I love mysticism in film and literature. I like Gothic and dark romance. Vampires are probably my favorite subject, but only a classic. I don't like bloodsuckers with a background in science or something. Only a dark, devilish origin. Vampires, ghouls, ghouls must be dead men who have risen from the grave to drink blood. It's simple. I don't like half-bloods and things like that. Merry moments in the movies, when recently turned ghouls, crumbles to dust from wounds inflicted, aspen stake or silver. I understand that it can happen to ancient vampires, which are not one hundred years old, but with a body that is not yet decomposed in time. Same thing with the sun. The newly converted will simply fall to the ground and appear in its real form, the degree of decomposition in which it is. Where's realism? Punctured stake will lie nailed to the ground. In order for him to die, he has to take his head off with an axe. He will not fall to dust and will not burn. Unless the hunter sets it on fire. There was such a wonderful series in the 90s “Buffy – the Vampire Slayer”.
Only the ancients can turn into a bat, a cat, a snake, a wolf - other animals. Holy water should not burn, it should immobilize the ghoul until it evaporates. As for garlic, it is a smelly analogue of holy water, an artisanal way. The ancients are so powerful that they are able to transform their dead body, grow wings to change the appearance of a bat, etc. Or simply take possession of the mind of a person, instilling in him such images for intimidation. The latter option is more realistic. Imagine a dead man rising in front of you, much worse? My favorite vampire movies are Brem Stoker’s Dracula, Vampire Ball, Nosferatu: The Symphony of Horror, Shadow of the Vampire, Van Helsing.
I'm going straight to the film review. As a connoisseur, I was interested in this picture, especially since it is Russian. Unfortunately, even at the sight of the flyer, the first impression was formed. First of all, it's a cliché. It's just gross. Secondly, the costumes of these so-called "ancient". Well, that's a shame. What are these cybergoths in the 17th century? In general, in terms of costume design, this will be further, a specific analysis. I didn't even read the story. I didn't want to go to the movies.
From the first minutes, the actors’ play catches the eye, which does not cause any, I am not talking about the necessary sensations. There’s no such thing as a bad guy in this role, just like everyone else. As a "National Security Agent," he's good, but not safe for the villagers from the ghouls in this movie. The actors understand that they are filming in full pop, and therefore are costumed mannequins. Some of them have almost no beards. Yeah, maybe a mannequin from the store would be a better dead man, but we need a dead man. Well, people, too, would do well to be more alive, or else from the dead can not be distinguished. Acting is not just zero, it is in the red. Boiled Milena and curly Prince Andrew, especially clearly their speech and behavior make it clear that they are aliens from the 21st century, costumed under the 18th bad costumers. In general, the speech of all heroes does not pull to the 18th century. What is the atmosphere of mysticism without proper speech? Everything is lost without slang, without proper terms. Why is Milena like this, where is this education? Where's the gentleness of the country girl? Why do they eat each other’s eyes, do not feel ashamed? Why is her hair loose like she is? Was that normal for an 18th-century villager? The main antagonist will come down on the face, and the voice is so suitable – that’s all. Nothing more interesting.
Next story. Well, it's just something. It's nothing new. It's all the boring stuff in the clay, too. I don't know what finger it's sucked out of.
“For viewers over 12 years old,” reads the flyer. In my opinion, the inscription should be changed to: “For viewers under 12 years”, and even better to introduce a contraindication to viewing to all who have a sane mind.
Now we move on to the sore of almost the entire modern film industry - to design.
Now do well design for science fiction films, comic books. Even in our picture do well, in the same “Defenders”, the picture of shit was very normal, in contrast to its composition, of course. But when it comes to genres and actions that take place in the past, that’s where the ass starts. It's so big it can barely get into a time machine. The worst part is when it's a remake. Don't make remakes of movies that happen in the past, please people. Westerns, historical dramas – all this is difficult to watch, licked, without dirt, dust. With too much detail or a complete obsessive cliche. With some unimaginable spinpunk or trends of modern fashion. All the costumes are as new as they just left the factory. Each vagrant has a hole in a clearly regulated place, a certain size and shape. Dirt on the face blood and so on, also depicted so that it was beautiful. Everything is vacuumed: interiors, and facades, and streets, and faces. Masterpieces aren't perfect. They are a combination of what is happening on the screen. Realistically. In creating a mood, a world in which you want to plunge. Something you can't feel anywhere else. We don’t need to teach the new generation to be so clean. This is all fake, and the movie is made to immerse in another reality, which is not much different from the real one. Everyone has their own reality, someone more interesting, fantastic, someone else. Someone has an action movie, romance, action, even Western... The movie should be treated as before, it is a reality. No need to fake, make garbage for a lot of money, having huge opportunities.
“The morning helped the peasants. The sun burned corpses in half an hour. – M. Gorshenev
After all, vampires (or ghouls) are not our type. If we proceed from the principle of Russian fantasy (sounds kind of clumsy, but otherwise not to say) we are much closer: wild, water, werewolves can be, mermaids (here immediately recalls the film of the same name Svyatoslav Podgaevsky) and other evil spirits. Our family, Russian. Not borrowed from where. Although here, like the outskirts of the Russian land is considered. Carpathian mountains (if you believe the annotations). Well, then illegal crossing of the border by a group of foreign vampires is quite acceptable.
Instead of the Carpathian Mountains, the truth is that the outlines of the Crimea are recognized in each species plan. Well, where without him? The main and, quite universal, film platform for all times and epochs. Already some shots of the Crimean mountains are sincerely pleased. I recognized Chatyr-Dag, the Dimerdzhi Valley. Familiar places. Already at this stage, the scene ceased to be perceived as a real geographical object. Let it be an abstract place. That's easier.
Moreover, I am sure that the production shop did not go into the details of the Russian life of the XVIII century. Otherwise, the historical mess will have to be scooped up with buckets. One seductive, and quite impractical, but emphasizing an appetizing bust, Milena's outfit (Aglaja Shilovskaya) what is worth. So historical realism will also be put on the back burner. Let the clothes and life of the heroes be more abstract. It's easier, too. The fantasy genre forgives these liberties. Otherwise, where in the cell of a disgraced priest can take a whole military arsenal?
Now you can breathe out and try to enjoy the plot. The first pluses I have already said: Crimean beauty and the beauty of Shilovskaya, it is maiden beauty. The actress doesn't seem very good. The impression was that she did not have the task to delve into the essence of her role, show emotions, scream, sob, groan, sorcerer, etc. She didn't show them. Probably better than if she tried to show them. However, she (to be exact, Milena) had one talent: throwing pebbles contrary to the laws of physics. I thought I owned an ancient secret art of pebbling and would kill a dozen vampires with this technique. But -- it wasn't. Talent was, but lost without a trace. It was enough for one stone. Mistake!
