The movie doesn't let go. Comedy is not a comedy, farce is nearer, tragedy is little, black is too easy. There, director Vasily Sigarev did not spare Moscow. He didn't spare us all. And myself, respectively.
On New Year’s Eve, the girl goes to the city, looking for Torforezov Street. A good girl, about 20 years old, white, Lena Shabadinova. And she meets alone, sorry, freaks. Then the drug addict almost killed in an accident, then the pervert invites for tea.
No, there are good people. Inna Churikova plays the Mother of Our Time. It is written about the Hero of our time, and this is the Mother. Oh, that's how Inna Mikhailovna plays mercilessly too! And her children are “real”, frostbitten to the full head. The slob gets from them when she intercedes for the Mother.
And here's the scene for which bravo. A man in a cockerel hat, like an intellectual, like a bard, like a loner and sitting on the Internet. It is astonishing that the girl - oh, terrible! - does not know who Navalny is. And when she asks, "Where are you?" -- well, we really know about networks -- she says, "I'm here." What a wonderful answer. It’s all about people, isn’t it?
Now, more humor. "Cockerel" suggests to have tantric sex. I didn't have time to take off my pants, but I finished, I got my dog. Sad, comical, pathetic. I don’t know who, but I see a pure parody of modern Moscow. The same pathos-glamorous-smooth, words-words, many words, bold phrases, creating an impression about something grand, significant. It's actually a trickle, an impotent city. The present is in another place.
The actor who is in the “cockerel”, Vladimir Simonov, by the way, brilliantly plays. I counted everything. What a prize for him.
The plot is tense. Knock on the door, the wife is back, the "cock" is terrified. Begs Lena not to destroy, get out of the apartment through the balcony and go down to the next one. It's all on the 10th or 20th floor, high, short. The girl agrees, climbs without insurance, hangs between the balconies. Ta-dam, quintessence, citizens! Muscovite-impotent-high-altitude just in case the girl falls, shouting to the whole street: "Citizens!" Thieves are coming!
Lena, fortunately, remains intact. What's even more surprising is no anger. That's right. Rescuing a passerby's dog - Goshi Kutsenko. He put a box of fireworks on his head and lit it. Lena Shabadinova says a phrase that may be left alone in the memory of this film. Inimitable intonation. "He can't do that." One actress, Yana Troyanova, can speak that way.
The street Torforezov and does not find, and after the kunstkamera of this says Gaucher: “I will leave here.” I didn't get stuck here. I don't know how to live.
Oh, it hit me. Comrades, what a surprise. The kindest creature in this story - did not take root among the freaks.
Touching, recognizable. But not gloomy, not at all. At the end of Gosh, the girl is saved and sings a soulful song.
I watched with my husband. I definitely liked it, and he’s not a fan of this weird movie. But both at the end almost simultaneously issued: "But honestly."
I almost forgot. The film is called "Land of Oz." Check out the analogy. A famous tale about the wizard of Oz. Or is it quite a real country, which is time to call an ambulance - call 03.
Honestly, I don’t know what I expected from this movie, but I saw a completely different story that I liked much more than the trailer.
There is such a wonderful time in our country when anything can and does happen, and a wonderful time in both a good and a bad way. The name of this time is New Year. And it is not even on this night of miracles (and the time on New Year's Days tends to stretch and shrink in the most incomprehensible way) that the heroine of the film Lenka Shabadinova goes to her new workplace - a saleswoman in a kiosk on Torforezov Street in Yekaterinburg. This is where the most amazing thing in her life begins.
On the one hand, so many adventures can not fall on the head of one person in one day. But on the other hand... This is Russia, this is New Year's Eve.
I would define the genre of the film as a road movie, after all, the heroine tries to get to the final point. Along the way, the heroine meets various characters, absurd, grotesque, but at the same time so recognizable as our neighbors or relatives. And in the kiosk, meanwhile, she is waiting for a shiftman with a friend, in whose life this New Year's Eve will also not pass without a trace.
The film involves many good and different actors, known and not very, but each to the place and played even a small episode, but from the heart.
Yana Troyanova - it's a pity that so rarely starred in films, but each of her work - a small life, which you live with her character.
Gosha Kutsenko - he goes to play the roles of such a few (or many - at once you will not understand) crazy brutal men.
Alexander Bashirov is a perfect cripple! I sincerely believe in the crazy parallel reality in which his hero Duke exists.
I recommend watching this movie for two reasons. First of all, he's really cool. And secondly, this is our modern reality, there are thousands of such Lenok Shabadinovs in the country, such Dukes can be found in every corner. But the reality seems to be skipped through the filter and already seems not so scary, and even funny, although still I would not consider “Wall of Oz” a comedy.
10 out of 10
For the third time I watch Sigarev’s films and the third time I get the feeling that the director has set himself the goal of inflicting an emotional blow on the viewer, a pointless and merciless blow. And those lofty meanings, those pearly grains found by some critics, I now attribute to their own fantasies, supported either by preview expectations, or by a desire to demonstrate their originality, increased insight or refinement of taste. When I found out that after the film “Live”, which is more suitable for the name “Jeer”, Sigarev is going to shoot something in the genre of comedy, I thought – will he get out of the cemetery? Unfortunately, it didn't work.
It turned out Cigarev's "Dead Souls". Bodies live, move, send natural needs, and souls are dead. Or they fell asleep so tightly that sleep is indistinguishable from death. There is an incomprehensible, screeching longing, demanding satisfaction or compensation, and behold, restless bodies are washed, rushing through the streets of the New Year’s Eve city like a rolling field that drives through wastelands the sluggish wind of their unconscious desires. “I want to live” – a silent cry is heard, and how to live – they do not know, it does not work. It makes no sense to paint the characters separately, rather, it is one multi-headed organism, leaving behind the abomination of desolation.
Although the name sounds like “Country of Oz” and, seemingly, hints at this and the name of the heroine Len (consonant with Ellie), and she raves on Torforez Street with a small dog, but the analogies end there and overlap with another, more suitable – “Country 03”, with which both a mental hospital and a morgue are associated. And, most importantly, the screen action is more suitable for the second name. It is hard to believe that this ambiguity was not put into the name specifically.
What do we see on the screen? Atomic society, not people, but billiard balls, collide and, equally cold, fly in different directions without warming each other. A woman from Little Lyal wanders around the city - weak-willed, with frozen feelings. Unwilled in the literal sense - precisely without will, meekly obeying all who met her on the way to this New Year's Eve. The only independent decision led to tragic consequences.
Or is she blessed? Maybe the director decided to revive the image of fools in Russian cinema? Adapted to modern realities? I don't think. In any case, previous experience with Sigarev’s films does not give grounds to suspect him of a propensity for religious motives. Or so, in a penchant for canonical versions, since the mystical lines were not alien to him in the same picture “Live”.
But the satire to call the “Land of Oz” also does not turn the tongue. Except with clarification - it is a pamphlet or, at best, a pamphlet. It was as if the man who showed us such a life had reached the extreme of despair and disbelief. Let me remind you that the action of “Country of Oz” takes place on New Year’s Eve and the director seems to throw a challenge to the viewer in the face: are you used to the syrupy “With a light steam”? Here's your real New Year's story. Dirty, smelling like shit. Live with her, cast away illusions.
The language of heroes also plays an important role in creating an atmosphere. The fact that the mat in Sigarev’s paintings has long become commonplace should not be surprising. In his defense, we can say what life is, so is language. But in this case, the concentration will probably be thicker than in reality. Not in frequency, but in sophistication, in dirt, if you will. Well, Churikova, who is obsessive, is stronger than Faust Goethe. Even though her mat doesn't sound very rough, it's like a mat light. But it still looks crazy.
