The second part is even funnier and more melodramatic than the first, although it is even more divided into sketches due to the flimsy through line. Kaha: The other one suddenly turns out to be 'our answer' to Barbie in the sense that he's being pinned down out of the blue. Greta Gerwig’s toothless pink collection of references angered traditionalists with no aggressive agenda, and Kaha’s “legalization of sexual abuse” angered the already “progressive” community. Although if you watch movies not by hat reviews, pulling out of context, you can find that the message is clearly the opposite.
It would seem that the poster and the final punchline about the mind and heart should tell even the simplest viewer that we have a classic story about the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. And the dialogue between Sergo and Juliet on the admissibility and non-resistance to evil raises the question of the existence of a moral dilemma. Or the execution of the guilty for the very rape of a drunken girl, the outrage of which reached the officials of the Ministry of Culture. Why is the audience not outraged by the fact that the offense is punished by lynching? No, the film's ban was met with universal satisfaction. So why should there not be such a scene in a film that captures the life of the Russian south, if society so likes to rape for an unpleasant reflection in the mirror?
Kaha is a nasty, greedy child poser in the body of an old savage. Sergo's lines are beautiful, Russian-speaking standardists trying to catch the zeitgeist in an interview with Dudy can only gnaw at their elbows with envy. Shamirov is really good both as a director and as a screen grinder, this is the main critic of the Sochi duo. Wrong in the label of 'harmful' cinema and 'unfunny'. With the second, you can see why - he just doesn't have a sense of humor. With the first - because traditionalists (and they often consider themselves progressive) - people are usually not capable of critical thinking.
The more you cling to the notion of tradition, the more you selectively remember only the stories you want and get lost in the maze of myths.
Yeah, it's a good comedy. Some pieces can even be saved to a favorite.
Let's pretend that immoral and criminal things are mentality and a reason to laugh.
The writers, producers and directors are men. Most likely, they did not face such a problem, and if they did, they were on the other side of the barricades and, of course, for them this is a great reason for jokes. To quote the classic, "You're not scared because you haven't been scared yet," paraphrasing, "It's easy to laugh at someone else's pain, isn't it?" I don’t mind jokes “beyond the edge”, but you’re not even joking, you just have a statement of fact and a standard pool of phrases “it’s her fault” and “Why is she so mad?”. Where to laugh? The ironic joke that one has no brain and the other has no heart doesn't work. To make something like this and sell it as a comedy, you have to have neither. You can justify this film as much as you like with phrases from the category of “we are mocking the southern mentality”. Bullshit! To ridicule, you need to portray the main characters as negative characters who will be condemned for such behavior at the end of the film. Apparently, the ego of the actors performing the main roles did not allow them to take such a step.
Editors, you would make the picture in the frame darker and the songs of the Vine to put, an excellent sequel to the cargo 200 will turn out.
It's really a different movie. Here the eccentricity of Karokozyan and Kalaijian passes to the level of the boyish philosophy of life and death. Kakha and Sergo are boys from the South, and they live by concepts. What is helic for a southern kid? And what is he willing to do for the helix and sweet life? You'll find the answer in the painting. There's a lot of humor out there. What is death and life to a crook? Kaha will do whatever you want for helic. But Sergo still believes in friendship. Southern boys ask the adult question: "Is death another story?" The slogan of the film - "another time - a different film" - is revealed in the boyish style. When you’re over 30 and you don’t want to work, you’ll have the adventures of Kahi and Sergo. Kahi's stray head brews such plot moves that you are amazed. We can say that Kaha and Sergo are real boys who live by concepts on Rayeon. On the other hand, Kahu and Sergo can be called 30-year-old losers and eccentrics of the southern city. Director Shamirov ridicules authorities from the South. Living with the stigma of setting up a friend? Kaha says, “The main gel and chicks!”