But back to the actors. Equally static in the frame and Andrei (Konstantin Kryukov). But unlike Aglaia, he has nothing to show off. Yes, it looks like a young Nikolai Yeremenko (younger), but on this, sorry ... that's it. No more credit. Well, to confirm that it is not in vain that he receives his fee on the court, I had to wave a saber three times. Not too good. By the way, I did not notice that there were fight directors in the group at all? They are usually written in the final credits. I haven't noticed anything now. But you can see that the battles with cold weapons are kind of crummy. They leave only due to close-up plans and ragged installation. But those are specifics.
Now heavy acting artillery: Mikhail Porechenkov, Roman Madianov and Mikhail Zhigalov.
Yes, Zhigalov, a textured character. Good old man. It's very nice to watch. The role is small, but he was able to bring a lot of drama. Old acting school. You can't write anything.
Madianov, in the image of a lazy, shy fat man, did not pump up either. The character, of course, unsettling and, in some places, comic. But it is quite so harmless and colorful.
Porechenkov, this is certainly a magnitude! Bulk! Master of his craft. But, if he did not come to me from the first moment in the role of a priest, so until the last frame it continued to seem to me that this is an aged Ivan Poddubny in a cassock. I won’t complain because there is pure subjectivism. Perhaps many Porechenkov – Lord Laurus, liked. But I don't think he's the type.
It is time to remember the armory that this bishop hid in his cell. Of course, this is in the most severe way contrary to Christian teaching. But, as they say, “we hold the sword behind the sinus ... just in case.” Prayer is prayer, but weapons in other situations will not be superfluous. This is not a simple priest. Come on, Special Forces in disguise.
Classic vampire castle, of course, pleased. The creators did not stint on atmosphericity. As it should be: At the top of the mountain, with sharp spires, with impregnable walls, with a tombstone in the middle of the main hall ... It is strange that everyone penetrates this castle so easily, as if walking along a forest path. They walk inside as if they were there every day. It’s just a yard, not a castle. Vampires, at least the gargoyle they put out as a guard. Oh, no doors, no locks. Peace to the incoming! So we paid for it. Was it difficult to put a pinch inside the door? You look and it would have been different.
And it was predictable. It's predictable. You don't even have to spoil. This is a story. In fairy tales, this is the main commandment. I didn’t break it this time either.
So, to summarize, I will say: the story was successful! Dynamic, adventure, beautiful, moderately romantic and almost not bloody. It is a pleasure to see it at leisure.
What about a movie that’s not good or bad at the same time? Fairy tale, typical fairy tale. Such as are already quite a lot and which we begin to watch in early childhood, and then watch at any age, if you want to brighten up your life with a plot about creatures not of this world. No strong emotions from watching this tale should not be expected. You will also not see brilliant acting, as well as something especially new, something that has not yet been in fantasy films shot long before.
What does it take to make a story a success? A valiant knight rushing to the aid of a beautiful woman who, of course, must be saved. And the villain who wants to destroy the beauty, in order to have power and omnipotence. And it is desirable - a kind person who helps the knight and beauty to win the victory over evil. One of the characters must die, but love will eventually prevail and good will prevail. That's the story. No, not this movie, not even a knight like that. Just this plot is typical for any fairy tale, 'Vurdalaki' no exception. And therefore there will be here love, and the struggle of good against evil.
What did I personally like about this movie? The fact that it is based on a wise thought - faith gives a person great opportunities, especially if you believe in bright things and reinforce faith with good deeds. Then even truly hopeless situations can miraculously be resolved. And the point here is not that the film is a fairy tale, and in fairy tales there is no other way. No, the thing is, it doesn't just happen in fairy tales. And we should all remember that. So if you have about an hour and a half of free time, you can spend it watching this movie about ghouls. Not a masterpiece, but you can watch for fun. By the way, the ghouls in this movie are not scary at all, and there are no vulgar scenes in it (which is rare), so feel free to attract children of any age to watch. As they say, there are not many stories.
Blood Brothers and Sorcerer of the Death Clan Become New Gods
A big disappointment for me and for Yulka Likanova was a film with a small letter 'h', called 'Vurdalaki'.
The action of this anti-work takes place in the 18th century in the Carpathian Mountains, in a small village with big problems, from which residents do not really want to move.
Let’s start with the script, the feeling that the writers here played the game “Questions-Answers” when there are a number of questions “Who?”, “What did?”, “Who else was?”, etc., answering your question you bend the sheet so that the one who answers the next question does not see your answer. In the end, very funny and illogical stories come out. Here in this film the same, a lot of ridiculous illogical action, which sometimes you want to laugh in your voice, and sometimes just throw a crutch at the screen.
About acting talents. Mikhail Porechenkov plays a monk Laurus, his play is similar to any series about police wars, he is still the same national security agent, only in a cassock. Konstantin Kryukov, absolutely not emotional, sometimes infantile person. It seems that if there are ghouls around to cut everyone in a row, then the only thing Kryukov’s hero will do is say: Stop, guys! You will hurt each other!', and with his voice as if he were still in a state of sleep. Aglaya Shilovskaya, I do not believe that somewhere in the village in the Carpathians there lives such a steal that is more beautiful than everyone in the world. At least the makeup was removed, there was ash anointed, or it was like Snow White. And her game is the same as that of Kryukov infantile.
About ghouls. The leader of the wurdalaks Vitold (Andrey Rudensky) in principle got into the image, but his motivation here is very stupid, it should happen like this, but no, portonte, no one knows how it will happen. His ghouls are a herd of rams with teeth, absolutely stupid human-like ghouls with low social responsibility, 'Twirling through the village, catching up with horrors. . . Horror. . . Horror'
The creators of the film based on the work of Alexei Tolstoy "The family of a vurdalak", absolutely illiterate approached the processing of the work, resulting in what usually comes out when eating good food, and not very good too. Bon appetit, my little lovers of bloody movies!
2 out of 10
The genre of mysticism is not up to Russia's teeth?