I often overestimate domestic authors, whether it is literature or cinema. If it didn’t work out this time, but the notes of talent or, at least, conscientiousness or diligence slip through, then I give praise in advance, with the hope for a better future. In the case of Oz, I’ll break that tradition. In my opinion, the director is in a creative or human impasse. And not because it does not remove well - in this respect I have the least complaints about him, many could learn from him. Claims because the path he follows does not lead to the cherished temple (each understands this image in his own way), but to the cemetery. This is a different kind of music.
I remember such an “actor” Vladimir Semago, who starred in his sponsored film “In August of the 44th”. On his way went and Yekaterinburg mayor Roizman, also sponsored the “Country of Oz” and received a piece of acting fame. However, much less time than Semago. In proportion to the contribution?
An excellent, talentedly shot and played movie about how a provincial girl Lenka Shabadinova, hoping for a better life, moved to the regional center and tries to get to her new workplace in a kiosk on the eve of the New Year, experiencing a lot of adventures along the way. Lenka is exactly what people from small cities are – unspoiled by our eternal run somewhere, calm, reasonable, honest and simply good. And now she meets people very different.
You can argue endlessly and prove that such obvious freaks in reality in Russia will not be found. Only how can you not see that this is a satire, a grotesque, and in fact show all quite typical problems that exist in society. Drugs, alcohol, some unrealized desires, the philosophy of uneducated alcoholics behind the bottle. The mother contains three parasitic sons who beat her. A pseudo-intellectual who listens to bards and dreams of cheating on his wife. Many other things, it is better not to tell in words, but to see for yourself. Yes, there is a shame to admit to myself that this is how we celebrate, this is how people are. Well, the authors wanted to show you what not to be, so what's wrong with that? The actors did a great job with the roles. Yana Lenku played just great, Bashirov, as always, an exact hit in the character. And Inna Churikova does not humiliate such a role.
After all, this is a New Year's fairy tale, although not cheerful, so the end is almost good. I think it’s incredibly good for such a movie. But one must sometimes believe in luck, even for such a phenomenally unlucky girl as Lenka.
Great aftertaste of the film, it is a pity that critics do not notice it. Because there are more good people!
9 out of 10
I bet you're over mat. In my opinion, there was no need for such a quantity. Of course, to show a real celebration — and not to swear — no way. But why so much?
On a quiet spring evening, I return home from service. In the old Moscow alley is cool, but the air already smells quite springy. Thin branches of poplars with buds that have recently emerged do not create any obstacles while the sun is not hot before the July heat. Shying, I smile at his soft rays. I'm calm and happy. Walking past elderly couples and colorfully dressed mothers with strollers. I look at them, and somewhere inside me, something soft and fluffy begins to bloom. I want to smile even more. I am so excited about all the things that are happening around me.
But then my mind regurgitates from its depths the memories of the film seen the day before. Country of OZ. And something soft and fluffy, not so long ago began to blossom inside me, mercilessly smothers stained with human feces with a cherry boot. Before the inner gaze instantly pop up pictures of cruel abomination, so skillfully highlighted in this film. All the nauseating sludge that just recently poured into my brain from a computer monitor begins to rumble with joyful gloating in my not so long ago serene head. Country of OZ. I can’t get rid of those memories. Footage from the film, like in a kaleidoscope, grinds before my inner gaze. The bubbling sores of a sick society burst juicily before my eyes. Without failing to give me a cascade of foul-smelling splashes. I wish there were such wonderful characters in OZ! Perverts, criminals, alcoholics, and just scum. It's not just normal people. With the exception of the main character... Well, it was introduced solely in order to better shade all the abomination in the film shown. And the public vomit is filmed here under telescopic magnification. Yes, so that every purulent streak is visible in all its disgusting details.
I have no right to enjoy a spring evening. For in the “Country of Oz” it is customary to focus attention on the fetid porches and bits of the human race on these porches loitering.
But I don’t understand why so carefully speculate on base audience feelings? Why focus on perversions and deviations? Can I show you how it really is? Well, I know that. I see prototypes of the indigenous people of the OZ country every day. Or maybe the creators believe that the viewer needs to poke like a kitten into this very “truth about the Russian hinterland”? No need for me. Because I know the truth myself. And, to put it mildly, the reality is not quite that. There are negatives, but there are also positives. The harsh Russian reality is represented not only by feces and sexual perversions.
There is no need to speculate on a black mind. And even more so in cinematography.
In addition, for some time from everything you see, you also have to move away, involuntarily grinding through the most disgusting scenes.
“Country of OZ” is not just bad.
“Country of OZ” is disgusting.
Eternal non-return of Shabadinova Lenka or Where is Torforezov Street?
There is nothing new under the moon. After reading dozens or hundreds of books, you begin to understand that all the variety of stories boils down to a few unchanging plots. The idea is not new – to create such a list of subjects tried repeatedly. The most radical approach to this question was Borges, who counted only four existing plots:
The story of the siege and defense of the fortified city (Troy);
The story of a long (eternal) return anywhere (Odysseus);
• A search story (Jason);
The story of the suicide of God (One, Attis, Jesus).
In general, this classification is similar to the truth. At first I thought there was a love story missing, but when you think about it, any relationship story really comes down to search, siege and defense, so Borges didn’t make the mistake of highlighting it.
My favorite story of the above has always been the story of eternal return. I’m talking about the eternal, since the word “long” implies that it still turned out to return somewhere, albeit not immediately, which can not be said about the stories that will be discussed later. Someone (I think Pelevin) very aptly called this story a story of eternal non-return. These stories are usually framed in the form of a trip in a geographical sense, i.e. from point A to point B, which is often a metaphor, since the characters are actually trying to return to a lost state of mind (harmony, happiness, etc.). Of the great many such stories, I first of all remember two: “Journey to Ixtlan” by Carlos Castaneda and “Moscow-Petushki” by Venedikt Yerofeev. Remember, by the way, not by chance, but because the same Viktor Olegovich in one of the articles wrote about the similarity of their plots.
What do these stories look like? At the heart of both is a trip to a place that the main characters associate with lost happiness. Don Genaro goes to his hometown of Ixtlan, where his friends and family remain. Venichka Erofeev goes by train to Petushki, where his beloved lives. An important part of the plot (important in light of subsequent comparisons) are the people they meet on the road. Don Genaro meets people who appear to him as spirits and ghosts, and none of them can show him the way to Ixtlan. Venichka’s companions are even stranger: someone stupid-dumb and his intelligent-smart comrade, the idiots of Mitrici’s grandfather and grandson, a mustache man with a mustache and a beret and a woman who looks exactly the same, etc., who carry complete nonsense, but in response to the question invariably repeated by Venichka, “Queen of Heaven!” How far is it from the Roosters?!, there is only mocking laughter. To the destination in the end, none of them (neither Genaro nor Venichka) never gets – lost happiness remains unattainable.
Now let’s move on to what I’m talking about here, the Russian film “Country of Oz.” The sad story of Lenka Shabadinova is not a classic eternal non-return? The techniques are the same: throughout the film Shabadinova strives for the cherished stall, where she is waiting for a new job (the opportunity to gain a foothold in the big city, relative prosperity), and every person she meets asks: “Where is Torforezov Street?” How far is it from the Roosters?! The answer unhappy Lenka and does not receive, only new troubles, and in the end – a bullet in the head. This circumstance, by the way, is even more similar to the plot with “Moscow-Cockerel”, where Venichka at the end instead of the long-awaited embrace of the blond beauty (with a scythe to the butt) gets a stitch in the throat. And what is even more remarkable - this beauty, despite the sublime epithets of Venichka, by his own admission - just a "lushly b***", as well as the alleged well-being of Shabadinova - no more than a shitty stall somewhere in the backyard of Yekaterinburg (Street Torforezov!).