Actor Karokozyan plays Kahu, and his madness can drive the viewer crazy. Of course, Kaha is a southern 30-year-old scumbag who doesn't want to work and dreams of a beautiful life. The authorities have a beautiful life, but ordinary boys from Rayeon dream about it. Sergo appears as a hero who constantly smooths Kahi’s stray head from crossing the last line. Director Shamirov makes of the main characters angel and demon boys from Rayon. I didn't like the movie. Too different time show actors Karokozyan and Kalaijian. Director Shamirov laughs at all the basics of death, making the film anecdote about friends. The film ridicules the authorities of the South and their unlimited power. It was boring in the room to sit and watch this thrash. This is a true story about life and death.
After this project, I felt like I was in the water. Too much is done on edge. I was shocked that in the first week of rental in the theater there were 12 sessions per day of this project. The eccentricity of southern boys will find its audience not only in the cinema, but in the online cinema.
It just so happens that the actor Karokozyan portrays a typical alpha male from the South. It attracts someone, and someone strongly repels. I was bored watching. It's a horror movie.
The film is absolutely meaningless, you would think so, but it is not. The whole story is a satire about violence. A comedy made on the morality of society.
Sergo with a different conscience. Kaha, the opposite. The goals are the same, to get out of the situation. The first five minutes make it clear the difference between them, one strong, the other weak. Sound thoughts in Sergo, which society will not accept, which is why he becomes a rag. Even Kaha does not accept the opinion of his best friend, disrespect for his own, (the difference between one person and another). Remorse, or something there, does not change the opinion and life goals of the hero.
The target audience of the film will not accept the thought hidden in the film, and a hundred years later will not accept it until the state begins to fight it. They won’t start thinking about it, they’ll just laugh and forget, and then they’ll do shit. Leaving the problems of their people, brothers, sisters, and loved ones until they themselves are affected.
The film is absurd, but this absurdity raises one of the problems of Islam-dominated countries, I’m not saying religion is the problem, but society. Such a society is fraught with many problems, their development to the level of the West will take much longer than we would like.
“Denounce what is condemned, remain a support for your people, even if you are weak – be ready to defend your ideology”, that is the main message of the film.
In civilized countries, such a film would not even be allowed to produce, what to say about cinemas. Such a film should not be an example for the development of society.
A lot of people rated the movie as shitty, and I was really happy about it, and no. Frankly, why would the target audience describe their thoughts on different sites? It is easier to go to the official page of the film, writing there what a great movie, give more. Those who rated it as shit have values, they don’t need to watch a movie like that to develop. Someone has to deal with education, and who if not the state? It is hard to imagine that this will ever happen.
I liked the way the film makes fun of a society that approves of violence. Take the film as a good satire.
**Note.** Probably one of the examples of such marals is the film directed by Iranian-born Ali Abbasi **Holy Spider**. Such a film can be an example for the development of society, the main thing is to understand the message.
Sweet Jesus, Pooh! That’s not honey. You’re eating my father’s ashes
This craft penetrates into the depths of tastelessness and crosses all the boundaries of decency. A disgustingly made film fails miserably in its attempt to tell a coherent story, instead choosing to revel in gratuitous violence (including sexualized) and reprehensible behavior. A cinematic train wreck, a black whirlpool of pseudo-humor that consumes souls and hearts, prickly knots of pseudo-coolness that bind to fear and despair, fiery claws of immorality that burn everything in their path, a cold icy paw of decomposition that destroys hope. Perhaps you will experience a feeling of anxiety and horror?
The plot revolves around two disgusting characters, Kahi and Sergo, who are engaged in car theft and other typical Southern activities in Russia. The couple plans to rob and rape a drunken girl named Laura, who is found unconscious in a car. It's disgusting. I feel endless anxiety and express suspicions of propagating an exploitative character and way of life.
In addition to a list of my personal grievances, the film introduces crime boss David Georgievich Babasik as Laura’s father. Instead of condemning the heinous actions of his associates, the film portrays him as a man of questionable morals who eventually becomes an accomplice to their criminal behavior. This image is discouraging and irresponsible, sending the audience a completely wrong signal.
The narrative is a rambling jumble, seemingly stitched together from various incidents, making it difficult to follow and even harder to empathize with any of the characters. Their actions lack any reasonable motivation, and plot twists are nothing more than shocking tactics, devoid of real depth and meaning.
