Alas, you can't see it, so let's go. For starters: boring, annoyingly naive and immoral. I myself love carefree comedies, cartoons, romanticism, do not think that I am a “grown up and learned life” bore who is easier to shoot than to wait for a kind word. Boring and "growers" to love and respect nothing. But I'm not going to make excuses for that. And here's why.
The main character in the plot is nothing. Stupid and helpless, who suddenly has unspeakable luck. The mechanism of luck was activated by another failure of the hero, for no reason, and it is unclear why. Then the whole film is naive and stupid (I don’t understand what the scattering of stolen money to the right and left). The hero does not dare at all that the money is slightly not his, and that spending it is not very good. Well, come on - the hero is stated as positive, so we grit our teeth and believe that it is necessary.
Next is the love line. There's no love line. There's a line about a girl's venality. About the destruction of a nearly formed family and about stupidity. Fill her with money, and the woman is yours. This is not a love line, but an overbuying of feelings.
Moral: if you are declared a positive hero, you can be nobody, you can dispose of stolen money as your own without remorse, you can spy on other people and manipulate them, you can destroy other people's happiness by buying girls for stolen money, while not having any interesting philosophical position, charisma, or dignity. You're still a positive hero.
As a result, what we have: there is a bad performance of actors, cynicism that literally stands out from the monitor, and flows greasy drops on it, mercantilism and venality of the beloved hero-loser, bad special effects.
But here’s what I expected from the film, but never saw: romance, jokes (yes, jokes!). Is this a comedy?, good play, ease and affection. Not a drop, none of it.
In the Mask (this, dear comrades, is a film that tried to take as the basis of the plot, it seems) also the main character pulls a lot of money out of the bank, but does it without realizing himself, he is quickly overtaken by a bunch of problems associated with theft. And he gets a woman for the fact that he is a good person in himself, and is capable of feelings, besides, he saves her from villains.
It's a film clearly made by people who at least know what they're doing, and it would be pretty good if it wasn't about two rare moral freaks. Let’s talk about it consistently...
Once upon a time, Innocent. He worked for the illusionist’s uncle (worked badly), lived with a drug addict friend (without paying for housing), until one day he met the incredibly naive and enthusiastic young wannabe journalist Alice. She, most likely, unaccountably, flirts with both her uncle and nephew in search of material, and the latter takes it so seriously that he tries to saw off the Alice guy during the trick, and then pursues the couple home. But in the entrance they, of course, do not invite Kesha, so that he sits at the door, indulging in pity for himself, and gives the last twenty to the alcoholic who passed by, the Alcoholic in exchange gives Kesha the ability to pass through walls. He first sneaks into Alice, but, shocked by the scene of sex, goes to rob the bank.
So, Innocent is an extremely infantile, irresponsible type who, without the slightest remorse, robbed a bank, completely unfit for life, unable to work or care for, obsessively pursuing a girl, firmly saying “no”, running into a most boorish conflict with her tactful boyfriend and so committed to cheap ostentation that he eventually blackmails her lover with suicide. Alice, on the other hand, suffers from abrupt and unmotivated mood swings, thinks for the most part with floral-icy stamps of sentimental paperback books, and for all her naivety endlessly flirts with any male creature that sees, takes the signs of attention, but does not consider itself responsible for how guys will perceive it, and is sure that she understands journalism more than her boss is three times her age. Not that Anton Shagin and Karina Andolenko played them badly, or the images seem unrealistic to me. No, these people are quite lively and trustworthy - and very, very unpleasant. And I don't quite understand why we should make the protagonists of a romantic comedy of characters that are most disgusting. After all, it is not that they change in the course of the film and realize what moral freaks they were - no, to donate to a dying child tenth part of the money that they got without the slightest effort and for nothing unnecessary, this is the pinnacle of Innocent's moral evolution.
At the same time, the secondary characters are quite good, that is, they are the same or even more embossed as the main ones, but not so nasty. This is the vicious illusionist Yarilo Olgovich performed by Alexander Adabashyan, and quite adequate (except for one moment - but it is forgivable, with such and such a girl) guy Alice, played by Mikhail Tarabukin, - in the final you only rejoice for him, finally the girl-fool left him ... And most importantly, what is worth watching “Kiss Through the Wall” – Kondratiev, Kesha’s neighbor, who smoked his brain until full enlightenment, a character in the spirit of Dovlatov. I must admit that Pavel Volya, who always seemed to me the most annoying even in the Comedy Club, surprised me – maybe he does not show amazing acting, but he performs the role quite qualitatively. Kondratiev is beautiful.
Another drawback of the film, in addition to the strange choice of the main characters, should be called problems with the composition. With a rather tedious exposure and set-up, the climax and denouement are hastily squeezed into the last ten minutes and clearly crumpled. In fact, the transition from the Ostankino Tower to the hospital is so sharp that it is not very clear what actually happened. And the weird night scene of walking through walls? How to understand this in the context of the story? It seems that the director just saw “A Whole New World” and decided that his film must necessarily have the same scene.
In general, “Kiss Through the Wall” would be a very good romantic comedy, and even by the standards of Russian cinema – especially if the hero was not so irritating. It's -- it's weird.