One might think that Shabadinova’s story differs from Venichkina’s relative happy ending: Lenka meets a good-natured guy who, apparently, will take care of her. I will disappoint you, Shabadinova has died. Pay attention to how the colors of the film change after Lenka wakes up in the hospital, to her spirit in the image of an Indian dancer who sees one of the features of a burned out stall (and the fact that these two are devils, I personally have no doubts), and the fact that the stall (Lenka’s hope for a better life) burned down. But finally all doubts about the fate of Shabadinova removes the final song, which she sings with Kutsenko:
Light smoke, I dissolve with it.
In the air, the breath of time.
It's like we're in pairs.
The same windy circle.
You didn't know anything about life.
And finally, lucky.
As soon as it became a haze.
I know everyone, I know everything.
The day turns into a shadow.
Night returns to day.
This is how pain is forgotten.
And I need to rise again.
And I need to be resurrected.
But laziness, but laziness, but laziness, but laziness.
8 out of 10
Flying from warm camps across the Atlantic. On the road took the film, which, according to the rave reviews of many very intelligent and respected people, was positioned as the best film of the year, unfairly bypassed the main prizes of film festivals.
It was fun at first. The strange retarded heroine of Yana Troyanova with a frozen expression of simple-minded moronism on her face, with the eternal refrain “And my sister broke my tailbone”, traveling in the hope of getting to the street on New Year’s Eve. Torphoresis and getting to work as a saleswoman in a stall seemed amusing. The hero of Tsyganov in a narcotic blackout driving the car caused a cheerful laugh. 15 minutes... Then, over time, the smiles on our faces took the form of a frozen mask, then faded. like the expression of Lenka Shabadinova herself ... half an hour later, looking at each other, we decided that the world and people were crazy.
There are many films from the category of “black”. Among them are worthy. There are so many New Year comedies. There's even "black humor." But here, according to my feeling (I am not a prude, not a moralist, I do not mind a strong word for the place, etc.) the same process took place as in the famous anecdote, where the technology of producing oil from g... on – “We are halfway to success!” - It's smearing! But it still smells! There are speculative and provocative methods. They are successful in the “chain” of information transfer in “competent” circles – “Have you already seen (read)?” Brilliant! They are known both in cinema and in literature (sorokin’s copro diary comes to mind). The book that I just threw away – the only one in my life and will not read anything again – the author is clear to me and all his other experiments and excrement are no longer interesting. I wonder if anyone really laughed and watched the movie to the end. It is suggested from the heart to have fun (or to tears to grieve?), that we live in the city (literally and figuratively) and among the cattle. But somehow this idea is not new, and the abundance of sophisticated mat from the lips of all the characters to the place, not to the place, just causes disgust.
The director has the right to remove what he suffered and conceived - undoubtedly.
Actors have the right to agree to the role (but Inna Churikova in this “rim” to see it was very unpleasant, regardless of the quality of her acting work, he is not going anywhere – she is brilliant!). But I really want filmmakers to understand what they’re really doing. New Year’s extravaganza “Countries of Oz”, transformed into New Year’s diarrhea and flooding the screen with mat and shit, does not bring the viewer any innovation in cinema, nor the “truth of life” (for the truth is still more diverse), nor even the opportunity to laugh. Well, in fact, is it possible for an adult reasonable person to laugh, looking at the act of defecation or endlessly listening to the swearing or philosophizing of Duke-Bashirov?
If that was Sigarev's "super-task" - with relief.
I will never revisit it.
And I am ashamed that such crafts – “cakes” of the same substance are extolled as the best cinema in Russia by people I respect. Horror-horror-horror ...
P.S. My friends abroad loved the movie. I love it. I don’t know what to say to them...
Maybe the movie was just for viewing? It doesn't smell like that.
“Land of Oz” was invented by American writer Lyman Frank Bauman, whose work “The Amazing Wizard of Oz”, became widely known.
And, probably, the Russian film director, screenwriter and playwright Vasily Sigarev did not accidentally choose this title for his new film.
The New Year in Russia is a completely unpredictable and, at the same time, everyone’s favorite holiday, with its own special, one might say, national flavor.
On the eve of this celebration, the most unexpected things can happen, and events, swept into their cycle, can change life forever.
About such an unusual coincidence of circumstances and is told in the painting by Vasily Sigarev.
The main character Lenka Shabadinova falls as if into a fictional world, with her characters, scenery of a big city, saturated with the mood of a holiday and general madness.
And it seems that this is the very “Country of Oz”, at least its Russian counterpart.
However, the director gives a reference not only to the magical world of Frank Bauman (originally the film was called “Entertaining Ethology”). “Country of OZ” Vasily Sigarev is the country 03, where the first thing you need to call an ambulance, which, by the way, in the first scenes we will see.
Fantasy, dynamics, author's anger, irony and critical realism are intertwined in the new picture of Sigarev.
And, meanwhile, this director is known for his gloomy psychological dramas, such as “The Top” and “Live”.
That’s just “Country of Oz”, to rank on the list of New Year’s comedies intended for family viewing, it is impossible.
“Country of OZ” is an atmospheric film, fully sustained “in the spirit” of the director, which has become another Sigorev interpretation of Russian reality.
The decision on how successfully this work was performed, created at the intersection of genres, tragic and comic, is decided by the viewer.
The cast of “Country of OZ” is more than diverse: Gosha Kutsenko, theater and film actress Inna Churikova, Russian actor and film director Alexander Bashirov, People’s Artist of the Russian Federation Vladimir Simonov, Evgeny Tsyganov, Svetlana Kamynina, known for the television series “Interns” and, of course, Yana Troyanova, who played the main role in the film.
“Country of OZ” became the third film by Vasily Sigarev. The premiere of the film took place in June 2015 as part of the 26th Open Russian Film Festival "Kinotavr", where "Country of OZ" received the prize "For Best Screenplay", as well as the Prize of the Guild of Film Critics and Critics.
On the wide screens, the picture was released on December 3, 2015, gaining great popularity among the audience and, as always happens with Vasily Sigarev, receiving a variety of ratings.
Mr. Sigarev, if you live in Russia full of shit, drunkards and other degenerates with thoughts around the fly, then you can only sympathize. And also to be horrified that your film products, let me say, nominated for film awards. I am a sane person who grew up in the difficult 90s, who perfectly saw and continues to observe all the problems of our society, I believe that I live in a country of deep spirituality, where young people, seeing old women counting their last pennies to buy a shameful canned food in the supermarket, buy them a full basket of good food; where people come out with posters to boycott a film in which an actor plays, calling for the murder of civilians; where the whole world gather for the treatment of sick children; where people stand 2 hours in the cold in a huge queue to see pictures of their native artist.
You shoot an infinitely stupid and meaningless black woman, designed only to shock first a certain beau monde, and then, on the wave of hype raised by this beau monde, and the hapless viewer. You know, Mr. Sigharev, there is an expression: someone who hurts, he says that. Based on this, the topic of coprophagia, coprophilia and everything related to feces, apparently, is very close to you. As a doctor, I would advise you to see a psychiatrist. And yet, you swear in front of your mother, children, or, say, in the theater? no, then why should the audience listen to the mat from the screen, especially in the volume of kilomegaton? About the problems of society it is necessary to shoot not a black woman, like your Life, as well as Leviathan, Siberia Monamur, but good problem films that reveal the essence of things and offer an author's solution. Russian cinema is far from on top and it clearly will not rise, while shooting such comedies as the Land of Oz, The Best Film and the like lobud. You, Mr. Sigarev, would do well to review Soviet comedies, where humor was good and revealed the problems of society. In a word, the dialogue between the Master and Ivan the Homeless is recalled, when the Master tells the poet - never write again, and the Homeless, agreeing that his poems are bad, did not soil the paper with them anymore. So some authoritative person would open your eyes to your work and you would agree to admit that they were engaged exclusively in co-procreation and would leave the film market. What I wish you with all my heart.
Let me tell you this: I hate movies like that. I hate it with all my heart. Someone will probably say, “Yeah, my eyes really hurt!” Yeah, it hurts. I have enough of this truth in my life.