Painful and terrible. The actors don't seem to realize the seriousness of the material they portray. The lack of sensitivity and respect for the problems depicted further undermines the credibility of the film.
In addition, attempts are made to introduce elements of the supernatural and mystical, but they seem ill-conceived and inappropriate, adding to the general absurdity of the story.
The story fails on all fronts - it lacks meaningful narrative, empathy for its characters, and any redemptive artistic or social value. This is a film that should never have been made, and its release raises serious ethical questions for some representatives of the Ministry of Culture.
What's the result? Movies are capable of entertaining, enlightening and exhilarating thoughts - this film does none of this and instead leaves viewers feeling sorry for witnessing such a horrifying sight.
Oh, bother.
At the beginning of the zeros, there were a lot of black comedies with toilet humor, as my mother called it. American Pie, Very Scary Movies, White Chickens, Borat, etc., twenty years ago (+-) I watched them for the first time and then it was funny. I revisited them twenty years later, oh miracle! Funny and relevant again. Why is it that no one and nothing can produce half of that? Where does creative impotence come from? Is all we are capable of is a grandmother of easy behavior and this, if I may say, a movie?
All that domestic filmmakers have enough is jokes about ten-minute nausea and a crime against sexual integrity (sic!). Out of all the gaps, traditional values are roded, we are their stronghold. In fact, traditional values, this is theft, deception, throwing, as they say, here they are from left to right.
At the beginning of the film it seemed that the creators of the film did work on the mistakes, but more or less useful jokes (about the window in the car) were replaced by a horrifying scene ... I look and think - well, this was written by the scriptwriter, he thought that everything was fine, then the director filmed it, the editor edited it, the 'actors' played, all this was watched and NO one had a feeling that it was wrong. Shamirov, throwing the scarf over his shoulder, will surely be justified - And here's the fight and more generally - this is a mockery of Victoriaming!!! No, it's just gross.
The characters of the film are rapists, thieves, murderers, liars and traitors to friends. Is this a reputation created by a director for the Caucasian peoples? In KVN and “Give Youth” satire turned out much better, but here is a whole film that should be devoted to the “Caucasian” mentality and what do we see? Perhaps, as in Borat, Shamirov wanted to show how we caricature Caucasians? Like, can we do post-metairony, too? No, you just twisted the dirtiest laundry inside out to make fun of it - ha ha ha robbed grandfather, ha betrayed friend, ha ha rape. No growth of characters, but the conclusion that can be made after watching the film - if you are naive and kind, like Sergo, then you will definitely be used for their criminal purposes and betray an aggressive cattle like Kahi.
I just want the latest news about aliens in the U.S. to be true, and they will destroy this civilization with this film, and the film will be separately betrayed by damnatio memoriae.
I'll tell you right away, I only occasionally came across KTV commercials, they were of varying degrees of fun, sometimes funny, but mostly I didn't go. I didn’t watch the first film in this regard, I watched only a review from Badcomedian and I thought it was a film from the category of bad that you can garner at how ridiculous it is. The creators themselves said, 'Cacha directly. Another film is not a sequel, but another film, which they brought to the title and therefore do not need to watch the first part.
In any case, I expected the second movie to be a bad movie, but one to laugh at, how bad it was. In the end, I was very wrong and not the best side.
The plot begins with the fact that the main characters rob cars at a social gathering, then they see that one of the party girls is drunk and not conscious, they decide to rob her, removing the jewelry, and after they robbed her, Kaha decides to rape the girl, which he does. Then the heroes realize that it was the daughter of a local criminal authority and run away. And this... It's a story.
Let’s omit the moral side of such humor, I am not a prude and laughed at every black woman, but if you did not disgust from such a plot, then you have a strong sense of taste. Let’s stop here to follow the spoiler rule. Let’s move on to the pros and cons.
Of the advantages, it can be noted that the production has become more cinematic and it feels that this is not a video from YouTube, but a full-fledged film. Largely due to the fact that there is no effect of shooting on a mobile phone, everything here is filmed with a professional camera. Another plus, a couple of jokes are funny and they made me smile. And that's it.