Introduction. Oh, how hard this genre is given to us! No matter how much you try, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you suffer, well, it does not work out for our to shoot ' mysticism' We had a long time ago 'Viy', once a successful film, excited the whole USSR and even now looks interesting and original. For which, thank you, I must say, Comrade Gogol. Also in memory was littered 'Snake source' and 'Ghoul' strong thrillers, with the interweaving of mysticism. Numerous attempts to break into the genre were unsuccessful. 'Yulenka', 'The Queen of Spades', 'Dead Daughters', 'The Bride' and the like, this is only plagiarism from the West, transformed for the Russian viewer. Remake 'Via', which did not go to our audience very well, once again proved that we have nothing to show the world. Although there was quite an interesting thriller 'The Mystery of Dyatlov Pass' in the style of 'mocumentaries' but there was a hand of Americana, and it is difficult to consider it your own. In short, genres ' horrors', ' mysticism' and ' thrillers' are almost absent in Russia and when new creations appear on this genre shelf, we are skeptical, but still hope to see something interesting. Taking the creations of our writers as a basis is not a new idea, but as practice has proved, it can turn into a success. This time, the source of inspiration was the story of Alexei Tolstoy 'The family of Vurdalak' .
A little about the plot. The young man Andrei (Konstantin Kryukov), from St. Petersburg, stays in the Carpathians, to the Monk Lavra (Mikhail Porechnikov), in order to notify that his exile is over, a couple would return home. But Laurus refuses, saying that he is not going to leave his border. Andrew stays in the village, not far from the monastery of the Laurus, and on the first night he sees strange things, which he cannot explain. Trying to understand everything, he falls in love with the beautiful Milena (Aglaja Shilovskaya) and simultaneously enters into a fight against the resurrected vampires, with his subordinate Paramon (Roman Madianov).
Acting. Casting turned out to be successful, although Kryukov is not my idol, he plays professionally and does not annoy. Porechnikov, it seems to me, does not suit the role of a priest, and did not fall into the image. In his place, Ivan Okhlobystin would look great, with an aspen stake in his hands. But those are my picks. I liked the role of Roman Madianov, his Paramon was very funny, hiding cowardice behind submission and evading stupid exploits. Among the others stands out, of course, Andrew Rudensky , his Witold exudes vampire charisma and majesty, especially this status voice. Heads above all the Vanilla Twilight Volturi. And of course, the beautiful Aglaya Shilovskaya, the young actress conquered her beauty, charmed and admired, you can admire her tirelessly. Acting is satisfactory, it has room to grow.
The general impression. The movie looks good at first. Beautiful landscapes, seemingly an interesting setting, the actors are not bad. However, the development of the plot is very monotonous and boring. Half of the film passes, but the action cannot come to its boiling point. And even when the battle for the fortress begins, it looks boring, expressionless and dull. But so wanted to see our Van Helsing in Russia, who cuts, right and left, evil vampires. It all ends quickly and without any aftertaste.
In the end 'Vurdalaki' are an unsuccessful attempt to create a Russian horror story. But thank you for that, because if you don’t try at all, there will be no progress. It leaves no impressions and is forgotten the next day. I would recommend seeing it, probably more b>no/b> than yes. After all, you can spend your time on much more interesting films.
Russian cinema year after year unsuccessfully tries to enter the genre of “horror”, giving pictures of average lousy, which naturally fail. Yes, something from the piggy bank of domestic horrors is quite watchable, but no project so far, as they say, has not “shot”. “Vurdalaki” for me personally became just such a film – you can see, but not necessarily.
The story is simple and almost entirely traced in the trailer - once the highest race of vampires ruled the world, holding humanity by cattle, until half-breeds - half-human, half-vampires - decide to one day take the side of man and overthrow vampire tyranny. At one fine (or not so) moment, Witold awakens - an ancient ghoul who is going to regain the former greatness of his race at the expense of one of these half-bloods - a girl named Milena. And of course, our heroes in the person of Porechenkov and Kryukov must stop him.
The narrative in “Vurdalaki” is very leisurely, but at the same time the film attracts something, and watching it is really interesting, despite the obvious disadvantages. There are a lot of disadvantages here.
First of all, the film is quite short. Formally, it goes even less than the stated hour and a half, but this is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The drawback is that the script is very tight because of this, the characters are not revealed properly, and in general, events happen somehow too quickly. The advantage of a small timekeeping is that "Vurdalaki" cornily do not have time to get bored and end when you already look at the clock.
It is worth noting the cheapness of filming - there is no Hollywood in terms of directing here and in sight, the action scenes are staged mediocrely, and no one seems to bother at all over the choreography of fights. However, at the same time, I cannot but note very good special effects for such a film, the graphics of course are noticeable in places, but I confess that in this regard I expected the worst, and I am glad that my expectations were not met.
The cast is not bad. Purely outwardly, I have no complaints about the actors and their images, but the level of the game varies from “well, it will go” to “just disgusting”.
But who really want to praise, so it's composers - even very clumsy scenes look at least good thanks to excellent musical accompaniment.
However, why, against the background of all these disadvantages and dubious advantages, the review is positive, and the assessment does not hang around in the zone of 3 out of 10? I don't know. In spite of everything, I liked the Wurdalaki. This is a rather chamber and cozy film in its own way, which is not without interesting finds, positive aspects and potential, which the creators were unable to reveal.
6 out of 10
And I am only interested in the color of the night, the Mysteries of their movement, the planet, the Breath of rustle in silence, the Familiar shadows in your window.
The film is so illogical in its narrative, just as Porechenkov is not logical in the image of a priest. In the whole film, only the hero of Madianov plays well.
The rest of you... As I said, Porechenkov does not look like a holy father, I do not believe. Aglaya Shilovskaya is too beautiful and very emotional for a girl from a village of the 18th century. Kryukov also plays too "sour" is implausible, there is a need for a more emotional actor, I do not believe. Rudensky, in principle, is very harmonious in the role of a vampire, but since he was prescribed by the writers, it is a complete ... a bunch of illogical behavior is off the scale. There are no complaints, I repeat, only to the hero of Madianov – Prokhar, a very comical and resourceful character. In the scene of the takeover of the monastery by the wurdalaks (with one, by the way, only a monk), the heroes of Kryukov and Porechenkov had to act as the hero of Madianov, and not depict the battle of Good and Evil.
The picture is a big disappointment for fans of the vampire genre.
