In the days when in our country another notorious abbreviation began to denote some mythical “extremist movement”, to write a review of this film is not that awkward, but somehow unusual. You seem to be writing about parallel reality. And so it is now, although we had “Winter Way”, relatively recently queer theme was sounded in “Coupe No6” and “Outlo”, but the fundamental difference is that “KBCS” is not that ordinary, but normal for the overseas audience film, and our – not only that episodic (in the sense that rare), and also the resonance of terrible brought.
But let's drop the sad. We all lack fairy tales. And this movie is fabulous, and there is nothing wrong with it. Hundreds and thousands of videos, fanfictions, collages speak of universal love for these two young beautiful guys. And speeches about something unnatural, vulgar, disgusting do not sound so much. In the end, the romantic fleur is very much shaken, creating a pleasant softness of pastel tones, in which shades disappear, and nuances are more the sins of the draftsman than an artistic technique. So let us forgive the creators of some excess of sweet colors.
However, the film is more suitable for English-speaking viewers. And it is not only in the unusual love line for us, but also in the differences of British and American cultures, which are manifested in the little things: characters and deeds of the characters, words, attitude to life. Even political games are not always clear to our viewers. Of course, there are signs of a new ethics here too.
However, the main plot thread, of course, will not leave anyone indifferent. So it starts with hate, or imitation, with a misunderstanding that turns mutual interest into antipathy. “As the lights change, the forest changes color,” and our heroes begin to get closer. But on the bright (not winter, however) path of love are the high position of each of them, and these are the very little things. If the “torto scandal” so excited the public, what can we say about it? In the end, one of them can’t stand the nerves, and he goes to the stage of avoidance, where both realize that the line is crossed, further – either together or not. Although the final picture does not give such a strict result, and rightly so. It's a lie, it's a hint. Well, guess what, you're so good at your dreams. The word “fairy tale” certainly does not justify the helplessness of the finale. But sometimes it is better to leave everything like a slap, a refusal to touch the ideal (when everything that preceded was an ascent to it), or, on the contrary, to give false hope for an even sweeter (and therefore impossible) future.
When love comes, it may not always be worth thinking about secondary things like gender (I anticipate disturbances). And the everydayness with which Americans make films on such topics, on the one hand, is embarrassing, on the other hand, confirms what was said: love has no gender. I will not argue about whether this is the norm or not, right-wrong, decent-indecent and other dichotomy here to lay out. The movie isn't about that, by the way. And that “unsaid, blue, tender” can cover both the Caesar and the locksmith. Social status has nothing to do with it.
The domestic viewer in a significant mass "KBCS" was not pleased because of the "abnormal" theme. Although the ratings of the film rather inspire optimism. We hope that the gloom in which we found each other will not turn into complete darkness, but that someday a fire will glimmer, and we will be kinder, calmer to what we see as different, in the end – we will be more attentive to other people’s feelings and emotions. There is no time for this to come, because in the soul of all people lies not hatred, but love for each other. Let us do everything we can to ensure that this time comes as soon as possible.
7 out of 10
As much as my love for the source is, so much as incomplete I consider adaptation.
The characters seem to act simply “because of it.” There are many important events and characters for the plot, which is noticeable. Too much time was devoted to the political component, part could be replaced by the disclosure of characters and their relationships.
An important role was played by a sister journalist and a gay politician, who plays the role of a double agent, but they were cut out and this had a huge impact on what was happening. The relationship of the guys seems too fast and “vanilla”. The hate-love dynamic could work, but through gradual disclosure rather than abrupt “want.”
The casting is also disappointing, with rare exceptions. Amazon has gone overboard with inclusivity, as it has lately been. Playing less and less, but the very fact of adding to the already racially diverse cast of characters changes tenses.
Thank you for the film adaptation of course, but replacing one of the characters with a girl would almost not change the plot. This is a bad sign for gay movies.
If the film were more comedic, it would seem to work much better, but apparently not fate. You can see it once, but no more.
A friend immediately persuaded me to watch here and now. I will not hide my long-standing interest in this masterpiece, but the expectation of a sugary sweet film that will get bored after 15 minutes of viewing was not justified.
From the first scenes of the meeting of the main characters and the incident with the cake (during which I was sitting with my mouth open), the friendship that formed, the acquaintance with the characters of the second roles, to the final conversation with the King, I did not leave a long-forgotten feeling - the anticipation of the unknown. You don’t know what’s going to happen, the script isn’t typical, and the character development is much better than you’d expect. The level of ease during viewing this picture can only be compared with the "Treason of the Heart" - a picture that, like this one, gave faith in the good.