To be clear, I'm not against dirt in movies. But dirt should not become the basis of the plot. Dirt should not become an end in itself.
What is in the movie “Land of Oz”? The film can be described in two sentences. There's nothing exciting about the story. In fact, this is a rehash of the “Country of Oz”. But these films are not made for the sake of the plot, right?
Then maybe it's the humor. The film is positioned as a comedy! But why am I not laughing? Because I don't recognize myself, my friends, my neighbors in drunks playing dance, or anxious bards, or Caucasians shooting through the roof with a pistol? Not because of that. Rather, because all the characters are cardboard, introduced by the writers only as NPCs that help to realize the grotesque plot. The characters in the film, in fact, two - Yana Troyanova and Andrey Ilyenkov play them - and they are stupid and disgusting, like the other characters. I'm not laughing, I'm disgusting. That's gross.
No, of course, the film has enough "chips" for the "smart" viewer. But they are so deeply buried in shit that you do not want to pick them, you disdain to dive after them into this stinking substance.
So what was this film made for anyway? Then, in the interview, they say, “Who are you laughing at?” To show "we're all shit." I doubt that someone, recognizing themselves in the characters, will think: “But, man, I’m straight, I probably shouldn’t be like this!” Our problem is not even that the country of idiots, but that idiots consider themselves very smart and have the right. In this case, the film does not work at all. What a bitch that is not known in the characters does not recognize. Perhaps, the movie can only please pseudo-aesthetics, who happily clap their hands, as soon as there is another film “showing the monstrous Russian reality”. It is better to talk about such “pseudo-aesthetics”. Sigarev, clearly not a talentless director, made a movie.
P.S. In fact, after the poster, where the title of the film is displayed in urine in the snow, it was possible not to watch. But they advised, damn, some bad people...
A beautiful, talented film, with an exceptionally powerful soundtrack, great actors, and a great script if you like satire. This film is satire in its purest form, will make you laugh to tears. Everyone who speaks negatively about the film and accuses the authors of “black” just recognized the characters of the picture themselves or their loved ones. If in 100-200-500 years it is necessary to show someone what Russian society was like in 2015, and what was the way of life, you can just show him this film.
I do not like and avoid the creations of the domestic cinematography, but in this case, I looked at the recommendation of a colleague, and did not regret it, I reviewed it twice.
A simple, rural girl Lenka Shabadinova came from her Malaya Lyali to Yekaterinburg in search of a better life. Her sister broke her tailbone during a showdown with her lover, and now Lenke urgently needs to go to a kiosk on the edge of the city. Getting to the mysterious street Torforezov, Lenka will constantly get involved in various ridiculous and often even dangerous situations. Meanwhile, in the same kiosk, two bulldy friends will wait for her, marking the upcoming New Year in the course of heartfelt and partly even philosophical conversations about everything in the world (but mainly about this one).
The film “Country of OZ” is divided into two practical stories that do not overlap with each other (as far as I understand, they even have different writers). The first story about how a simple girl from the village gets to a new job, not knowing exactly where the street Torforezov. The second one is about the men in the kiosk. Despite the overall spirit and atmosphere of both stories, I liked them differently. Lenka and her adventures are a complete disaster. This storyline is shot in a very light humorous style and is literally full of colorful characters and epic statements. Almost everything is beautiful here: Lenka herself with her Uralic speaking, and Gosha Kutsenko in the image of a drunken but chivalrous Roman, and a kitchen bard with his frantic family, and, of course, Inna Churikova with three sons - "sofa warriors." It is cool, by the way, how this plot was adjusted to the original fairy tale about the “Land of Oz”: first, Shabadinova was carried away by a hurricane in the face of a stoned major, then she met the Scarecrow with a dog who actually set himself on fire, then the cowardly bard-“lion”, and finally, the heartless “woodcutters”. It ended up with no magic shoes.
But with the second story I have conflicting feelings. On the one hand, the men in the kiosk were colorful, especially Bashir in their favorite image, and the phrases here came across no less epic, but still, in my opinion, the slightest outlive. I have no doubt that everything shown could really happen to such people in the kiosk on Torforezov, it is not about truthfulness, but how well it is glued into the canvas of the general mood of the picture. So, in my opinion, some episodes still fell out of it. Although, of course, Bashirov is also a good find for such a hooligan film.
In general, of course, “Land of Oz” is a little more than just a comedy. There are many elements of satire and irony. Wish Zvyagintsev to make his "Leviathan" a comedy - for sure, something like this would turn out. In the "Land of Oz" indirectly raised a lot of topical social issues and shows a greater number of characters for the authenticity and plausibility of which in our country is ashamed. In this place, of course, it is worth warning everyone - all these characters speak their real language, that is, with abundant "matyuks." So viewers with delicate ears should not look better. As for the cast, I wouldn’t single out anyone personally. Everyone worked perfectly, and I did not see a single case of miscasting here (even in the unexpected, minute appearance of Yulia Snigir there was more life than in all her main role in the “Inhabited Island”).
As a result, “Land of Oz” is a very, very, very hooligan satirical comedy with a lot of obscene vocabulary, ridiculous situations and colorful social characters. I liked it, but I understand that this is not a spectacle for everyone.
Wide and vast our country and a whole carousel of characters can be seen here in an hour and a half. And a good half is not particularly interested in how they will spend the rest of their lives, but this is how to celebrate the New Year plan from November.
It is difficult to say whether the main character of the film wanted the “magic night of the year” to go this way, but the need to search the cherished Torforezov Street makes the girl from Malaya Lyali commit uncharacteristically desperate acts for herself.
In our country, they generally like to look for: the millions that have disappeared from the budget, or the national idea. One gets the impression that we exist for the sake of this search and put all our energies into it, and then it turns out that its very meaning was in the search. That's the kind of googol...
In cinema, as in life, the whole can hide behind the little things. For example, when people mention “American History X” in a conversation, first of all, an episode with the rape of the main character pops up in their memory, rather than his rejection of his previous beliefs. Similarly, in the “Land of Oz” for simple but bright moments in the form of a broken tailbone, three sons imbeciles of the heroine Churikova, defecations and other charms from the viewer can escape the general meaning of the film: yes, so lives, albeit with a slight exaggeration, permissible for cinema, n-th part of the population of Russia. Yes, so our fellow citizens celebrate the New Year, and then, according to the popular tradition, also spend it.
Lermontov in the preface to “The Hero of Our Time” talked about the sweets that fed the reader. Sigarev shows the bitter truth, from which the public can have heartburn, and judging by the reviews, it happened – gentle digestion did not absorb the product. And the product is a noble, intricate one. This is what happens in populist politics, when, to please the electorate and to the detriment of productivity, the whole country beats half a month. We had a chance to see only one day in the life of Lena Shabadinova, and there are still two weeks of rest ahead.
7 out of 10
“Did you watch OZ?” my friend asked me on the phone. - Look, I'm interested in your opinion. I didn’t ask her to motivate me, she just looked at me. No regrets.
I did not see the glossy well-groomed faces, beautiful interiors, which have already taught us domestic cinema. But I saw in abundance painfully recognizable faces. There they are, all around me - on the street, in transport - gray, compressed, dead. I saw on the screen “Khrushchev” houses and yards, shudderingly noting their vitality and truthfulness. Details of everyday life, such as a large enameled pan on a stove, a worn goat coat from the 90s, a littered with junk loggia, on which a pig’s head lies in a basin, brought out into the cold, etc. are shocking in their recognition. Some scenes, characters (the gallery of types in the film is luxurious) seem to be written off from my life. The shock is that while you live in the midst of this wretchedness, you usually do not notice it, and then suddenly you see it in all its glory. Do not turn away, these are the realities of our lives. And mat, which makes up about half of all the words spoken on the screen, is also a reality. When I was married for fourteen years, I used to hear this from my husband. Not because he is a bad person, but because he is used to expressing his emotions.