After the 90s, the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian cinema, being almost dead, came to life. At least gradually, we began to actively shoot again, and already a year there are hundreds of different films ranging from author’s and ending with expensive blockbusters. Yes, the cinema was reanimated, but alas, in its depths the number of films appearing very much dominates the quality, hence it is difficult to criticize those who believe that the patient is more dead than alive. And if some author’s films sometimes really give hope that we do have talented directors and interesting screenwriters, then a whole heap of various mainstream films rolling on the screens of our vast country leaves much to be desired. There are good movies, but there are more bad ones, which is a sad fact. The reasons for this are very many: there is some unhealthy desire to copy Western blockbusters (hello & #39; Defenders'), and so inept and wretched that it becomes unbearably ashamed, and the unwillingness to work out the plots well, all the forces and the requested budget throwing on visual effects, and the misunderstanding that a beautiful picture will never play if it is served without the support of a dynamic, exciting and in no way sagging action, and the total absence of an original vision that takes place on television, in which you can even watch the show endlessly; #39
A vivid confirmation of what was written above is the tape 'Vurdalaki'. It would seem that many criticized ' Van Helsing' with Hugh Jackman and Kate Bakinsel against the background of the culprit of this review looks almost a masterpiece. Why is Stephen Sommers’s film given as an example? Everything is very simple - in both films, the action takes place in a small foothill settlement, both main characters fight for their love, trying to defeat the cursed evil spirits, as well as they have bizarre partners, and finally they confront bloodsuckers, whose main father is an ancient vampire. And it does not matter that in 'Vurdalaki' his name is not Dracula - he is quite a count, and his castle rises as emphatically above the village as the abode of the notorious count from the 2004 film. And the more parallels between these paintings, as well as many others in this genre, the more helpless look 'Vurdalaki'. Let’s start with the fact that ' Van Helsing', with all the numerous shortcomings of it, has a clear mood – this is a fantastic fairy tale, intentionally submitted lightly and even in many ways amusing. A purely entertaining spectacle with frantic dynamics and non-stop adventures. The tape does not hide its purely attraction origin and faithfully copes with all its functions.
What can not be said about 'Vurdalaki', the authors of which have not decided what they want to present to the viewer and under what sauce. If a horror movie, it is completely in vain - the tape is not just fearless, it does not even try to be scary. The main vampire does not carry a threat, his army resembles more idiotic hyenas from "The Lion King" & #39; rather than the deadly warriors of his master, who inevitably approach the residents of the Transcarpathian village, the attacks are removed so ineptly that it will not even be trivial to flinch, and bloody details will not be seen here even under a magnifying glass. If you look towards adventure, then everything is very vague in this context, because adventure requires not only the appropriate spirit, aura and atmosphere, but also a fascinating concept that throws all sorts of adventurous moves, sharp turns and surprises to the audience. Adventures in the cinema should be exciting and sparkling, or slow, but full of interesting events. If they aimed at drama with elements of fiction and horror, then the authors burn out especially hard in this field, since it is even weaker than the visual and dynamic components, here the dramatic one. Only a small child can believe in love between the main characters. Leading characters are not allowed to open up, even to interact elementary so that chemistry appears between them. Hence, no worries about the outcome, no faith in the sincerity of feelings on the other side of the screen, no sense of tragedy, and, in the end, no immersion in the movie. It feels like watching an amateur play, filmed in the fresh Crimean air.
And the film, by the way, could have turned out if the creators of 'Vurdalakov' paid more attention to the story, giving it mystery, intrigue and secrets. Get rid of all these banal and already a hundred times beaten moves by bringing to mind the script and injecting into it a proper conflict. Of course, it is always easier to collect strings from the world, but if you do this, then at least tastefully, giving raisins to the stamps. I think in many countries 'Vurdalaki' would immediately fly away on video. Here you can praise the beauty of the Crimea - field shooting in places is very good. And the acting work of Parechenkov. His character attracts attention and is interesting to watch. What can not be said, for example, about Kryukov, in which throughout the viewing I wanted to throw slippers to finally wake up. It is clear that the actor he is mediocre, but over the years of working in the cinema, you could learn to at least dullly portray emotions, there is no question of living. And finally, another small, but still pleasant plus. Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy has a great story 'The Vurdalak family' - a very exciting and at the same time frightening story about a marquise who has fallen into a Serbian village, who is faced with real horror. I have no idea whether the authors of this picture were inspired by Tolstoy’s story or not, but the scene in which the grandfather comes to his grandson after turning into a vampire is very similar to the action from the story of him. A small plus is that in my opinion, this is the only episode in which there is a good scary atmosphere. And this once again confirms that fear and horror should be achieved from pieces of truly mysterious, mysterious and tragic elements, and not through annoying draculas with pathetic speeches, his dressed ghouls and computer effects. The latter are also needed, but as a complement to the main components.
P.S. Fearless, not exciting, not romantic and not at all tragic vampire movie, which is hardly worthy of rental in theaters. Is the tape worth a single viewing? Don't know. Even if we assume that there are ardent fans of films about bloodsuckers who do not care about the plot and the main thing is the display of ghouls on the screen with all their excesses, then doubts creep up here, because bloodsuckers that is, only with bloody details are full of tension.
4 out of 10
Not being in the movies last year for the reason that I didn’t really want to go to it, still watched it online. In fact, the film is weak and not worthy of the ticket price.
Probably, this is an example of commercial cinema, when you want to shoot quickly and ' cool' to make faster money, but cool does not work. It seems to look and see, everything was in order to shoot less well, but no, you get a completely spiritual product. Even the actors who play well in other films, here they are simply ridiculous, as if they are filmed by a robot director or director who does not care what he shoots, respectively, and the actors, would be quicker to play and get off the set. I understand them, you need money, you need to hang out for a long time in a film crew that shoots everything for profit, without working from the heart on nothing in the film you really do not want. It’s a pleasure to work with directors who know what they want, passionately embody the idea, the script into a real movie. The main character to me, so does not fit his type, very modern appearance of the girl and just a look. Kryukov, who always plays all sorts of majors, showed himself very badly in this role. Porechenkov is as simple as anywhere he is filmed. Roman Madianov tried his best.
At the director Ginsburg I watched some films/series in the past ' Fall Up', ' And still I love', it was interesting the first time, but they did not remember. This film about ghouls is a complete failure, imitation of Hollywood, looks parody. This is the level of the end of the zero years, although well-chosen locations, a village, beautiful Crimean landscapes, the musical design is good. But still, sorry, it's TRESH! Among the heroes there is no emotional unity, all some amoebas. And we can't do that genre. It's not typical of us. Sorry for the time spent, for the last 15 minutes just spit, didn't watch. It's been a long time since I've come across anything I choose.