Of the minuses, there are two that ruin everything, that the jokes are mostly unsuccessful - it is still largely subjective, even if the film was full of good jokes, it would not save it because of two fundamental things. First, compassion for the characters. And secondly, a claim to deep meaning.
After the description, do you want to empathize with the characters? I don't. And throughout the film, it does not appear to them. Even in dramatic moments. In the context of Kakha, it is understandable why, in the context of Sergo, even a deliberate demonstration of his brainlessness and naivety does not work, since his actions say that he is also a scoundrel, but weak in character. And yes, as in the first film, they have not changed, even when they are on the verge of death, they remain the same scoundrels.
And it would be half the trouble when the characters do not empathize, but this film hammers a nail into the lid of its coffin, trying to make a claim to something more than it is, which demonstrates the pathos of the ending and attempts to pass off the suffering of the main characters for something dramatic. As a result, pathos does not work, but is perceived as a spit in the soul and you think: “You seriously want me to take it this way, are you serious?”
And while thinking about this movie, I remember two other movies. The first is similar to what we are discussing conceptually in its defectiveness, and the second, as an explanatory analogy.
The first is the movie Eight Crazy Nights. He is a low-grade comedy with jokes about gas, snot and feces, but he tries to give out pathetic scenes, they say, the hero suffered in childhood so he is so bad, but remembering all the low-grade humor and actions of the main character, you perceive dramatic scenes not as an excuse, but as an insult, which is pathos in such a film. In 'Caha directly. The other movie is exactly the same. I will not repeat the fact that you can make a film with negative characters, but with whom you empathize, it is already boring.
The second one is, "That's what Charlie said." In it, in fact, whitewash murderers from the sect of Charles Manson, showing that they are innocent sheep and did not want anything bad. Although in life they were fanatics who killed a pregnant woman. So, 'Caha directly. The other movie is as if the killers in Charlie Said So didn’t make victims of circumstances and influence, but showed without embellishment their brutality that they didn’t learn anything, and the rest of the movie said, ‘They’re the main characters – empathize.’ And the film about Kahu declares: our heroes are not deserving of empathy freaks, but you empathize, because they are the main characters.
In general, this film is not just bad, it is offensively bad. After that, you don’t have a sense of fun watching a stupid movie, you have a sense of anger at being portrayed as disgusting characters who deserve empathy in an attempt to convey something ostensibly important. I do not recommend anyone to watch this unpleasant film. It is better to wait for the review from whom.
An amateur movie. We do not mean lovers to laugh at the adventures of stupid people, but we mean people who are able to see the problem that the authors are trying to convey in a deliberately ugly, grotesque form, able to remember their other actions, dictated by ' cheap pontiffs', able to see themselves by looking into the abyss.
In other words, this film is not an entertaining movie. As an entertainment movie, it's terrible. But as an absurdist philosophical parable, it is quite good.
In its genre of black comedy-grotesque, the film is not alone, and far from being the first, although it naturally has its own face. Most of these (in genre and / or stylistic sense) films ('Do not threaten the southern central, drinking juice in your quarter', ' Eurotour' etc.) are parodies of other films and even entire genres. Parody is in itself the meaning and reason for the existence of the film, because, in some cases, the most convenient way to point out some problems is to use the artistic technique ' bringing to the absurd'. Although, of course, this technique is often used simply to make money.
Most often, black comedies are still based not on the presence of absolutely stupid heroes, but on a kind of coincidence, but scenes where, to put it mildly, the proximity of certain persons is played out are found almost everywhere. I think, when watching the film, almost at the very beginning, many people came up with the phrase ' Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' from 'Big jackpot' Guy Ritchie.
There are a lot of self-sufficient films of this genre, although there is always a place for parody in them. Perhaps one of the founders of the genre was 'Dumb and even dumber'. The key scene, in my opinion, was the moment when the hero imagines how he ascends to the pinnacle of fame - like beautiful girls, look at him with admiration, and he jokes, suppresses everyone with his "charm" & #39; and the culmination - the demonstration of the trick with the burning of his intestinal gases, causes the imaginary audience complete delight. Here even the viewer, honestly ' enjoying ' popcorn viewing can feel shame and pity. And think, why? Why are heroes still children in their thirties? Why do heroes have a value system focused on poor, cheap popularity, because they seem to live among ordinary, normal people? What kind of incubator did such ridiculous individuals grow up in?