The reviews about the film that came to the eye were unanimous, calling what they saw “black” and complained that it was enough in the surrounding life, they say, why else look at it in the movies. It reminded me of the dialogue between the characters in the film Duke and his friend, in which Duke condemns the other for the fact that the latter, describing the relationship of the married couple, notes how they hid from each other the facts of defecation, considering it indecent. “You only care about shit! What about high values – goodness, self-sacrifice, love for the Motherland? Calling others “perverts”, suspecting them of sexual excesses, he tries to do things that undoubtedly fall under this term. I see this as a denial of my physiological nature, simply dishonesty to myself. Non-acceptance, as we know, leads to the strengthening of the denied. What you fight gets stronger. “Don't show us the black woman! We have enough of her in life! – shouted outraged viewers. They do not want to see it in life or in the movies, but it does not disappear from our lives.
Nothing will change until you admit what you're dealing with. In this case, I see an attempt by the filmmakers intentionally, distilling the "shit" of our reality in great concentration, to show it to the viewer. Only by acknowledging the world you live in can you begin to change it, and therefore yourself. I suppose that the filmmakers had the intention of allowing the viewer not just to recognize, but to be horrified by the world in which we live. That’s why “shit” is shown in a very concentrated form. It is concentrated, but not hypertrophied - too much truth in what you see, too accurate getting into images, situations and realities of life.
The film is about truth, the film is true in everything. And the truth is that even when you are horrified and realize that you need to change, "resurrection of laziness." This is the final song of the hero of the film.
8 out of 10
It turned out to be quite soft black — like “Zhmuriki”, to “Green Elephant” is far away, although here the fecal topic was raised. And it’s hard to say anything specific about the film: it’s neither good nor bad. I can not even decide whether it was timely or should have appeared 10-15 years ago (at least in our city – Volgograd – such kiosks were a sign of 15 years ago, now they are everywhere replaced by shopping pavilions or completely replaced by chain stores). Or maybe this film will be relevant in 3-5 years (depending on how the economic situation in our country will develop in the future).
I never laughed in the whole movie. Perhaps the creators did not expect this from the audience. The picture turned out to be closer to some social drama, with a shade of irony and sarcasm, seasoned with black women from the heart. Throughout the action, the heroes are godlessly swearing, sometimes literally talking with a mat. Very unpleasant topics are often raised – in fact, the plot is built by moving from one representative of the social bottom to another. And such a representative can be quite respectable in appearance person.
But I can not appreciate realism: I have never met such a stranger as the main character. At the same time, political humor turns out to be what is called the topic of the day. They joked about Zhirinovsky and about Navalny. And it turned out such a trick: we kind of joke about current topics, but in the atmosphere of 15 years ago. Heroes that you still need to look for in real life.
I have always believed that film is art, and the director is an artist. Therefore, it is important for me to understand why this or that movie was made.
In this case, it remained a mystery to me.
1. Is this a New Year's movie? Nope. That is, the scenery, of course, the New Year, but it has no role here. The film could also be made in the summer. It wouldn't have changed much. For me ' Christmas trees & #39; have a clear clearly expressed goal, to which they lead the viewer, namely to improve the mood before the holiday. Here, the mood is unlikely to improve anyone.
2. Is this a true-black movie? In the film 'Brother', 'Brother', 'Boomer' etc. There were plenty of blacks. But there she was a tool. We were shown the atmosphere and life of that time, but at the same time we did not forget the plot, which was interesting. Here the black man exists solely for the sake of the black man. From the series: 'See how we live'. So what? So is it a feature film or news story from the village? By the way, you should add the same for the mat. There is a lot of it, and it is completely out of place.
3. Is this movie funny? Nope. I didn't see anything funny. The only scene that was amusing was the one with the phone and the boy. In the rest of the weak attempts vulgarity and abomination to squeeze a smile.
And apart from the heroine. Who did they want to represent? a simple girl unspoiled by the city? It turned out for some reason to depict her only in the form of a degenerate, carrying some inappropriate nonsense.
In this regard, I would advise the director to always ask the question: ' Why am I making this film?' Maybe it will be good and interesting movies.
4 out of 10
Looking through the reviews on the Kinopoisk, I noted “yes” successful both positive and negative. For me, the film was divided into two polar impressions.
The first: the plot "a good girl in the stone jungle" is made subtly, soulfully. She does not wish harm to anyone, does not defame, but She is catastrophically unlucky. Her fellow travelers are guys with no brains, no heart, or no courage. It seems that the heroine is stingy on emotions, but has very much to herself. Well done, Jan Troyanova. And her beautiful inadequate Prince is also good.
The situations in which the heroine falls do not seem far-fetched, and the heroes are recognizable from our lives. All except the occupants of the kiosk.
Then comes the second: disgusting people, disgusting talk. Even for A. Basharov, this is too much.
The abundance of mat is stressful. What can be permissible to enhance the emotion becomes tense in large quantities - to the place and not to the place.
And, of course, fictional-sexual themes and the demonstration of vomiting masses. That’s what I understand makes the film arthouse. So the creators immediately get a step up. I mean, "He who doesn't understand is a fool." And to me, it's a hackneyed trick for hitting unacknowledged geniuses. And a good movie is ruined. It's an unpleasant aftertaste.
You know, there is a category of people whose meaning in life is described as: “I want to live with emotions and feelings, not with my head.” This movie is about being that person when you watch it.
Because the whole movie you don't understand what's going on. Why do the characters appear this way and not otherwise, why is the main character portrayed as a stupid villager, why is she so amorphous that she can not even reach work? In the old-fashioned tradition, I was looking for meaning in this movie, but I didn't get a damn thing. The worst part is that I liked the movie.
And not the film as such, but the emotions that you live watching this film (the film series itself I would logically estimate below 5 on a decimal scale, but emotionally put such an assessment is not desirable) some such Central Russian longing, which (in my opinion) even Lermontov tried to convey in his works.
It’s as if every moment you watch the movie asks, “What do you see is vulgarity or color?” “Well, define it.” and laugh at the fact that there is no answer.
A bit on the elements of the classic review: actors - play, the scenery - there, music - does not interfere with viewing.
7 out of 10
Very strange, many will not like, but if you look purely disconnected brain – like.
Impressions from the movie. The most important thing is an unexpectedly quiet smooth pleasure from what is happening on the screen from the beginning to almost the very end, most likely based on recognizing reality outside the window (maybe for someone this reality is a fantasy or echoes of the 90s, but not for me). The movie turned out to be atmospheric, slightly sticky. All expectations from the film were more than justified, a worthy continuation of the series Live, Leviathan, Fool. The movie provoked fermentation of thought and review, and settled in the list for re-watching, which is rare for me.
Opinion. It's not a comedy. I laughed a couple of times throughout the film, and it was scenes without lines. Although the film is filled with moments in the style of “and now the audience laughs” – not funny, probably because it is either “not my humor” or the topic itself is not conducive to laughing. The film has profanity, shit, prostitutes, blatant human idiocy, vomiting, urine, sperm, Bastinda, strapon, and a man running into the horizon waving burning pants. Perhaps the above will surprise or offend someone, but not me, as I am more familiar with the stories and characters in my personal life than in Country 03. The film revealed a lot of small chips and details nested right into each scene, and it was a separate pleasure to notice them. It is these nuance chips that paint everyday reality (for example, a scene where the heroine heads meet a small need for a garbage container, instead of using a toilet-box standing two steps nearby). This is a typical scene at public events or train stations in our regional center (or, for example, the mention of the name Navalny: I honestly, like Lena Shabadinova and may be a significant part of the population of the country, did not know and do not want to know who it is, since the experience of the last 15 years of more or less conscious life suggests that there is no sense to know and remember the names of people involved in the political process in this country).