What do you think of the press conference after the leak? Totally delighted. Although I understand that this is only my view, and that many will deny it, everything said in this speech is true. I speak and feel firsthand, and more importantly, this is the dream, these pictures help us to understand that the world is still better, that a dream, whether Russian, American or British, is all possible and it does not matter the fantasy of this film or the reflection of true events, albeit decorated by the Presidential-Royal families. The king was very pleasantly surprised.
So what did I see from the end? A love story. A sincere love story, the very breath of happiness and as the final - an indicator that everything happens in life and that not necessarily everything should end badly.
And the above is the hope that there is in each of us - hope for the best.
P.S. Uma Thurman was just great.
P.P.S. Yes, my personal opinion in my first review of a great movie that inspires me.
I love films that look so easy and pleasant that there is no desire to dig into their shortcomings, and shortcomings can be found in any masterpiece. “Red, White and Royal Blue” reminds us that for all 150 years of its existence, cinema has been and remains, and God forbid, to remain, a dream factory, a window to another, a better world, not much like the real one, but which is incredibly pleasant to be transferred to at least a couple of hours. This is certainly a work of art, it is simply impossible to approach it with the standards applied, for example, to films of acute social or propaganda. And if someone is unable to see beauty and kindness, it does not mean that they do not exist, just nothing to see.
The interiors of Buckingham and Kensington Palaces, the White House, hotels in New York and Paris, parks and ranches create a beautiful backdrop for beautiful melodrama, played out by beautiful people, beautiful both externally and internally. Modernity is just as much as required in a fairy tale (smartphones, social networks and instant messengers), originality is just enough to look fresh and unbeatable. For example, a story like this, played by modern-day Montagues and Capulets, or a boy and a girl from different social backgrounds, would be much more boring to watch, because it was all dozens and hundreds of times. Nicholas Golitsyn, a descendant of the old Russian princely family, and even past the best acting school in the world, is insanely good in the role of a prince, the role is literally sewn for him, Taylor Zahar Perez is more than organic in the role of the adult son of the first woman - the President of the United States (dreams, dreams), half Mexican, and perfectly copes with the mission of the "locomotive", the driver of all love intrigue. Uma Thurman, for whom it is time to switch from rock beauties to older ones, is just enjoying being in the Oval Office, as is Stephen Fry, arguably Britain’s most unexpected king. He stubbornly clings to outdated centuries-old “traditions” and at the same time is not able to prevent his grandchildren from being happy, and does not want to be happy at heart. For a few seconds and almost one facial expression - who else can express such a rich range of contradictory feelings? Absolutely no vulgarity, amazing soundtrack, sincerity, youth, beauty and kindness. . Dear critics, what else do you need? . .
I resolutely reject the claims to the “primitiveness of the plot”, to the “cartony and stereotyping”, things are exactly the opposite, and it is best to look and make your own impression, especially since there is already a quite adequate Russian dubbing of this modern fairy tale.
Talentless and cheap, or how to spend 2 hours of your life in vain.
In all the years of tracking ratings on the site, I honestly can not understand how people in large numbers do not like what is so subtle, emotional and deep, but can like something that is simply frankly bad.
Again I write a review as a cry of the soul.
Seeing someone bet 10 out of 10, realizing that 10 is the highest ball a work of art deserves! Where the film is a valuable work for many years, where the play of actors causes goosebumps ...
Everyone’s opinion is subjective, of course, but I rely on common sense.
What's the movie about? I originally expected to see some kind of story. Where in the world there can be anything. The first woman is the president of the United States, the son is a Mexican, bisexual, who falls in love with another man from the world of politics of another country, where women are the personal bodyguards of the top officials of the state and the like. The world can be different, where love conquers everything. But I saw a re-stamped film, full of all sorts of stereotypes, with a disgusting play of the main characters and with made-up stupid problems (if this can be called problems).
I was very surprised that Uma Thurman played in such a movie. Very nice surprise. It was very talented and soulful. The whole picture was pulled by her and just amazing Sarah Shahi! Incredibly bright, charismatic, funny and insanely beautiful!
The main characters are just the bottom. In the scene where Taylor Zahar Perez talks to Thurman, the level of class and talent is so different that it feels like you're watching 2 different movies at once - bad and good.
I saw this actor only in the Minx series, where the game was problematic because of the role, but now everything is clear. I saw Golitsyn in Cinderella, where he looked quite harmonious, but here, in a drama on such a topic, it was ridiculous. Moments of tears and serious conversations... there wasn’t a split second to believe in their relationship, their feelings. The rest of the cast just coped well with their roles, without the effect of "wow."
It was a very bad movie.
