The main problem of this 'film' is that despite all the efforts and invested money, the authors allegedly forgot three times what film they were shooting. The idea of the film was to show the contrast between eras, but in the end came the contrast between genres. It’s not two different films, as it may seem at first glance, but three short unfinished films. As a result, we see the Buryat 'Gangs of New York', something like 'Big Kush' and the local Buryat film somewhere at the end. If the 80s still look decent and generally the only plus of this picture, the whole modern part causes a desire to leave the cinema as soon as possible. The whole modern part begins like a Guy Ritchie movie, and this can be traced both in characters and in situations, and most importantly, a frank slant in the style of editing, selection of music, and camera work. The trouble is that in the end, the whole modern part returns back to the typically Buryat cinema with a typically local theme about bandits and disassembly, as a result of which the entire Ritchev atmosphere and humor disappear somewhere and it seems that this half had a completely different screenwriter. But the main problem is that all this part is very weakly white threads associated with the 80s, which by the way are generally good, you can see that they tried, if not for the constant jambs with a flower tree (literally you can see where they forgot to pull the corrective layer and more than once), editing and poor camera work, sometimes the film tries to look like 300 Spartans with all the slow mo and so on, but sometimes the operator like an epileptist shoots a close-up at a long focus then the teeth of the main character, who pushes an important speech at this moment, or even an important part of the frame goes beyond that. As a result, it would be better to shoot a film only about the 80s and bring it to the end, if you want to look at that era, it is not enough here, if you want to look at the crime drama, it is better to review Reshala or Brother, if you want to see the film by Guy Ritchie, review the films of Guy Ritchie.
5 out of 10
Perhaps the best film in the city, titanic in scope, stunning in execution, obviously ' not for everyone' in content.
Describe ' There is no death' in a nutshell, no one will. In fact, it’s not even one movie, but two that are closely and unusually related – the creators adhere to a certain philosophy, and what we see on the screen are different lives at different times of the same people. Here's another reason why this movie might not be liked outside of its artistic qualities. However, I note that you don’t need to understand what everyone in the film shouts “Ughi nas” and that “If you’re stupid like a tree, you’ll be a baobab” to get a real pleasure from watching this film. It is enough just to accept it as a convention, as the vision of directors-writers. Their philosophy is not necessarily shared, but the fact that it is (and it is, in general, not trivial) is respected.
Different stories, the Soviet era with footage of that old city and modern Ulan-Ude. The different characters played by the actors are very organic in both eras. Moreover, the events are chronologically mixed - we do not just watch a certain almanac, we watch its components not in turn, but episodically, that is, part of one, then part of another ... then the next part of the first, etc. What is amazing, really amazing - it's really interesting to watch.
Stories are related to each other, which can be taken not only within the framework of the philosophical concept of the film, but also simply as a manifestation of postmodernism - and so and so will be interesting.
The scale is amazing, but the execution is even more amazing. No matter how good the script was in all its complexity and diversity, but to embody all this on the screen was a task that only professionals could do. ': No Death ' is a movie everyone should watch.
Two time periods, a parallel story: The formation of the character of the main character, his life and struggle.
First of all, about Supermoment: a high-quality scene in Afghanistan – I don’t know where they shot, but it looks like it’s not in Buryatia. Very realistic explosion and slow shooting - did their cool job!
And of course, the plot itself - I am a bit far from Soviet times, but for me - the whole history of formation, artistic parallels are shown perfectly! Atmosphere and thoughtful little things, there is no falsehood and overplay.
Modernity and the typical criminal world are also not bad (cool scene almost at the end of the film and the denouement).
Compared to other Russian films, it is no worse. I don’t know how many, but the whole movie (except for a few scenes) didn’t come off the screen. It didn’t feel like it was going to be a long story.
Today I was at the premiere of this long-term film, and I immediately recommend the film to watch.
The film traces two storylines of the life of Ulan-Ude youth in 1980 and 2016. There is no direct collision between two generations, except for one disassembly in the toilet. However, both storylines develop strong internal conflicts that naturally lead to big dramas.
The youth of 1980, Chunks and dudes, of course, are shown with a kind of nostalgic and romantic touch, behind which are half a century of lived life. The youth of 1980 is based on the principles of collective mutual assistance. “Destroy yourself and help your comrade!”