Such grotesque films usually give a pretty clear answer. The same ' Do not threaten the southern central' unequivocally raises the question of the subculture of the black ghetto, ' Give oak in the district of Yuba' nods to some aspects of modern television, which, combined with modern loneliness, can produce monstrous, ridiculous consequences.
If we go back to 'Kahe' then, posing the same question, we get a fairly simple answer: there is a criminal subculture inherent in certain social groups. Of course, almost any country (I have doubts about the Vatican) has such a subculture – in the working-class suburbs, ghettos, among national minorities. It has an international character, although everywhere it has its own characteristics. Its main aspects are the specific interpretation of issues of nobility, freedom, attitude to loved ones, to work, etc. In addition, in criminal culture, such quality of character as determination is highly valued - speed of decision-making and ignoring the consequences. It is the question of the existence of such a culture, its attractiveness, its borders, and is the main problem raised in the film.
Again, almost always in the films of the genre described criminal subculture has a national/racial color. The majority of American films can be ignored, although both Latin American and white characters are also represented. But Guy Ritchie meet, for example, scumbags-Lapland, although the film only postulates the presence of such artifacts, but does not raise the question of origin.
In itself, the mixing of criminal and national subcultures often looks ridiculous and doubly ridiculous, which is why there are many films that play out this moment. Why some national characteristics are well suited to the criminal environment, is well demonstrated, for example, in 'Mimino' in a touching scene of the court, where the hero of Frunzik Mkrtchana tries to help a friend not quite honest and clever methods, while remaining in his own honest, kind and naive person.
In ' Kahe' describes a wild mixture of Caucasian temperament, tradition and value system with a semi-criminal subculture. The creators quite rigidly, by the method of bringing to absurdity, demonstrate the self-contradiction of the criminal value system, the low cost of petty-criminal & #39; determination & #39; and the principles of the existence of such a seemingly unviable, suicidal system. The open text says that such a culture is supported by the symbiosis of two types of people (' without a heart' and ' without a brain'), as well as illiteracy and unwillingness to escape (' he saved me from higher education, or I would be like everyone else, would sit in libraries' – quote inaccurate). It is openly shown that what some people understand as masculinity, in reality, looks completely unmasculine. What is understood as 'cool' - from the outside looks poor and shallow. That under any decision and judgment you can bring poor pseudological justifications, which cost a penny.
Formally, the educational aspect of the film is much inferior to the entertaining, which is clearly visible from reviews and comments. Reality is more complicated. 'Not funny', 'disgusting', 'stupid meaningless rust' - what do these estimates say? They're talking about two things.
Or a person perceives everything shown as absurd, having no right to exist and practically absent in real life - and this means that the criminal subculture is not so common in society, that most people encounter similar things except in other works of art, and in clickbait news.
Either a person recognizes himself or acquaintances and resents the way it is all absurd, not really shown. ' Yes, I like beautiful cars and beautiful girls - but why is it bad?' It must be said that a normal person always sees himself in any heroes, and evaluates how much he is the same (or was the same), or how much he is not the same as to make himself better, and how not to fall into even more depravity, given the current number of desires and the existing value system. This is not my idea, I freely paraphrased Gogol from a letter about ' Dead Souls' who had to explain to readers that all these Plyushkins and Manilovs are himself, Gogol.
Do I recommend watching this movie? It's complicated. For ' I don't recommend it to most' that would sound silly. Whether it will do more harm than good to a particular person, I cannot say. I can only repeat that this is not an entertaining movie, although there are some elements of it. But it is impossible to avoid such spectacles. Just at the sight of a drunk man falling into a puddle, someone will laugh (at least some joys in life), someone will think ' abomination! and we, decent people have to look at it!' and the third will remember this person when he stands in the store by the shelf with alcoholic beverages. He won't buy anything.
From the series decided to relax and go to comedy. AGA, schuss!
