rush, inciting ethnic unrest without their sanction is neither legal. But as it turned out, people again did not buy, reacted weakly to the provocations of “artists”. And black PR even brought dividends to Kazakhstan (in the case of Borat). In any case, politicians became suspicious of the activities of the team of “comedians”, and movie stars, who were tried to lure Bruno into the project, blacklisted him.
For this reason, as a psychologist by training, I came to the conclusion that the creators of these paintings suffer from an extreme degree of egocentrism (and perhaps also those phobias of homo, xeno, etc., which they so wanted to “ridicule”). By humiliating others, the egocentric becomes “higher.” He is very annoyed by what he does not want to see in himself. In ordinary people, this defense mechanism is described by Freud and is called projection. Interestingly, this word acquires in the context of a visual work the literal meaning of "projection on the screen." In contrast to the fact that my discussion of the authors of the film instead of the film itself may be based on a personal subjective perception of the picture, I am afraid that from the point of view of cinema, “cinema”, which is created with the help of shocking, and as a result for the outrage of the public, has no artistic value. In a word, PR, which has an extremely unpleasant smell. No matter how hard I tried, I found no other meaning. With the exception of those who might like The Green Elephant, I can recommend this movie to a narrow circle of specialists – psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists – as an “interesting case”. For others, don’t spoil your karma.
Despite the fact that the film in some way is a comedy, shot quite flat and went. In some ways, this is a harmful film that shows gay people from the most disadvantageous side. Watching Bruno may think that they all also effeminately behave and shock the audience with actions that cause shock. But this is not true and a distortion of the truth.
Bruno can be seen as a negative example of how neither gay nor straight people should behave. This is a rather loose character, devoid of any decency, which personally caused me dislike. It is destructive to plant in the minds of people this kind of image of a homosexual. Yes, it is a comedy, but taking such a serious topic and playing it so badly is a failure. That's why the film turned out second-rate.
The negative main character with manneristic manners, radically different from the typical gay, no manifestations of love in the film is not shown - solid vulgarity, fornication and perversion. Some things are funny, but that doesn’t change the picture. Such an important problem of modern society has been very unsuccessfully played. The film does not carry any positive idea, so you can evaluate it more or less highly only as a cheap comedy, but not as a serious movie. I don’t think anyone would have thought of that.
To the next creation of Sacha Baron Cohen, the audience and critics reacted ambiguously, and this is still very mildly said. Opinions turned out to be polar: either “this is complete crap, vulgarity, gloom and abomination”, or “a stunning satire, incredibly funny”, few could remain indifferent. It was all the more interesting for me to look at Bruno myself and try to understand what caused such a flurry of emotions. I saw it. Yes, it really went, dancing the male genital organ to the full screen, homosexual coitus and other things shock the unprepared viewer, forcing to turn off the "this filth" and no longer turn on. But what happened besides that made me laugh in my voice and then think. Look in the zombie box, what do you see? Isn't that what Sasha Cohen makes fun of? “A newborn girl raped in the hospital by her own cat, with you Andrey Malakhov!” – is this very different from Bruno? About the episode where the parents of a girl weighing 12 kg, are ready to lose her weight to 8 (!) kg in a week, as long as she was taken to the shooting of the video, knocks out of ruts completely. So this is not just a caustic satire (terribly funny in some moments, it should be noted), but also a film where there is something to think about and there is something to discuss after watching.
The plot is simple and reminiscent of Borat, only this time the main character is the star of Austrian television, a man of unconventional orientation Bruno. For shocking antics, he is fired from his native TV channel, and he goes to America (almost wrote "a Sashai") in order to find there the recognition of fans and the love of his life. As in the previous work, most of the episodes are shot with hidden cameras (and, therefore, from one take!), and people do not even suspect that they are participating in the shooting. I especially remember the interview with Harrison Ford and participation in the hunt, and the final song featuring Elton John, Bono, Slash and other celebrities is impressive.