Plot and all. I do not want to write about who, how, where, why, I will only say that the film, as it turned out, is life-affirming and did not leave behind the longing-sadness as expected. And this is due not to the final scene (the poor happy ending spoiled the picture), but to the whole film. Heroes naturally depress, dull, wave aimlessly, but at the same time you feel the inexorable course of life, even though it is crooked-looking in a hopeless ass.
It is not noticeable and so beautiful, actors live, believe them. The general picture is spoiled by Chuprikov and Kutsenko, these play and replay, too much author's acting handwriting brings to their roles.
Picture and sound. Everything worked qualitatively and professionally as necessary to immerse yourself in the film and not pay attention to the technical implementation.
Public reaction. The film, as expected, stirred up odorous substances. Very little is written on the topic and too much about the budget, the talent of the authors and other body kits of the film. There is a noticeable tendency of reviewers to oppose themselves and, as they write, cattle, both cinematic and real (probably a phenomenon of 95% of the population). I also note the denial of reality shown by some reviewers outside their armored psychological and financial “houses” (and outside the Moscow Ring Road).
Totally. Contrary to any rating, for educational purposes, the film is recommended for children from 14 to 21 in the presence of parents, because if parents are not able to protect the child from Russia for life, then this tour is necessary to prevent trauma of collision with reality outside of TV and the Internet. Everyone else watches it, but not as a comedy or drama. To me, the film feels like a road-movie, where there is the main character in the path-movement and all the stuff that happens around him.
I hope this review will be useful to someone in choosing what to look at at leisure.
All films by V. Sigarev are one way or another devoted to the social bottom: lumpen-proletarians, gopniks, scum, in general, the characters of the song by M. Naumenko “Gopniki”. This can be viewed in different ways – to see in it the territorial origin of the director (Nizhny Tagil as the focus of the proletariat), personal interest, the need to identify acute social problems. Both this and previous films are certainly talented; in fact, Sigarev and Zvyagintsev, in my opinion, represent the best director of our time, whose language does not differ in originality from the language of Tarkovsky or Daneliya. At the same time, these works are far from meaningful life issues, philosophical communities, although they gravitate towards them, and this is certainly the diagnosis of time.
The film “Country of Oz” (or “Country 03”) was shot in a kind of banter style, with elements of humor. In the spirit of postmodernism, L. von Trier or Greenway, a great place is given here to the so-called "lower-level discourse" - feces, sexual intercourse, naturalism, etc., which at the same time acts as a discourse, but not as a statement; here is a question from the category of a thin line between literary and ordinary mat, artistic erotica and pornography. The plot of the film can be called on the verge of a foul: a proletarian girl (a la “Alain Delon speaks French”) goes to the New Year to get a new job in a kiosk, but it does not reach, on the way getting into one, then into another binding, finding herself on an ice slide, and in someone else’s apartment, and in a pre-trial detention center, and in a hospital bed. All the characters drink, swear, demonstrate the hopeless bottom of life. At the same time, “Country of Oz” does not leave a feeling of burden, this is a very interesting film, looks fast, in one breath, unlike “Top” and “Live”. The film absolutely does not offer any “recipes” for salvation, exit, it is, oddly enough, ethically neutral, and the hatred, aggression and lack of culture of the characters are perceived as something already given, inside themselves and not causing protest. This perspective, despite its contention, causes 2 problems: whether there is a certain idea that there is nothing more in life and there is no need (what is wrong, and this must be fought, because it is a myth to believe that in Russia there is no intelligentsia, culture, and everything that is shown is typical for the country as a whole), or whether it is a challenge-problem, in the spirit of what “needs to do something”. The latter follows from the numbers 03 - call ambulance. Separately, a peculiar contrast is striking: all the benefits of civilization are shown - microwaves, cars, the Internet (the fact that the heroine has no Internet is more an accepted fact than a reflection of reality), modern houses, New Year decorations - and all this against the background of absolute poverty of characters, morals, relationships. Perhaps this is the main message of the film – to show that the solution of external, material problems does not abolish internal problems.
In any case, this is an interesting, talented work that does not leave a feeling of aimlessly spent time.
The country "Zero Three", as this "comedy" from "Vasily Sigarev" is still called, it turned out somewhere to the point, somewhere past, somewhere funny, somewhere disgusting, and somewhere at all in arthouse rigidly, but despite the feces, mate and sperm - in the film there is some humor that slips between all the characters who, like one, incubatorically - all the shizanniy and "with a relapse" from the main character, who suddenly wanted to break up there (from his sister).
In general, the film is the culmination of stochastic scenes, where Mr. Lenka, rushing to the New Year's shift at the stall, gets into little ridiculous circumstances, starting with the driver under the butyrat (Gypsies), who decided to give her a ride, ending with her grandmother with dumplings on the balcony of the third or second floor (Churikova), who without surprise, saw a girl sitting on it with a dog, invited to her (a scene, which then absurdly played out). And this is not to mention the stupid silence of the same “Shabadinova”, who knows how “Ellochka Cannibal” a couple of phrases, and who annoyed with her simpletony and allegedly not knowing such things as “Yandex” and a touch phone. I, as the hero of Simonov, cannot believe that such a youth exists, as he could not believe that it does not know who Navalny is, and even if you are one of those very Little Lyal, alas, but this is not possible. I would rather believe, Mr. Director, that someone put explosive fireworks on his head than that someone does not know modern technological “movements”. The film is fun to watch because of the stochasticity about which I wrote above, because it was interesting to find out who else will get to and who will meet "the bride for the silent Bob", who came in search of a better life, but so not fully entrenched and not realizing that this is the best life for her ...?
Vericting the film "Country of OZ", first of all, I want to note the attempts of the director to "shoot" a very whimsical and smoky humor, laughing at which not everyone will succeed, because that curve, supposedly a mirror to today's reality, is just a hypertrophied look, in which, by the way, someone, perhaps, seeing himself, will change for the better or vice versa, will continue to remain a sofa war.
Tell me what you said and I'll tell you who you are.
Whether you like it or not, Sigarev created a fancy mirror. At first glance, it seems crooked, but in fact it is absolutely normal. The reflection of reality in this mirror is not deliberately convex characters, but exclusively emotions that will cause the viewer the adventures of Lenka Shabadinova. Looking into this reflection, someone in it will see a pussy animal in underwear, and someone a caring mother of three freaks. Someone is a virtual tanker in sweatshirts, and someone is a sympathetic mayor of Yekaterinburg on an empty road. Someone Russia is dirty and unwashed, and someone festive and bright.
Of course, this film is not for everyone, mainly due to the abundance of mat and a few candid moments. We are not used to such an open Russian cinema. Which is strange, because American faqs and guys who have a cake in the kitchen for 20 years are not perceived with such excitement as these Anti-Christmas.
9 out of 10
New Year in black or in case of attacks of non-standard humor, type “OZ”
Everyone knows what Russian cinema is. But it is not so bad that it is... “excremental” in itself, as the fact that the “products of his life” in the form of wretched comedies, pathetic imitative attempts at Hollywood blockbusters or fake melodramaticity oust the original and authorial cinema from the screens. In this situation, everyone gets out as much as they can. Young and talented directors, such as Bykov or Sigarev, do everything they can, namely, high-quality, competitive films. However, for censorship and economic reasons, the latter are withdrawn, not having time to recoup a quarter of the invested funds. In my opinion, Yuri Bykov was absolutely right, whose film “Fool” leaked to the network even before the premiere. The director, soberly assessing the situation, not only did not put forward claims to the roottracker, but also poured the film on YouTube for free. As a result, the two-hour tape gained several million views, all the main bloggers of the Runet immediately made reviews on it, and the picture itself (with extremely modest artistic merits, but stunning socio-ethical issues) firmly entrenched in the top 250 on the KP, where it is successfully located to this day. For some reason, Sigarev chose a different policy. Not only does it prohibit everything that is possible, although the film has long and irrevocably multiplied on the Internet, but it also quarrels with the moderators of the roottracker, sends viewers to theaters (and not only), without being shy in terms. In general, the situation for the director is extremely unassuming, which, however, does not negate the artistic merits of the film.