Having paid tribute to Russian cinematography and killed an hour and a half of time for sowing a masterpiece, I made, so to speak, a verdict. I personally find it difficult to attribute this picture to one genre, there is a fairy tale, there is fantasy, there is mysticism and melodrama mixed and horror a little added. In general, I have long noticed one thing that concerns the scenery, costumes and makeup. It seems that you are watching not a single feature film, but a high-quality series ' Magnificent Century'. Everything is too new, shiny, from round zero. The shade, and a very bright shade of red, cuts the eye, but then give rest scenes of action that occur at night. I don’t even know whether to say that this topic is eaten up and beaten, but no, and we are there as well. It creates a feeling that the imagination and horizons of our writers and directors are directed absolutely not there, give you guys money and remove the nonsense about ghouls and ghouls with garlic! Do we have little ground for adaptation? Where to start? For example, ancient pagan and ancient Slavic gods. All kinds of evil, myths and legends. Well, for example, the film adaptation of Kir Bulychev’s novel “Alice’s Journey” or “The Secret of the Third Planet”? Yes, on this full-length Soviet cartoon, attaching a high-quality augmented plot and a solid large budget, and plus a competent team of creators, it would be possible to make such a brilliant fantasy that Luc Besson would have a little rest with his Valerian and the city of a thousand planets.
In general, what I mean - dig deeper and give the old legends a second wind, but it needs to be done qualitatively. What about the movie? Nothing new, look better Gogol, there is at least intrigue.
5 out of 10
Director Sergey Ginzburg, who directed "Love-Carrot 3", teamed up with three screenwriters of the film "Diggers" and filmed the early story of Alexei Tolstoy "The Vurdalak Family". The project acquired a difficult fate from the very beginning: from writing the script in 2008, it took a long 6 years to launch into production. Later, the release of the film was postponed for a year, and the budget of the film was 162 million rubles.
So, we are dipped in Russia of the XVIII century. The monk Laurus, played by Mikhail Porechenkov, was exiled from the capital somewhere in the Carpathians. One day, the impressive midshipman Andrey, performed by Konstantin Kryukov, comes to him with the servant Roman Madianov and the good news - Laurus can return to civilization. However, the monk is not up to it: the powerful Count Peshtefi returned to his family castle, located nearby, and his victims from the nearest settlement rise at night from the graves. The nobleman Andrey is also in no hurry to go home, because he met with a glance with the local shepherd Milena (Aglaja Shilovskaya) and by all canons fell in love. Thus, the backbone of the film begins to boil in front of us: all the locals, led by Laurus, stock up on stakes, hang bundles of garlic and pray, Andrei tries to establish contact with Milena, and Peshtefi weaves a network of villainous intrigues and multiwalkers. After all, Milena’s mother was converted to him during pregnancy, and now the vampire count is simply obliged to take possession of his “blood child” in order to gain immortality.
The whole guileless plot was complete with template and boring characters, characteristic of clichés, and the standard scheme “blood-love” was castrated to the state of “serial film adaptation of a female novel for the channel Russia”. The characters appear to be such ineptly made rough candy and colorful wrappers. Blood, mysticism, darkness and other components of the genre were carefully erased from the narrative. Rating 12+ did not allow to get into the frame of the bloody fangs, but demonstrated from the back naked main character and a lot of really beautiful landscapes.
However, the rest of the film is also little like a modern and high-quality production. Special effects firmly hold the bar set fifteen years ago, the action is dull and does not even try to correspond to the new time, and the editor again goes crazy in the process. The only positive aspect is a short chronometer, sparing the soul and body of the viewer - only 80 minutes.
“Wurdalaki” is a great example of the fact that budget is not the main thing in the film. If the creators do not like, do not understand and do not know the genre, then even calling the project Russian "Van Helsing" will not work out anything good and the film itself will need a fighter of the rebellious dead.
1 out of 10
. A film about my favorite subject. I may be a hopeless romantic, but I was expecting some great special effects and a good atmosphere. If it's here? Partly, but only partly. Let me immediately analyze all the shortcomings of this picture, and why you should not watch it:
1. The atmosphere is almost nonexistent. Only a few scenes when watching literally shout to us that we are watching a vampire movie. The rest is emptiness.
2. Musical accompaniment - in general it is not here. For the whole picture in some tense scenes (specifically in 3, including the credits) plays exactly the music that corresponds to what is happening on the screen.
3. It’s no secret that it can be found in literally any movie. The only difference is that if you like a lot in a good movie, then you don’t pay attention to logic, and in bad movies this detail immediately catches your eye. This is exactly the case. One episode with the hero Madianov, to whom the main character blew a stone from the lake on such a trajectory that it just explodes the brain. I just exploded with laughter. And yes, that’s the next point.
4. Comedy - according to the information and all interviews, this picture is a horror film, a thriller and fantasy, but on the way out - it turned out to be a comedy. Porechenkov and Madianov behave on the screen as if deliberately trying to cause laughter in the audience. And in general, there is some frivolity.
5. Special effects - no, do not think, the picture itself is good and high-quality, but all the special effects seem to be deliberately hidden from us. Even at the end of the final battle, they're so squalid that it's embarrassing to stand up for our movie. Now it's even hard to believe, but all the special effects of the film ' Especially Dangerous' did with us - and look at the result - everything looks great jade 9 years after the release.
Actors - well, here I will not go into details - natural logs, except Porechenkov and Madianov and the main opponent. There are no emotions at all (2 tears in the middle on the face of the main character does not count). Now let me take a look at a couple of things:
1. Excellent acting by Witold performed by Andrei Rudensky - his voice is the only catches the viewer, and even makes you shudder (if you are particularly sensitive). One of the bright spots of this film
2. The picture - our have already learned to shoot at the modern level, now it remains to pull up everything else - the script, talented actors, composers and so on.
3. The heroes of Porechenkov and Madianov did not let me fall asleep while watching. Thank you for that.
I didn’t like the final – it would be better to make it more dramatic, but it’s for me personally.
I will give the film 5 points for a few of the advantages I have indicated. Let’s hope that in the future our directors will make a good movie on a vampire theme, which can be compared with the cult foreign films, such as “Brem Stoker’s Dracula” & #39; or “Van Helsing” & #39”. We just have to wait. Still, I advise you to look at this picture, at least for the sake of a high-quality picture and what no, but comedy.
5 out of 10
Novelty from the famous director of such series as 'The Life and Adventures of Yaponchik Bear', 'Kill Stalin', 'Son of the Father of Nations' and other popular TV projects. But this time, a large full-length mystical tale about vampires tries to convey to us its vision of night bloodsuckers. Personally, I cannot say that the film is uninteresting, but I cannot say that it is not worth watching either. First of all, it's our vampire movie, which already gives us some interest. Second, the story itself is as simple as five pennies, but it is interesting to watch and there are some dramatic scenes that cause compassion and sadness. Third, the famous name of the director and popular actors. But, unfortunately, there is a downside to all this.