The film left conflicting feelings. On the one hand, it was unpleasant for me to look at men and other homo-motifs. On the other hand, it is a bright satirical drama with a lot of interesting and funny moments. Sacha Baron Cohen, thank you very much for his work, to shock the respectable public he did not forget.
Sacha Baron Cohen is a wonderful comedian and in a word, a genius. Many people look at his work superficially, seeing only vulgar and immoral jokes, but this is Sashin's style, this is his handwriting. His films should be watched in a completely relaxed state, without turning off the wit, because it will be useful more than once in order to understand what exactly we are talking about and what exactly we see a parody.
Plot. In itself, simple and uncomplicated. An Austrian homosexual named Bruno, after a series of unfortunate and eerily funny incidents, loses his job as a TV presenter and decides to become a world-famous star. In war, as they say, all means are good, the hero adheres to the same motto and does not lose hope until the very end. Will he succeed or not? Don’t waste an hour and a half of your time and find out for yourself.
Now let’s look at the other, deeper side of this movie. That's right! On the way, Bruno meets many interesting and not very people, and also gets into all sorts of funny or just crazy situations. As already noted, some look at the work of Sasha superficially, so in these adventures they will see only vulgar and thoughtless jokes that go overboard. However, in each of the situations we will see a parody of any trend in America, a mockery of the prevailing traditions and stereotypes in this country, a bold protest to the system that you need to be able to see between the lines.
Actors. In fact, in addition to Sacha Baron Cohen, there is no one in the film to single out. I hardly have enough words to convey how eloquent and believable he brought to life his very extraordinary character. Sometimes you forget that this same person played Ali G, Borat or the same Dictator. Each of his characters is a separate universe, a perfectly drawn character and a fully revealed character, presented to the viewer in a very comical way. He is a very brave man who has posed an antisocial challenge to his country, and his courage lies in the way he chose to express his thoughts. And for good reason: in this case, Sacha Baron Cohen is just an ace.
I can also mention Gustaf Hammarsten. He is perhaps the only one who did not dissolve against the background of Bruno, also taking on the bold role of a fan and admirer of the main character, who, pursuing his goals, lived a dream of great love. Good acting, congratulations.
Execution. This is probably the main feature in the film. The film is quite simple - Hollywood shades mixed with "home video". Even such a comedy and crazy comedy contains elements of drama that are actually elements of comedy and look very fun. In terms of appearance, there is nothing to complain about. The main thing is that inside and inside of us waiting for an hour and a half of unrestrained laughter, shock and admiration. All these vulgar and “immoral” jokes in the style of thrash, which I like so much, turned out to be successful, although not for everyone, of course. Costumes and dialogues are an additional bonus that adorns this picture. In general, I was not disappointed in another creation of Cohen and I want to say thank you for extending his life and giving him another reason to think.
Ali G and KO admire the entire parliament, the Dictator begins to doubt his greatness, and Borat just nervously smokes on the sidelines!
No, well, guys, I get it. We live in a wonderful world of fading toilet humor, where farts elicit more laughter than subtle English humor. This is the spirit of the time, and to find fault with it is like finding fault with a man who has two hands, not eight. But even within this given, there is a certain limit of permissible vulgarity that should not be crossed. Yes, you can insinuate or half-hints to go out on it, but openly and without much embarrassment to show how two men are having fun with a rubber dildo attached to the exercise bike, this is somehow a little beyond good and evil.
It is not clear for whom this movie was made. I mean, it's clear that a completely random viewer can watch it once, but who will be willing to put this shit on the shelf next to other favorite films? Just show this sick man, admiring the waving of the penis and the most vulgar kind of "yumar" scenes from the life of perverts. Perhaps the main objective of the film was to discredit the community of your gays, showing them not only lovers of unusual ways out of situations, but also sick perverts, all whose thoughts are focused on sex.