Something wrong was suspected in the 10th minute of the film. What's that? What was he doing in the car? Then it gets worse, flat humor, to which you do not know how to react. You feel like you're in a madhouse, you start smiling. Although, glimpses of the storyline made their way through this nonsense. The writers honestly tried to spell out the humanity of GG. Just one sentence ': They're not killing us right. You have to go in the head, because you have no heart, and me on the contrary.39 Although human values are completely absent. Friendship, family, and all that stuff, they threw it all away. What does this movie teach you? For what? In the hall sat the youth, who 'high' appreciated this masterpiece, came out happy and happy. I'm in shock.
And in general, after watching comes the understanding - this is the level of our cinema. Cruel.
I want to finish the question-answer GG ' Kaha, do you know why there is so much go in our world? - Because everything cf. t.'
Philosophical parable of the essence of being, a fresh look at drama
A long-awaited film from one of the best humorous teams in Russia! The unique style and excellent transmission of local color, coupled with witty jokes, did not leave anyone indifferent, the whole hall laughed, many came to see a second time!
The plot is fresh and new, a lot of attention is paid to the relationship between loving people and friends! I was pleased with the reference to the series and past films, familiar characters flash, fans of the acclaimed series will definitely be delighted!
Humor as always at the level, the style is somewhat reminiscent of Monty Python, but here it is deeper and more thoughtful, clearly tied to the storyline and every joke shoots in time.
The difference between this film and the series in a deeper message and connoisseurs of literature will immediately notice references to Aesop, Chekhov and Dostoevsky. The topic of life and death seems to be the main one, but it is a clever and thoughtful move of the director. Some motifs are similar to the work of Bulgakov, a couple of times caught himself on this idea, because the mystical component here goes in parallel with history and culture.
There is a bit of plagiarism, for example, the theme of friendship and war is borrowed from the Irish playwright and director Martin McDonagh, in his latest film Banshee Inisherin also the conflict of friends is an allegory of war. But in this case, the implementation is noticeably more successful, the colors are bright and juicy, the characters are more sensitive and alive, there is no unnecessary blackhead with the cutting off of fingers and other dubious techniques.
The plot keeps in suspense until the end, you worry for the heroes more than the intrigue persists until the last frame and according to the canons of high-quality dramaturgy we get an open ending, which gives us hope for a third film, which, as you like to believe, will be even better. How much better? There is clearly 11 out of 10, sorry fans of escapes from showshank, green miles and other fiction, the film industry does not stand still, we look forward to continuing!
What to say... What should I do? Keep in mind that this is a parable film. When you understand this, the whole picture becomes not vulgar-primitive, but meaningful, interesting and much deeper than it may seem at first glance. In general, respect for the authors – well done, such deep films today are a rarity. And the fact that it is not immediately visible, only emphasizes the successful idea of the authors and the team that embodied it in such a edifying, in essence, film.
Kakha and Sergo are one person, each of us, two parts of a single whole. At the same time, Kaha is the desires and ways of achieving them, what is called the desires of the flesh. And Sergo... well, in simple terms, the conscience, which, as we know, always opposes the flesh. Although her flesh can conquer, it can be the other way around. At the same time, the flesh has no heart (conscience), and conscience has no brains (desires of the flesh) is very vividly and figuratively shown in the film. Letting the conscience be heard, however, makes a person free, capable of being driven not only by desires, which leads to death, but also to find a new life. Yes, the world is the same, but life has a meaning different from the race for adult toys and money and power. The image of the birth of a new man, free from everything he was a slave to, is beautifully represented in the picture.
Summing up, I will say this: I definitely saw myself in this film - which means the parable film was successful and therefore I recommend it.
PS1. The cemetery symbolizes the end of the life of any person who deprives the meaning of everything that a person moves in his life. On the one hand. On the other hand, death is an image of what a person has to go through: the death of those goals that govern a person, force them to make decisions and do - until conscience is heard.
PS2. From a dialogue with a friend:
- I can't judge what's inside. But with what years do they make themselves the image of cheerful amorals with humor below TNT, and then undertook the parable to remove?
- Maybe God did, but the authors didn’t. It happens so often.
- Well, as an option.