At first, when I watched it, I thought, “What is this nonsense?” But every minute I liked the story more and more. It's absurd, but very, very funny. I like fiction and its elements everywhere, but in comedy it looks good. It was in this comedy. Humor I liked it. It's simple. The main attraction of this humor is the charisma of actors, which you sincerely enjoy.
Anton Shagin, successfully started in "Stylings", and this film is good. Generally nice and nice guy. Paul Will — a wonderful intelligent homeless dog Kondratiev. Good. Ivan Okhlobystin, too. There are a lot of stars in the episodes. This is nice. Karina Andolenko was a new face for me, well done.
I really liked the soundtrack. Especially the first song in the credits. So funny.
In general, "Kiss through the wall" can be scolded. But only if you're a bore. I mean, I can imagine someone who would think this picture was crazy. But I would advise you to think more broadly. In my opinion, this is a good example of a sweet, vulgar and really funny Russian comedy. Let the story itself be a bit stiff. I'll put a solid nine. I'm kind today.
Such an amount of idiocy, cynicism and parasitic mercantility has not surfaced in such quantities in a single film.
No acting. Except Okhlobystin, who is a great charismatic even in everyday life. Paul Will plays an amorphous nerd. The heroine of the film is empty as a traffic jam. The main character is stupid as a flounder. There's foul language coming out of the tape. And Alice exudes from the cornucopia love of money and vanity. In the course of the play, he meets a rich macho who needs it as a heating pad. Our mistress falls in love with this “work of art” and does not realize that he has not tarachteled her for three hundred years. What would a normal male population do? He would have sent her and sought out another. But we chose to show a love story that failed miserably (and if it did not fail, it certainly should!).
And the most striking manifestation of oligophrenia manifested itself (forgive the tautology) in the main character, when he got into the apartment of Sosso Pavliashvili and said: “Wow, I came to the apartment with Meladze!”. There is only one logical explanation for this: Sosso played the role of Valery Meladze here!
There’s something in this movie that keeps my hand from putting up a 1. This is the image of a little Sasha who dreams of becoming an astronaut. Who, despite her infancy, is already making money. By threading the needle. That's better. A person will not want to suffer and will buy a thread that has already been worn. The main character decides to help her. But the way he does it doesn't fit into my head.
The film is completely incoherent, immoral (all immoral except Sasha) and goofy. Down with those movies!
It would be great if a law were passed requiring publishers to stamp a warning on the picture: “Warning!” We've taken you out of this shit!
Burn this picture like the 2nd volume of "Dead Souls", maybe there are more connoisseurs.
Dear and beloved film lovers, do you really not understand a damn thing about cinema!! How did you manage to make this movie 6, moreover, paint in this beautiful color of hope? There's a haze of darkness and misery! Why are you doing this?!
Did anyone believe what was happening on the screen? Is there anyone who believed this Alice? Yes, I wanted to throw her instead of Innocent from the Ostankino Tower, she played so disgustingly! Okay, let's say young, no experience, can not play, but how about the image at all! It was necessary not to think through the characters, their actions and motives!! Shame and shame on the filmmakers for creating the most ridiculous, illogical, absurd characters in my memory.
First of all, this fucking Alice, a ridiculous character, like a journalist, like a newspaper, like a moral character. “I want my lover to meet me early in the morning, at noon, no matter what car: maserati, bentley, piston, bouquet of wildflowers.” My mouth opened with amazement, I think OK, so it’s a fool, but no, this is the main character, carrying the idea of beautiful and pure love!! I just went into a trance trying to figure out where all the canons of cinema went! Because really, this movie was very parody. Here if they said that this is “the best film 4”, I would believe, would not go, but in meaning it looks very much like the director is really bullying, since seriously (even if it is a comedy) so shoot about love is simply impossible.
Second, that fucking Innocent. Just rip it off and throw it away! All of a sudden, I fell in love with the aforementioned Alice (whether she is wrong!) and by any means (exclusively material) tries to win her favor, receiving an unfounded statement from her: “Sorry, we can never be together, because you are not my man.” As soon as he helped the child, he became her man. Moreover, why did she not apply the same principle to her acting boyfriend? Why was that her man? Not a word about that. Well, that's bullshit. Oh, I have to tell you how this loser got the money. Having gained the ability to walk through walls, of course, he robbed a financial institution, leaving a note there, saying that the money is still idle, and I will use it. Hello Berezkin from Poor Sasha. So there at least a man took his own, and here ... Probably, passing through walls does not have a very positive effect on the brain!
In general, I liked Shagin, I think that this is the future star of our cinema, a very charismatic guy. But in the film, as it seemed to me, he just forgot to tell who he plays: an idiot, or romance, or a joker, or a misunderstood genius. In general, he certainly has the rudiments of talent, but people cannot use it correctly, he has to play such underheroes.
Third, Pascheka-our-love-will. How can we imagine our modern cinema without him, our native one? It's like New Year's without tangerines. I don’t have anything against him as a person and a media character, for God’s sake, I don’t watch that, but if you’re in the movie, be sure you can play! At least! What is this idea of our films among people that it is a garbage heap into which you can throw everything that is wrong.
Where did you see the game? Where did you see the jokes? Where did you see the meaning? Have we seen different movies?