The action of the picture unfolds along two, directly opposite storylines. The first is completely static and is a dialogue between two friends celebrating the New Year in an indoor food stall. One is an elderly, silent and modest seller of “Andriusha”, suffering from perverse sexual fantasies and sublimating them in the form of stories (the role is played by Andrei Ilyenkov, a writer and co-writer of the script, who invented this story). His friend nicknamed “Duke” (in the impeccable performance of Alexander Bashirov) is a much more prosaic character. Duke, according to the tattoos, ex-con. Suffers from periodic mental disorders. Predisposed to intellectual activity. He has strong convictions on any issue. It easily tolerates pain and even knows how to sleep peacefully on broken glass. In general, the character is extremely peculiar, not devoid of the mythological touch of broad Russian sincerity, now characteristic exclusively of our drunkards and madmen.
The second storyline, in contrast to the first, develops in ceaseless motion and is somewhat reminiscent (and sometimes frankly quotes) of Fellinian Nights of Kabiria. The main character is a young girl Lena Shabadinova (the permanent muse of director Yana Troyanov) trying to get to the most cherished kiosk, where she should replace “Andriusha”. The heroine of Troyanova is also written extremely original. Almost the whole film she is silent, and the purity of character and immediacy of behavior resembles either a short-lived girl from the series “Real boys”, or a genius “idiot”. Dostoevsky. On the way to the stall, Lenka meets different people and gets into situations that are quite realistic, but for some reason seem incredible and almost fabulous.
The film is interesting primarily because it exists at the intersection of genres and combines radical naturalism and surreal abstractness, allegory and lyricism. Through the thickness, in the literal sense of the word, shit, mats, drunken and ugly faces, lawlessness, rude sexuality and violence (characteristic of Russian art house) something pure, kind and human is breaking through. It's so zealous that the film will give a head start to most of our large-caliber Christmas comedies. Strictly speaking, the "black" in the picture is removed with a fair share of healthy and honest black humor (a sample of which can be seen in another "New Year" tape "The Hateful Eight"). Everything seems unassuming, but is perceived for some reason easily and at ease. Honestly, the sensational episode where the bard hero in a fit of stormy but short-term passion accidentally pours his life-giving seed into the face of the dog Dudy, who was thinking about his dog and did not realize the tragic significance of the situation, got me literally to tears. That's all cumshot cumshots. It should be noted that the film is full of fecalism in all its manifestations. Almost every scene is necessarily accompanied by either urination or defecation, not to mention the cherished fantasy of "Andriusha", which is that some young girl imposed on him. However, all this is refracted through the prism of comic perception, which is why the picture in the end appears as a parody not only on worn-out New Year comedies, but even on itself, i.e. on any kind of "black" with its indispensable attributes.
The vocabulary in the film is worth mentioning separately. Today, in connection with the endless censorship bans, obscene culture in the cinema is gradually dying out, but Vasily Sigarev removes as if there are no bans at all. Mat pours a song and, contrary to its semantic and aesthetic meaning, in some ways even delights the ear, causing inexplicable joy. Let the moral zealots curse and scold mate. It only makes him stronger. After all, nothing can express the emotional state of the soul more fully and deeply than a single “strong word”. And expressed from the screen, it also acquires an additional connotative color, and ultimately operate on it, a whole art, in which Vasily Sigarev perfectly analyzes.
In purely technical terms, with an extremely modest budget, everything looks poor, but very decent. The entire film (the original version of which was two and a half hours) was kept at an even pace. The scenes are lazy and smooth, but extremely harmonious and naturally flow into each other. The actors play immaculately and with great enthusiasm. Actually, the film contains all the “color” of Russian TV series (Gypsies, Simonov, Kamynina, Khazanov), flavored with star names Churikova and Kutsenko. Operating work is quite typical, but at least not annoying with eternal twitching and blurring the frame. But it is worth noting a perfectly selected soundtrack. Basically, the musical background is based on only three melodies – a burning Spanish guitar serenade, a slow waltz by Georgy Sviridov (the release of the film coincided with the centenary of the composer) and a minimalist, a simple piano theme, which by the end of the film begins to seem simply incredibly deep and multi-sounding.
In general, I think that the picture will not be appreciated by everyone. Black humor is a thing very far from the modern viewer. Someone generally accuses Sigarev of Russophobia, not noticing the fact that the layer of manure, with which the director actively sweetens his creation, is not an end in itself and is needed only as fertilizer, in order to grow a modest but elegant Christmas flower on this soil, capable of giving the viewer a pinch of good mood and can be seen beauty, laughter and goodness where you least expect them to meet. For example, in a Russian art house. Miracles, that's all!
What can I say? It was really tough and black. I’m not a big fan of black humor, but I liked this movie. I don’t know what it is, but I liked it. Tough, rude, bold, audacious, frank and dull - these are only a small part of the words that come to mind after watching.
Even somehow there is no special desire here, what else to write, to look for some meaning in this absurdity and so on. You just have to turn it on and watch it. And this is such a movie that if it does not come to you from the very beginning, then you watch it even to the very credits, it will still not come to you. By the way, it is worth saying that such films as this are very specific and for most viewers will remain some kind of nonsense. And the most interesting thing is that they are.
The wildest confusion, nonsense, absurdity and treshak is all that happens here for an hour and a half, but somehow all this attracts. Perhaps because such a movie is rarely found, perhaps because you want to find some logic and meaning in this house of illogicality and stupidity, or perhaps because the film is just addictive and you look at it like a fool.
Everything here defies logic, starting with the plot, continuing with the characters and ending with the ending. Of course, you can look for hidden meanings, messages and veiled ideas of the author, but to me this is just a bane and nothing more. Good, high-quality, funny and at the same time disgusting banter to us with you.
Well, Shabadinova with her sister's tailbone is a separate story. Again, I cannot explain why, nothing really lends itself to explanation, but Shabadinova is just a flight.
7 out of 10
"What the hell is that?" It was the most decent thought after an hour spent on this... this movie. No, seriously, I don’t have much free time and I’m really sorry that I spent it on OZ. Why the hour? I just couldn't take it any longer. Tantric sex has killed me.
Someone will say, “This movie is not for everyone.” He'll be right! And certainly not for me. Constant mat, jokes below the waist and absolutely insane main character, who is silent throughout the film, and if you open your mouth, then more than “my sister broke the tailbone” her imagination is not enough.
And all the other characters aren't themselves. To put it mildly. Are there no normal people in Russia? Are you serious? Is this how the New Year is celebrated in Russia? Come on! I love realistic movies and they can make them in Russia. These films are hard to watch, they get to the heart. You look and it hurts you to think that it really is. But there was -- there was no pain. And it wasn't funny. It was a shame, yes. I could have seen another movie.
I don't even know what grade to give. People tried, they filmed. There are also good actors in the film. But this is absolutely not my movie.
In Oz, it's the opposite. Everything is the opposite of the New Year’s comedy genre. But the film does not turn into a drama, and remains a “comedy inside out” – a specific genre, the name of which I do not know. Humor that makes you sad. Heroes whose positive qualities destroy them. Situations that belong not on the blue screen, but in urban gossip. Morality in the absence of morality. Aesthetics in the absence of aesthetics.
I don't know what the trick is. Having watched several Russian feature-length novelties over the past three months (including “Jerey-san”, “Translator”, “Green carriage”), only about “The Land of Oz” I want to say: this film has a soul. And this is exactly the Russian soul, capable of ... no, not ironically — grin at itself, experiencing secret pride: here I am, a Russian man! Sometimes you're a fool. But what a fool!