No picture brings visual pleasure. Everything is so cheap and cardboard. The only thing that pleased from the picture was the costumes at the New Year's party in the tent. The dresses are amazing!
Thank you to everyone that Matthew Lopez directed just that. Worse scene than the scene of the first sex, for example, I have never seen, probably, and a bad movie I watched, unfortunately.
The music was stuffed wherever it was possible. It is almost always funny and extremely ridiculous.
Total.
It was terribly boring, boring, stereotypical, talentless and not sincere.
Thank you to Uma Thurman and Sarah Shahi for brightening up some time in this terrible horror.
There is something that will remain a role model for this kind of films, for example, Brokeback Mountain. You can play with the topic in completely different ways, but how you can put an assessment identical or even higher than this soulless picture, I do not understand.
I sincerely hope that the estimate will fall over time.
After numerous references to this film on the Internet, and numerous positive reviews, I decided to watch this work of cinema. We had to watch in the original, because for obvious reasons this film will not appear.
And immediately striking is the primitiveness of the plot, in which what is happening on the screen with reality is virtually absent. We are immediately introduced to the two main characters in the entourage of the royal wedding, and immediately after the epic embarrassment, their relationship begins to develop. At the beginning, the heroes cannot tolerate each other, but it is not clear what their hostility is associated with, one considers the other a snob, the other that his opponent simply wastes his life in parties, etc.
The most interesting thing about the orientation of the main characters in the beginning is not advertised, although the appearance of the prince and his manners is a little noticeable. But the second character shows just 100% macho, who has fun with girls and clearly does not feel awkward in their environment. Past relationships in the personal life of the main characters are not told at all. And the natural question is how between them just at the click of their fingers flashes passion for each other. How did love arise out of dislike? The film runs for 2 hours, but as timekeeping goes on, there are more questions than answers. After the first half of the film begins just a frank fairy tale, with apotheosis in the finale, which is better seen than told.
The dialogues are written terribly, and even those who do not know English by the emotions of the characters will understand what we are talking about. Actors are not admired, you can see that they are trying, but it turns out like in a Brazilian soap opera. Actors for the main role apparently just took for appearance, but not for talent. The dramatic component is banal, and its denouement, as mentioned earlier, except as fabulous can not be called.
As a result, we get a film that, with a seemingly beautiful wrapper, does not make any sense, since in reality such a story would be possible with a probability of 1%. Perhaps the bulk of young people who are still looking for themselves, this film will like, as it is light and does not claim to depth. It's just a fairy tale with a predictable ending.
The color of the review was left neutral, as it still caused me a slight smile while watching. And to my beloved Uma Thurman!
The comedy “Red, White...” is criticized by critics and some viewers for its sweetness and lack of strong drama. I want to talk about the movie.
1. The movie turned out very light, relaxed, light. Though without a claim to the Oscar, but in its genre it is worthy of high praise. Timekeeping is 2 hours, while the dynamics of the narrative is present, it is not boring to watch, the film is well and qualitatively shot. Dialogues are not so much naive as romantic, as they should be in a Romcom film.
2. Excellent camera work. Shooting in the palace, interior and exterior, colors, weather and landscapes in the frame - everything pleases the eye.
3. A pleasant surprise is the appearance of Uma Thurman in a new role in a key supporting role.
4. There is a slight satire about the stereotypes and traditions of the royal family. At the same time, all this does not look malicious, not pretentious, relevant and modern.
5. The most important reason is the extraordinary beauty and charm of the actors in the main roles. Looking at them is a pleasure. Relations between the characters develop smoothly, touchingly and extremely aesthetically. All the key scenes are shot beautifully, professionally, not going or vulgar.
Bottom line: the film is wonderful, uplifting and gives hope that love will save the world.
10 out of 10
In general, the first half can still be watched, although not without facepalm, but the second - only on rewind. Glucose directly into a vein, a film for the most notorious sugar addicts.
I don't like sweets, so I predictably didn't go, but that's not even the point. This is just the case when formally the plot seems to work, the gears move, the characters react, talk, joke, but the whole way does not leave the feeling that you are facing imitation, and not art, even if very naive.
The prince is a mermaid-like languid blonde, a descendant of the Golitsyn princes, an American is a toasty predatory brunette with lashes. Both of them don't play well. Well, very well, but in full accordance with the technical task.
The prince is stony, the president's son is staring in love, it's impossible to watch, so I focused on the prince's lips and the American press. They’re really good, they don’t give Oscar for them.