I always end my comments by saying, “Well, watch it.” I do not impose my opinion on anyone, so that the reader understands that I am not trying to impose my opinion, but only present it. Whether or not to agree is the reader’s choice. The same goes for this “creation.” Someone this so-called movie will “go down”, and someone will be ready to spit the whole screen, just so as not to see the madness that is happening on it.
The first part of the picture about the adventures of Sergo and Kakha in principle was not suitable, and therefore it was not necessary to count on the fact that the second part would be better, to put it mildly.
There are many films in which criminals act as positive characters because they do what they do for the good of others. Such films are full and in most of them such guys still overtake punishment. It is possible that the creators of “Kahi 2” decided that they too will be able to romanticize two friends-fools and try to justify what they did, but with the approach they made a mistake.
What the picture begins with does not lend itself to logical explanation, because the film begins with the disgusting act of Kahi (no wonder on the poster he is depicted with horns - well, because he is a real devil), for which in places not so distant his retribution would have befallen that hour.
When you see this done by him, the further narrative fades into the background, because you realize that the director will spend the next almost an hour and a half justifying the lowly disgusting act of his character. And he, in turn, like a scoundrel, will try to find a secluded place, so that he whiningly sits there, no matter how the reckoning catches up ...
Going back to the abundance of movies about bad guys and the fact that very often they get punished. In theory, this “picture” could also go down this path, show the “miraculous transformation of Kaha”, which did things at the very beginning, and towards the end gnawed the nails up to the elbows, due to the fact that conscience exuded him all. But no! Both the main characters were at the very beginning of the short-sighted, cheeky type of guys, so they remained.
Reflections in the course of the film because of what was done in the beginning are zero. But there are too many attempts to cheer the audience at the expense of “hilarious” in the opinion of scriptwriters situations in which two friends find themselves.
And by the way, about the audience and the words written above that the opinion may not coincide. Judging by the fact that in some cinemas this “cinema” is played 6 times a day (orientated by my Omsk), the audience is happy to go to this, preferring to use another portion of toilet humor. Although I understand that Russian film distribution is suffering from a lack of high-profile and really interesting projects. But when everything was wrong, people also went to various game, which was filmed in Russia 5 and 10 years ago.
There is no point in writing about the rest. The wretched acting - which the leading actors have succeeded at - is in the curve. Monkey and grimace they succeed, there is no dispute. At the zoo, if they were placed in a cage with primates, I think visitors would not be able to tell the difference between a primate and a body that has learned to walk on straight legs. Humor is the level of dried spit on the floor in the toilet that saw the last cleaning under Lenin. Everything else is in the same spirit and style. . .
It is not entirely clear how Shamirov could get involved in this game (there is no other word to find) and start a long-term one (given that the first film was released in 2020). But judging by the fact that he decided to continue shooting the low-grade d*#@mo, he liked it. It is quite possible that when it comes to filming such a thing, money falls off much more than if you shoot something really worthwhile.
P.S.
Viktor Shamirov, if you were taken hostage by the “outstanding” actors of our time – Karokozyan and Kalaidzhyan, wink...
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Have a good/unpleasant look.
"Kinopoisk" does not allow you to put "0" picture in the rating under the description, but it can be done here.
I liked it, I was able to experience the spectrum of emotions from hatred to tenderness.
A film about the evils of the South.
To understand the film, you need to know the philosophy of southerners, the mentality of Sochi and the Caucasus, preferably to be in Abkhazia and observe it with your own eyes. These are still scenes from life, unfortunately.
The creativity of the guys since 2011, for more than 10 years they subtly ridicule the limited thinking and absurdity of beliefs.
The film shows the abomination of indifference, and what people go for money and illusory status, ridicule and pay attention to the neglect of Caucasian sons to mothers, and how life in poverty is built in general. The phrase 'Yerevan, let’s make children, I don’t have enough hands' most absurdly, but partially truthfully paints a picture of what is happening in large families living in one place.
In short, humor, for those who have followed the history and philosophy of the entire series, and are partially familiar with the remnants of these absurd rules, which seem to have outlived themselves, but nevertheless live in the heads of stupid men.