The film was complete and complete. Yes, this movie is not for everyone, but personally I have never had a feeling of internal discomfort during watching, which is invariably present during various kinds of “artistic stretches for the sake of a red word”. The Land of Oz looks in one breath. The authors do not try to squeeze unnecessary pity or envy out of the viewer, do not appeal to a sense of social justice, do not try to exploit such highly-flavored cows in our time as “patriotism” and “spirituality”. But paradoxically, as a result, a work of art was born, I will not fear this word, to which the soul responds. I have been sitting for two hours and I think, ‘Guys, how did you do that?’ Probably the notorious magic of talent, which is impossible to calculate and measure.
I want to note both an excellent cast and an organic musical design (the music sounds like it sounds in the head of the main character, which is why I had an unusual feeling of belonging, co-perception of the world). And about the mat... He also looks very organic in the film, weaving into the big picture and creating a holistic pattern. And what you see in this pattern will ultimately depend only on you.
Suddenly touching film Sigarev “Country of OZ” with its honesty, detachment, authenticity of the image reminded the early stories of Chekhov, in which many of the writer’s contemporaries saw only lack of ideas, indifference, mockery of human life and dislike of people.
Mikhailovsky’s famous statement in the Russian Gazette in 1890, “Mr. Chekhov ... does not live in his works, but so walks past life and walks past one thing or another,” sounded a refrain of the then disturbing articles and involuntarily broadcast intellectual misunderstanding and rejection of his own reflections and unwillingness to work hard to comprehend what is happening in the book.
Message: If you show shit, please decide why you are doing it and what follows from it – still not gone. To the fact that to determine, think and change something in himself and in his life, the reader needs first of all, that the task of the author, excuse me, not to poke his face in the shit, nurturing high ideals and correcting characters - the reader was not ready for this then - and, judging by the reaction to Sigarev's films, will never be ready.
The other thing is, whether you're talking about love or shit, talent matters. Talent, in a way, is love. Or rather, he's not without love. But this does not mean that love should manifest itself in such flowers, happy endings, fantastic courtesy, polite succumbing and shaking the head to the beat of ubiquitous stupidity, makeup of reality, air kisses of pop-corn catharsis and other simulations of life. Not at all. Talent is something unknown, but immediately recognizable by what happens to you when you watch a movie, or a picture, or a window, or a book, or listen to music, or dance. Without it, love is some boring predictable shit.
The director of “Country of OZ” can not be denied talent, would write a faceless observer of artistic meanings that limit each other in his stencil perception. that would only be enough talent for his viewers, who, if desired, can get out of their intellectual pits, looking for any allusions and reminiscence in the picture, be it Beckett, Tarantino, Rabelais, Bukovsky, Sorokin, Myshkin, Amelie, Stelling, Gogol or something else; thought can move in the most unpredictable directions.
The main thing is that she, the thought, appears. Otherwise, it will stay that way. And we're still gonna live our lives the way we have to. Not taking off your colored glasses, not noticing life, not performing magic.
A friend at work always drank tea and coffee from the same mug. A long time from the same club. Nothing special. Only she never washed a mug. Each time the raid inside became darker, and the drawing outside gradually erased. The girl was incredibly beautiful. The mug was always dirty.
What was that? Little things of life against the background of serious tasks of the work process? Insignificant on the way to a distant goal and dream? Exposing contrast? Laziness? Or something else?
I learned about this film a few days ago on the Internet, when its director, like a little girl, threw a tantrum that the ball was not given (crossed out) the rental of his brainchild fell victim to insidious pirates, sharing this sad fate with “Survivor” and “The Hateful Eight”. (Let’s leave the legality of such identification out of brackets, look at the box office of the last two in Russia.)
The first thing I did, of course, was go see the trailer. Here I should forget about him, but it turned out that the film has defenders from among decent people, and it is soon going to show TNT (I hope the director is not offended by this way of acquaintance with his intellectual property).
After watching, I had another saying: for which film a Russian art house director does not take, he turns out “Green Elephant”. Guys, you can’t do that: I can’t turn my tongue to call it a New Year’s comedy. We deservedly scold the sterility of the Christmas tree, but then skewed the other side. In my indignation, I am ready to go so far as to call this film a rabid bogeyman “Russophobic”. The film “Gorko” was not Russophobic – this is Russia I know and love, the film “Leviathan” was not Russophobic – I know about such a Russia, fortunately, I personally met with her, and the film “Country of Oz” – the most that it is. All one hundred minutes of timekeeping is some kind of vile and senseless collection of *** [unpleasant people] multiplied by the motif of defecation (perhaps all “independent” Russian directors have Freudian problems, I don’t know). Is this an honest comedy about Russia? Fire me. Yes, I know that there is such a genre as black comedy. He, for example, brilliantly turned out in Kirill Serebrennikov in “Picturing the victim”. But there's no comparison. Apparently, to make a black comedy, you need something other than a camera. Talent, for example, and sense of humor.
The authors tried to protect themselves by calling the movie “Land of Oz”. What should be understood in the sense that the film, of course, about a fictional country and all coincidences with reality, as they say, random. Fairy tale. Lena-Dorothy with her Totoshka travels around the country of Oz, meeting on his way the Scarecrow, Scattercrow and Lion, the good sorceress and evil witches (attribute who is who I offer yourself) and getting into various adventures. Just don't take a look at the drizzling yellow snowy road. In this case, it may be that this color is not from brick at all.
3 out of 10
For the phlegmatic cold-blooded heroine, for the fact that Gosha Kutsenko turned out to be a kind of positive character, and everything ends on a major note. In the end, things could have been worse: we could have just poured a plate of worms over our heads with the words “Who wanted a new Russian movie?” There is still room for Russian arthouse development.
I began to look with some skepticism. It’s a painful topic and the story itself. But in the process of viewing more and more imbued with the spirit of the picture, the atmosphere of Russian reality. Moreover, he grew up in the nineties (which, judging by reviews and videos, do not stop in the depths of Russia) on the periphery. Even the excessive use of obscene, swear words does not spoil the film. Ironically, this is about dialogue. Although it is rather strange to hear obscenity from the lips of celebrities, especially eminent.
The work of the entire film crew is at the highest level, and the plot itself is constantly catching and attracting. It looks like a breath. Almost from the very beginning, you start to worry about the main character and do not stop until the last minute. Knowing Yana Troyanov for past roles, I am even more amazed at how she was uniquely able to play and convey the image of an unhappy simpleton from the outback, who is on the lead of people she meets, a little stupid, but well-bred and honest. The mere phrase, "" Well, the husband beat. "" was said with such bitterness and zeal that you believe it unconditionally. And even for a moment there is a picture of her, an unhappy woman, being beaten by a drunken husband.
On what is happening on the other side of the city, there is not much to write in the kiosk, not because it was not interesting, but because all the scenes and dialogues were staged perfectly and with a philosophical approach. It felt like it was a completely different story. It was as if two short films had been combined into one story. In one of them a girl from the outback, in the other two comrades rant about “higher matter”.
10 out of 10
The film, in my opinion, is not so much a game as with a philosophical background. Sometimes you can laugh at the stupidity of the characters, but more often you feel empathy. Both the main character and the secondary ones.
I don’t know if the movie is good or bad. It's hard for me to call it a comedy. But only comedy appears in the genre of this film.
"Land of Oz" leaves such a heavy residue that not every drama can make. And most importantly, I never saw any hope for something good.
It's really a kind of drama. I can't laugh at a woman who has three big boobs and is aggressive, because there is one in real life. For some reason, even the dog does not cause emotion. And the dumplings got a little nasty.
Yana Troyanova was remembered for her role in the film “Cococo”. She was a provincial there, too. I just wanted to live in the cultural capital. It was a great character. In “Country of Oz” the actress has a very passive heroine, amoebic. She had the courage to go to the city, but she surrendered within a week. There are some in life. But here it is all hypertrophied.
After all, “Land of Oz” is not a good film, and not a bad one. He's just sad. But this sadness is not bright. Maybe because you can recognize our society in it, but you don't want to recognize what it is.