The feeling that they did on the model of stupid romcoms from zero, tried very hard, but it turned out not so much. The form was copied, and everything that remains behind the scenes, but makes the narrative convincing, was thrown out as unnecessary. In the end, a beautiful picture turned out, but the movie did not. Too bad.
The film was prompted to watch two facts - the participation of my favorite actress Uma Thurman and part of the history (albeit somewhat shamed here) of the English royal family, which I have been interested in since my student days. And both goals have been achieved. The mind of the US president is as good in her 50s as she was 20 years ago in the roles that made her a star. The central line of the plot is the furious finale of the next presidential campaign (where all the means of struggle are “good”), and Uma brilliantly, supported by the party, family, friends, reliably leads her role to the victorious end.
Unexpectedly, the son of the President of the United States and the grandson of the King of England, Prince Henry, are part of this struggle. This gives us the opportunity to see the authentic royal residences, parks, museums perfectly shown by the camera group, against the background of which the second line of the plot unfolds - the complex relationship between two high society guys, completely different in origin, characters, habits.
I do not agree with the positioning of the film as a comedy (in my opinion, it ends with a huge cake that hit the guests). I felt like a modern drama, a drama of people living in the 2020s. The film reflects, from my point of view, not very successful here, the tendency of Western cinema to invite representatives of different nationalities. An example is the role, albeit episodic, of the British prime minister. And finally, about the pleasant discovery that the film brought me. This is a performance by Nicholas Golitsyn, a previously unknown actor, of the role of Prince Henry. This is where the director got into the top ten! I think that it is not only in undisputed talent, but also (I am sure as a doctor) in genetics. After all, Golitsyn is a direct descendant of the Russian noble princes, relatives of the Romanovs, and, consequently, the current Royal House of Great Britain - Windsors.
And in conclusion - about the two best episodes, for which, perhaps, it is worth watching this modern, not indisputable, beautifully shot film. The first is a picture of winning the presidential race headquarters with Uma in the epicenter. The second is a night dance of heroes in the authentic interior of the London Museum under a stunningly beautiful melody.
10 out of 10
Oh, I don't even know how to relate to this masterpiece. And in what color color color review - red, green or royal gray? Because... But let's be clear.
In a world where the King of England is played by Stephen Fry, a man with a very controversial reputation, and the President of America, snow-white Uma Thurman, there are two loneliness – Crown Prince Henry and the scion of President Alex. The prim prince and the son of a jerk are real antagonists. It would seem that this is the plot. But the first scene, where both are lying in a huge, obviously fake cake, is puzzling. Not a melodrama, not a comedy, rather a parody, with a bias towards banter. It seems to have decided on the genre, but it was not here. The romance followed. Then drama. Then a fairy tale.
And all this in full pairs and with very serious faces. It doesn’t make sense.
By the end of the day, you'll be sobbing with joy for sexual minorities and solved the problems of racial diversity in the United States. But the sludge will remain. For - what was that? Naive melodrama? Not much hidden trolling? Just a comedy 'on the agenda' where real people were replaced by fictional characters, giving a pinch of gloss and glamour? A film with two beautiful muscular boys?
Actors, by the way, very nothing. There were times when I wanted to believe their game. And the young man who played the British prince is a descendant of an ancient Russian family.
I didn’t understand the value of the film. Maybe someone will be more lucky.
Imagine a member of the royal family criticizing the court for profligacy, that the Cabinet of Ministers of Great Britain is headed by a black lush-breasted lady, and at the main table in the oval office of the White House sits a blonde (oh, Uma Thurman), that for her husband, the first gentleman of the United States, the native language is Spanish, and their high-aged son wears clothes with a print on the arts of Mexican Indians.
Lennon had no idea when he wrote his Imagin. Therefore, Joan Jett’s Bad reputation is closer to the author’s guidelines of writers, turning the worst fears into fait accompli, demonstrating a disregard for prejudice by the example of the main characters buried under the thickness of the wedding cake, who do not have to pretend for long, finding chic views of their common future.
Watching them floundering in the biscuit crowd, it seemed that this couple can vulgarize everything, but the plot does not allow the actors to step back from the dramatic line that the participants of the election race for office and as members of the family of the President running for his second term - funny here can be situations, but not people facing public opinion, subject to manipulation by envious detractors from the media.
This is not a parody, nor a satire, a very restrained irony regarding the state of affairs and the interaction of persons involved in this, coming from the picture imagined by the authors, where Stephen Fry, without regard to reputation, is organic in the role of the King of Great Britain, and other feelings break the stubborn conservatism of the residents of the Lonely Star State and the subjects of the British Crown, why some will want to pinch themselves to wake up, and others will consider everything to be Casey McQuiston’s long dream, epatisizing those whom she over.