It will only be funny hysterically, from the realization of absurdity, 2 standards, male stupidity.
I would add that the film shows the fears and ignorance of the people who drive them, that the company of guys making up rumors, that the main characters themselves. Yes, put everyone in a pile now - everyone is doing the same thing, inventing on the go, what they do not know, in order to say the word and create noise in the company.
Also in the finale is a note of philosophy that one who lives only with the heart is infinitely stupid and dies meaningless, and one who lives with his head is too dependent on society and people’s opinions, and at the same time he suffers from this and causes him (society) harm.
Sergo is handsome, drowns everything for the human in people, subtly broadcasts that it is time for the body to negotiate with the soul.
Such films should be banned at the legislative level.
The creators of the first film had about 2.5 years to think carefully about their behavior, to admit their mistakes, to apologize to everyone for the pain they caused by the release of their "Probe" & #39; How did they manage that time? Almost immediately after the release of ' Directly Kaha!' authors began to come up with excuses, justify themselves, release reviews on angry blogger reviews and pretend to be fools. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were threats. But the scenario of the sequel was invented in about 2 weeks (this is according to Artem Kalaijian, who plays Sergo). With this approach, the result was expected, but, frankly, I was not ready to see this bottom. I respect people who bend their line, but to stubbornly continue to bet on techniques that do not work, I consider simply meaningless.
Plot. This time my friends are in real trouble. Can they find a way out together? Or is it going to be over again?
I think we should start with the main characters. Kaha degraded completely and irrevocably. He became even more vile, unmanageable and finished. He had committed crimes before (the original showed us this more than once), but here he committed an act inadmissible for any normal man in the first 5 minutes and instantly turned into a real bastard. To be honest, I wanted to get up and leave the session. And yet I decided to give the tape a chance. Then I noticed that Sergo became even more stupid and turned into a real 'a rag'. In almost every scene, he was either blunt or whining. Sometimes he voiced sound thoughts, but for the entire timekeeping will be about a minute of such revelations. Against their background, the main antagonist - a criminal authority - looks like a normal man with principles.
Approximately 95% of the dialogues contain outright nonsense. The secondary characters are not revealed in any way and perform the role of trees in the forest: they stand for the background and fine. The love lines are not there. I would call it 'Baddy lines' because what the main characters are, such are their girls. The ending was decided ' to drain into the toilet' but by this point of viewing it becomes irrelevant, as long as the movie ends faster.
Atmosphere. Shooting from the 1st person is a thing of the past, but it did not save the overall situation. Unjustified violence, disrespect for people, rudeness, lies and inappropriate behavior became many times more, so during the viewing I stained many times because of the behavior of the protagonists. For the first time in my life, I wanted the main characters to be caught and punished for their actions. It is a pity that the police from the city disappeared forever, and the bandits were too near to cope with a couple ' Biba and Bob' The acting game is endless curves and continuous replays of their roles.
Humor. If you like to watch the behavior of individuals that have not evolved, then humor will come to you. If you like KVN school level jokes, you will be welcome here. If you like watching people get hurt and they get hurt, congratulations, you're a sadist. But you will have fun.
Music. It seems that the task was this: to make a selection of more or less popular songs of some time ago, but that they necessarily sing with an accent. At the same time, they will play at random moments of the picture. Well, that goal was accomplished on ' Excellent'.
Result. This is something beyond good and evil. This ' craft ' (the language does not turn to call what you saw the film) is one of the most wretched, disgusting and talentless tapes I have ever seen. But scary, actually, not even that. The really scary thing is that in the hall among normal people sat the same ' daring 'kahi'' with their 'fashionable women from the area' and groaned every minute throughout the viewing. They live very close to each other, perhaps on the streets. I don’t even want to think about what values they will instill in their children.
1 out of 10
(5%) for not going crazy while watching and appreciating good movies even more.
P.S. At 11 p.m., the hall was almost packed. About 1/3 of those present laughed and scoffed. During the commercials of other films, a couple of times someone was heard shouting in the style of ' Hey, Kahu, come on!'. I finally got to know my target audience of fans 'Kahi' and I figured out who it was for.