The banal tale about vampires, transferred to the territory of Russia in the 18th century, looks unconvincing and, sorry for the expression, pathetic. The presented Russian village is more like some Romanian or Polish village, where the Russian spirit does not smell. In the village again saved on extras. The unfortunate ten peasants wandering through the territory are laughing. But then, when vampires attack the residents and they turn into the same ghouls, a whole army looms from somewhere. Come on! You can let me have a little nagging! Now on the merits! Unfortunately, the plot of the film is not rich in the history of events and the dramatic basis of the characters. Although three writers worked on the script, in the end we see what we see. There is absolutely no history in the main characters. It seems that this film is not about them, but only about the main villain-vampire, who dreams of walking in the light of day. Who are the characters shown in the film? They're gone. There is no goal or goal. The absence of internal conflict or struggle dissolves the image of heroes in the eyes of the viewer. Who are they? What are they? What are they suffering from? What do they think and dream? What do they want? None of that. Very sad!
We ended up with faceless heroes. There is hope for the actors themselves. But what do we see? Boring Konstantin Kryukov with his monotony and lack of emotions will kill not only a gullible, but also any attentive viewer. It is very difficult to withstand his sluggish play, although he can and can play well, but apparently not in this film. Next we see his beloved performed by Aglaia Shilovskaya. Tell me who that is. Is that a country girl? Like a model coming down the catwalk with perfect eyebrows and bright makeup? Is that how we see these images? The girl who talks like a city squirrel and behaves so self-confident and liberated, who at the first opportunity throws herself into the gums and kisses a stranger, ready to give herself up at the moon. Is that how a village girl behaves, especially in the 18th century? The actress, of course, is a very beautiful and bright personality, but she is anything but a modest father’s daughter living in a small village. The actress added absolutely nothing to her image. She played herself in a modern way. As for Mikhail Porechenkov, he played as he can. There’s nothing to add and I don’t think it’s worth discussing. But in this film still has ' Hero of the Day' is the servant of the main character played by Roman Madianov. He's a genius of pure beauty! Handsome! Excellent performance and bright acting covers all the horror. Madianov, you're the best! You can see how seriously he took the role. All these grimaces, facial expressions and words perfectly convey their hero of that time. By the way, this is the only character who has a coherent story, whose image is revealed throughout the film. Only because of this actor, you can safely watch this movie. As for the production itself, I can say that I did not watch the full meter with a budget of 120 million rubles, but some series from a television series. Very sluggish and weak directing convinced me that it was quite difficult for a serial director to rebuild himself and he just filmed his series as usual. Staging fights and stunt tricks looks very weak.
With the actors, as if no work was done at all, in which no one set an acting task, no one explained what and how to do it. In the end, the actors came out, said their lyrics and left. All. The movie's over. Sad gentlemen!!! You can't. Separately, I want to praise the camera work, which for me personally was pleasant and high-quality. In general, 'Vurdalaki' not quite a big movie, but as a series from the series is quite watchable and interesting. And by the way, in the movie terrible makeup!!! Sticked beards are visible to the naked eye and not only at extras, but also at the main characters. All girls with loose hair, like modern fashionistas. Where did the Russian braid go? Blood and plastic makeup in vampires are funny and inconclusive. So forgive the criticism and harsh language, but it's just my personal opinion, which may not match the opinions of others. But in any case, I recommend watching this film to anyone who cares about Russian cinema.
Every year Russian filmmakers are more and more fiercely trying to keep up with Hollywood cinema. Probing the ground for creating blockbusters of various calibers, making the first steps in superhero cinema and trying to finally master the genre of horror film. But almost always – extremely in vain and this film directed by Sergey Ginzburg is not superfluous proof of this.
The plot of the picture is a film adaptation of the literary work of Alexei Tolstoy “Family of the Vurdalak”. But in fact, creating the impression of a film adaptation of Tolstoy’s work, how much a kind of interpretation of the cult work “Dracula” by Bram Stoker. Recreating a huge number of plot cliches on the screen, which have already been repeatedly played by a considerable number of films on the theme of vampires. Even without trying to diversify the material with certain innovations and fresh views on the material.
At the same time, if the story itself seems quite tolerable for an ordinary children’s fairy tale, then its plot twists, the motivation of the characters and these very characters cause a burning desire to freeze in the position of “facepalm”. Alternating one stupidity with another, leaving reason and logic behind the threshold, and in sum creating the impression that something is absolutely superficial and far-fetched. But willingly laced by the creators of the tape in the context of incredibly pathetic expressions both on behalf of the main characters of the tape, and on behalf of the main villain. When, due to this, somewhere in the second roles completely lost in my opinion an extra love story.
The film looks very scant from the point of view of director Sergey Ginzburg. For a thriller and a horror movie, the picture catastrophically lacks the necessary suspense atmosphere, tension and anxiety. For an ordinary fantasy work, much more spectacularly staged scenes of spectacle and some self-irony. Hence, it is not surprising that the film is perceived by an absolutely indistinct heterogeneous mass and viewing the picture turns into a real torture with a test of willpower.
It was a terrible game for the entire cast. Mikhail Porechenkov, Konstantin Kryukov and Andrei Rudensky in the image of the main villain broke the record for the most inexpressive and devoid of any emotions acting. Almost the entire film walks around with an equally stone expression. Similar claims can be attributed to the performer of the main role Aglaya Shilovskaya, but the pretty appearance of the actress to some extent replaces anger with mercy. The only bright spot of the picture is Roman Madianov, who again achieved an amazing effect with his game. When even the most secondary and episodic character in his performance turns out to be more beautiful than all the main characters of the tape combined.
1 out of 10
Gurdalaki is an absolute cinematic ugliness, which turned out to be absolutely raw and ugly in everything. Turning viewing the picture into a real torture and test of willpower. Even causing confusion about the fact that the film was created with the support of the Film Foundation.
I did not have the opportunity and desire to watch this film in the cinema, and this, as it turned out, is good, because so I spent only time.
So, the film is a questionable adaptation of the work of A. Tolstoy “Family of the Vurdalak”. Why questionable? Because the creators probably at the stage of preparation for production decided that it would work. As a result, this “and so” resulted in “no” with a minus sign.
I have seen nothing but shame.
To be honest, I wasn’t even bored, because I didn’t have time to move away from one awkward moment, as the second began.
But it would be more correct to package my impression in the standard plusomine system.
Pluses:
1. The visual series in principle does not cause a desire to wrinkle.
2. Good acting Madianov is the moment when you can smile
3. The Turk, who reduced the degree of general absurdity and in general looked more organic than all.
That's all. It's a bit small in my opinion.