What is the meaning of this deep film? That homosexuals walk the streets with their ass naked? Maybe. Thank goodness I don't know what they do. Is that if you have a dick waving in your face, you have to patiently respect other people's culture and traditions? Or maybe it's just the fattest troll in the series - "Nobody showed how two men hit each other on TV? call accepted, let's do it!"
Sasha Baron Cohen, who became famous in this country for her Borat, who at least was ridiculous, has slid to the level of not just toilet, but vulgar pornographic humor, against which the shaking, sitting on a broken toilet, Harry from Dumb and Dumber looks just like a model of decency in terms of comedy art. The fact that “Bruno is a head taller than Borat” is generally ridiculous to read. To what level do you have to be impregnated with pornography and how many hours do you have to sit on the relevant resources to consider such a presentation normal within the format of a conventional film allowed for display in ordinary theaters? I understand that in 50 years it will be difficult to make a comedy at least a couple of times without waving a dick in it, but for now time allows you to be more restrained. But, this “cinema” went exactly along the path of shock and provocation, in which it drowned. How can someone like this, except Alexasha himself, this is a question for psychiatry.
Totally. We have one overly vulgar film, the main feature of which is only its exorbitant vulgarity. Okay. If you love gay porn, this movie was made for you. If you're waiting for a second Borat, for God's sake, don't look at this shit, just turn your attention to The Dictator. It’s not a diamond, but the difference is astronomical.
Sacha Baron Cohen is an extremely diverse personality. Then he pretends to be a Kazakh journalist, then a gay man who dreams of fame, and the latest project of the actor made critics open their mouths. "The Dictator" became a highlight on this British comedian's little cake. But all three paintings are united by one subtle, but significant thread - all Baron Cohen's projects epitomize the situation of a frenzied society. Any conflict that arises at the regional level, due to the inadequate behavior of the people, always grows into something big. Noticing this trend, the actor decided on one of the most scandalous films in history.
The plot tells the audience about a 19-year-old guy Bruno. He is heterosexual, likes to dress in glamorous clothes, loves a lot of attention, and also loves his young friend Diesel, who loves him in return. Bruno and Diesel live in Austria, where the former has the idea of becoming world famous. Deciding to go to Los Angeles, Diesel leaves our Bruno, going to the "first person I meet." Taking as assistants Lutz, his assistant, the two go to America for world fame and love, which, as it turned out, is not so difficult to obtain.
In all films, wherever Baron Cohen appears as a screenwriter, Larry Charles sits in the director's chair. This tandem successfully proved itself in Borat, Bruno, and proved itself perfectly in Dictator. When this duet appears in the posters for the film, you can immediately understand that the picture will personify the cover of the modern world, such as it really is. And indeed, the picture did not disappoint expectations.
The focus is on the topic of sexual minorities, in particular, heterosexuals. The main gay man in this film was played personally by Sacha Baron Cohen. Having changed his hairstyle, shaved off his ridiculous mustache, replaced his dirty and shabby suit with latex, the actor was ready for new adventures. The picture is shocking from the first frame. Especially in the Diesel scene. For a second you are in complete confusion from what is happening, in complete misunderstanding, and how could you miss this on the big screens? Then you remember that most stars made their stellar careers through the bed, and Baron Cohen insolently demonstrates the underside of that world. In this regard, no one should have questions, as well as about acting. The comedian turned out to be a supernatural gay. Behavior, habits, intonation of the voice, and even static facial expressions - every little thing tried to convey Cohen in Bruno. The result is a flurry of criticism, both positive and negative, and respect for enough of the world’s population.
What's the bottom line? The picture plunges the viewer into a sea of depravity and vulgarity, reveals most of the side of the world, which is hidden behind a wide and impenetrable curtain. I think many of those who dreamed of becoming a super-duper star on a cosmic scale, after watching this creation of Cohen, decided and irrevocably changed their minds about this version of their future.