The youth of 2016 is shown only on pontifices, selfishness and individualism, for which they pay hard immediately, without departing from the cash register.
A film about the life of criminal groups in Ulan-Ude should be built to show fights and physical violence, and here the director and operators showed real skill. Fights were staged professionally, naturally, in slow motion. Many actors received natural injuries, which contributes to the credibility of the film.
Behind the cruel naturalism of the Ulan-Ude showdowns are rigid ethical principles that the creators instill not so much in the heroes as in the audience. If you burn your life at the gambling table, enjoy easy money, there will come a time when you will be hung by your feet above a barrel of boiling water and a shaved Buryat will tell you that you are now his thing, and two Ambals will lower you upside down in boiling water.
Following strict ethical principles will be so relevant that the young people by the end of the film will abandon these pontiffs and even talk, how to get a job in the factory, to do work that ennobles the soul, but it will be too late.
Another success of the film I would call the screening of Ulan-Ude, the directors found successful angles of the city. Only, after "Resolved", "There is no death" people will think that in Ulan-Ude you can not die your own death.
As a member of the 1980s generation, I wasn’t a chanka, much less a dude, going to music school, but by the end of the film, strong emotions filled me. I was particularly impressed by Nelson’s death in Afghanistan.
Nikolai Budev, being an antipathetic politician, created a voluminous, spatial film, for which I thank him.
18.5. 2017
Sitting for 2.5 hours is an unbearable torture, death seems a humane way to stop this outrage. And seriously, this "work" can not even be called a film.
1. Screenplay. Does he even exist? Where's the ending, the climax, the ending? Who's the protagonist? Who's secondary? It seems that the creators of this cutting frames communicated like this:
“Can we do that again?”
"Come on, he's a cool dude."
There is no script if someone is going to watch it. That is, a normal scenario for a complete coherent story.
2. History. It was a movie about what? About a time when the city was divided into districts, when people beat and killed each other just for the status of another? Then why "modern" scenes? Want to make a film about the doom of life outside the law? Can you add something to what Peter Buslov said?
3. Cinematography. There's nothing to say. Buy a book, go to the library, find out what close-ups are and how to use them. And also learn how the work of the operator should reveal the characters and the story (although it is not in fact, you can not blame yourself).
4. Music. The logic here is, I know a great song, let's use it. No more connection with the plot, characters, etc. No more.
5. Costumes and props. It's clear that the budget is limited, but shove anything into the frame if it feels like retro and call it props... Although retro scenes in this regard look much better than modern. What is a prop, what is a costume, what is the work of a costume designer, we also do not know, but we shoot a movie.
6. Acting. No comment. She's gone. No one. If earlier these local movies tried to go out on the quinters and their charisma, then this technique does not smell. Already at 3 minutes of viewing, the sensations are unpleasant to say the least, but the creators dream of catching up and overtaking Peter Jackson: 2 hours and 40 minutes with a complete absence of acting. Torture of one of the heroes by immersion in a barrel of hot water is just childish babble compared to this.
7. Audience. Who is this movie made for? So that you do not have such a question, in the first frames they explain to you: “for all generations of Ulan-Udeans.” But the wow effect of "wow, the movie shows our city" has long been exhausted by previous local-scale films. Who would want to go and watch 2.5 hours of people fighting crime on a primitive level without a story or good shots? Play nostalgia? Those who were part of this world in the '80s are either lying in their graves or making a movie laugh. Those who weren’t born in the 80s are more likely to go to Guardians of the Galaxy in the next room (and they’re right). One group remained: those who were young in the 80s, but did not belong to this world. Only these people can see a message in this film.
Creators, if you don’t know how to write, shoot, use music, play, put all the puzzles of a movie together, then why did you even take up the camera? Did you want to talk about your youth? Tell it to your friends over a beer, now it's your ceiling. And if you want to talk about time and people, go first to learn how to make movies.
And if someone is interested in the phenomenon when youth groups ruled in the city, there are good scientific studies on this topic. And no matter how paradoxical it may sound, reading scientific articles is much more exciting than watching this cutting frames.
P.S. I'm gonna go find Slipenchuk's book, which the camera is so focused on. Probably, it is a symbol of success and wealth, when 90 thousand rubles in cash (!!) lying in the drawer of your desk. Donald Trump and Richard Branson rest.