Minuses:
1. Absolute absence of characters
2. Absolute lack of character motivations
3. No acting almost all the composition (just banal do not believe this text, which they say)
4. Too noticeable color correction, thanks to which the white horse became the colors of the sea wave.
5. Template Glavgad, which says template phrases and templates his hands.
6. Constant soundtrack, which begins to wildly irritate and completely spoils the already weak atmosphere
7. Paphos pouring from the mouth of Porechenkov makes you roll your eyes
I was really embarrassed to see it.
I don't know if I wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
The original story, unfortunately, did not read, but something suggests that in the film he left horns and legs. Some kind of confused narrative, flat heroes, weak motivation cause bewilderment almost from the very beginning and do not let go to the end.
In some remote village in Transcarpathia, a coffin is brought from the main vampire who is planning to conquer the world. In the village, all the locals live in fear, except Porechenkov, who calmly cuts aspen stakes and seems to know how to survive. There comes the hero Kryukov, who almost immediately falls in love with Aglaya Shilovskaya and gets mixed up with vampires, who also laid eyes on the girl, because she was chosen to make a daytime vampire (??) .
The choice of actors was 50/50. The old guard in the person of Porechenkov and Madianov (oh, this terrible false beard) did not shake, but the young Kryukov and Shilovskaya looked very sad: they spoke banal phrases in a monotonous voice and did not try to play at all.
It would be possible to overestimate a little if Kryukov had been trimmed in some other way, and not as always, and Shilovskaya bathed naked not in the lake, but at least in the river (the same thing happened in the terrible film “Kedy”). Well, the main vampire would not look like a cosplay on Verzhbitsky from the Watches.
As a result, this is a weak movie, which did not have enough timekeeping to reveal the characters, but it is even awkward to talk about bad special effects, thank you for being there.
3 out of 10
Before the review, I want to say that I do not hate domestic cinema!
I will be skeptical of the film!
To begin with, the fact that the film is shot in Russia does not make it worse than others, but rather promotes itself higher, because in Russia there are few alternatives to it!
Start with '-'.
1.Dumb. - The movie's stupid! I will not describe in colors, but I can say that much logic from the film do not expect!
2.Special effects. The special effects in the film are not at a very high level. Although this is a Russian film (and there is a stereotype about the fact that the Russian film is so bad), there is no Russian special effects it is also so bad, because to use when teleporting black haze in a mix with bats and do ' mice' poor quality is a hack!
3.Short. - Just 90 minutes? 90 minutes for the current cinema, it’s just 'fuh'.With a timing of at least 120 minutes, the film could get more recognition!
Offend to '+'.
1.Idea.- The idea of this film in principle is not bad, but could have more disclosure in the plot.
2.Actors The actors in this film are quite popular, for Russian society.
And I would like to conclude by saying that this film can be seen, but maximum 1 time and without delving into the plot, but only enjoying ' Ancient Rus'
As the guys from the team KVN "Moonlight Detective Agency" say: It's a very good movie. Very, very good movie. No doubt, it’s an amazing movie.
Someday, probably, it is quite possible, the domestic cinema will learn to shoot and good movies in the genre of fantasy and cool films in the genre of horror. But while the process of training on existing patterns is underway, the viewer is forced to be content with such works, which do not differ in a detailed presentation of events, impressive acting and high-quality graphics.
The only positive point that I can single out for myself in "Vurdalaki" is the voice of Andrei Rudensky. Not his game, but a voice that really sounded menacing and could not be better suited for the main villain. But here there is a spoonful of tar: the film is 81 minutes (including the credits) and throughout it the hero of Rudensky talks too much. He speaks constantly, speaks everywhere, his mouth does not shut up and by the end he really begins to tire.
Although, when you consider the fact that the movie begins as if a five-minute piece was thrown out of the beginning, and this is observed throughout the viewing, it becomes clear why his character is so talkative.
A brief excursion into the thick of events does not allow you to fully understand who all these people flashing in the frame, who has what to do with whom, where the coffin with the Master came from, why he was away from his castle, for what such merits the hero of Porechenkov was exiled to the devil to the curtains, the villagers were terrorized by ghouls constantly or excited with the appearance of the Host in the castle. If the second guess is correct, why do the locals know so much about these ghouls, know how to kill them?
As fast as the movie is, so fast is the plot. Neither the story of the monk and the hero Kryukov who came to him, nor the love line, nor the battle scene of the slaughter of people and ghouls, nor the desire of the Host to implement his plan in life are not properly disclosed and shown in the fast-moving slide show mode.
As for the love line between the heroes of Kryukov and Shilovskaya - this very line of wretchedness is so nauseous that it becomes from improbability. He saw her and immediately realized that it was necessary to save the old Russian chick, because she is in trouble, and he loves her, etc., etc. If Aglaya can still take his own in the frame with a spectacular appearance and normal work in the frame, then Kryukov completely disappointed, showing complete game impotence and, it seems, his best role will be the role in the 9th company, because acting skills in it are completely zero. Neither to play emotionally, nor voice to portray some feeling, nor anything else he can do, but he does not mind putting his tongue in the mouth of some beauty.
If the story of the coffin and its Master is very similar to the adventures of Dracula in the film of the same name, based on the novel by Bram Stoker, then the character of Roman Madianov makes a direct reference to “Van Helsing”, in which Hugh Jackman had a stupid and cowardly assistant. Domestic filmmakers do not want to reinvent the wheel, they prefer to pull ideas from other films.
Sadly... The Wurdalaks took over the set. . .
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Every Thursday competition: who drinks more, the prize.
- Which one?
- Ay, vodka gives!
Alexey Tolstoy’s work The Vurdalak Family was written in 1839, 58 years before Bram Stoker’s Dracula. A small story in French has a frightening atmosphere, and its syllable is dark. Reading the lines of the 19th century, the blood cools in the veins, so skillfully conveyed mood. In a word, a masterpiece, a classic of the horror genre.
The film takes a lot from the book: the scene, characters, some plot moves. It could be a good movie adaptation of the original. But the director Sergey Ginzburg (“Love-carrot 3”), by the way, did not remove anything outstanding, decided to approach creatively. Creatively and through sleeves.
The authors decided to supplement the original plot of the story by introducing new characters into the picture in the form of the monk Laurus (Mikhail Porechenkov) and Count Pishtefi (Andrey Rudensky) of the local Dracula. By the way, something similar was done earlier by director Via (2014), complementing the plot of the original film of 60. It was good that time. Well, there and the budget was more significant and the actors are more skilled.
The most important thing that distinguishes the novel and the current film is intrigue. The heroes of Tolstoy’s story questioned the existence of ghouls and it worked perfectly for the atmosphere. The reader did not know for sure who the vampire was or if they were even there. In the cinema, this moment simply missed, and with it all the sinister atmosphere and at least some intrigue. From the very beginning, we are presented with the local Dracula, his servants and told about the villainous plan, thereby killing all interest in further viewing the action.
Heroes are extremely stupid. Well, what kind of a fool to go hunting a vampire in his lair at night?
Actors, of which there are two times and got tired, (mass does not count) either walk with a stone face, or terribly overplay, trying to show emotions. Laurus and Paramon a little animate the dull narrative, they and the character is drawn and the actors still give the game. The makeup is far from perfect. For example, one catches the eye somehow not rustic smooth beard Paramon (Roman Madianov).
Plus
Those scenes that are transferred from the story without changes look much better than what was added, pity them few.
Result: Read/re-read the book.
No, it's rubbish. For viewing, the viewer must pay with milk, kefir, blood of the creators in any case, but it seems that someone bit their eyeballs and they do not see how damaged the adventure tape they glued together. You look at their attempts to realize the material (also A. K. Tolstoy was involved) as an illusionist who during the whole performance cannot pull the necessary card out of his own deck, first with a laugh, then with bewilderment and bile. The scenes of the action are filled with “fools hastily”, absolutely all of them are “from the hands of damage”, which is the scene when in the midst of the fight, surrounded by aggressive ghouls, Kryukov and Parechenkov, one by one, behind the scenes, are removed to “smoking” in the room to Shilovskaya.
The director spent all his energy admiring Aglaya, launching flocks of bats and drawing bruises and black veins on his faces. Phlegmatic Konstantin Kryukov does not need a stake, he with his wooden game can tire any piper to death, but not a strigoi who does not need a wedge, since he himself Klim... Klim Samgin, a more unsuitable actor for this role, like Andrei Rudensky, if only for thinness, is difficult to pick up.
What? What is left for the male viewer to do for lack of sane action: wait for Aglaya to get out of the water; please your eye with the views of Chufut-Kale; listen to a couple of sayings of Roman Modyanov, who is here in his place in the rogue role; look into the necklines of Aglay’s clothes.
How? How do such tapes, the level of a TV project that does not pretend to be on the screens of cinemas?!
4 out of 10
“I don’t care about humanity.” In all of your humanity, I am only interested in one person. I mean, I am. . . ?
Director Sergey Ginzburg may be familiar to the domestic audience on crafts of various kinds of lousy, such as 'Love-Carrot 3' or a number of not too popular projects for our television. Oddly enough, but he was entrusted with a free film adaptation of the novel by Leo Tolstoy - 'The Vurdalak Family'. The writer has repeatedly composed stories of this kind and probably would like a much better film adaptation for his creation, instead of what it turned out to be in the end. And the same Sergey Ginzburg forever branded himself a completely disgraceful director and director.
The plot of this work starts in the Carpathian Mountains, where a small village is located, which is tirelessly guarded by the all-powerful priest Laurus. He protects her not from the drunkenness of the damned, but from the immortal creatures - the ghouls, who torment the humble and honest people of the village at night. The latter of course learned to hang a fair amount of garlic, well, and sharpen stakes from their own fences, but this is not enough. Just because in the immediate vicinity of the poor guy is the castle of the local ' Dracula' and he is a very troubled neighbor. . .
Of course, I am already used to the disgusting scripts of domestic films, but every time they still manage to surprise me, at least with the smallest details and stupidities, but still surprise me. So with 'Vurdalaki' something similar happened. The degree of a certain scenario delirium in principle is very high, absurdities and mediocrely realized things in this regard there is just a pile and a small cart. But the first thing that can catch the eye is the absolute sterility of everything, the whole atmosphere, all the few scenery and so on. It seems that everything is built hastily and even the actors themselves were given costumes from the local theater. It just won't work, no matter how hard you try. There are no memorable moments at all, everything is faded and one-sided - vampires are terrible. No, not that they're scary. They are just mediocre and look like a bunch of bums from the station. There are no special effects in principle and everything is implemented at a very amateur level. There are only a few good actors who have really tried to play this absurd craft. However, there were those who did not do this in principle, like Mikhail Porechenkov. But at the same time, he is really the best thing about this nonsense. Why the best? And just because he amused me literally throughout the film, amused me with his spitting attitude to what is happening - burned down half of the village, Father Laurus does not care, the mother must finish off her turned daughter, Father Laurus just as calmly instructs her: ' There is nothing wrong with it' This is how most of the episodes with him go. Porechenkov seems to understand that he is filming in total clowning, walks with a completely indifferent face and speaks extremely monotonous and monotonous dialogues. But that's just what's funny, Father Laurus puts it on everyone, just leave him alone with your bell.
As a result, Sergey Ginzburg turned out to be an extremely mediocre work that cannot be evaluated from the standpoint of sound logic, since it completely loses to almost any film about bloodsuckers. There are no normal scenery, worthy of realized vampires, excellent antagonists and at least any satisfactory plot. Instead of all this, we are offered to look from afar at the bare ass of Aglaia Shilovskaya and watch the acting of Misha Porechenkov, who, in general, does not want to play, but through his unwillingness, is incredibly trying to portray a priest - detached, tired, but still very funny. Apparently, only he perfectly understood what kind of crap he was filming and therefore did not steam.
If I had never read Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, Via, Ghoul, had never seen the film adaptations, I would probably have said that the film is not bad. But damn it, it's 17. Where is the promised February Revolution? In this case, a revolution in domestic cinema. It hurts. In Russia there are talented actors and directors, it is rich in colorful and picturesque places, in Russia luxurious classical literature. And why is it still being removed? And also with reference to the mystical prose of great creators. After all, the pen of Tolstoy and Gogol does not even smell there. Take it easy, gentlemen. It's time to learn how to shoot horror. We can do dramas, we can do military, melodramas and comedies sometimes. A horror movie is a failure.
"Vurdalaki" reminded me of the disgusting modern "Vie." I'm still impressed with that tape in the worst sense of the word. You don’t always have to remake Soviet films. It's already made, enough! However, there are fewer claims to the “Vurdalaks” a priori. The film was not praised and not PR.
The plot is banal, there is nothing to talk about. But the task of professionals is to remove so that this very banal thing becomes interesting. Looking at the cast... Not the worst it could be. The names are good. And played well. But nothing happened. The director's fault. I'm not talking about special effects - it's bullshit.
I have no idea what is new or interesting in this film. Except to watch the Carpathians, of which there is not enough in the picture, but for Porechenkov in a cassock. The picture is beautiful, as far as nature is concerned, but a meager budget is felt.
With faith in the best. With the belief that someday in Russia will learn to shoot fantasy and horror, without shitting the classics, I bet so much.
3 out of 10
As a child, I remember reading the works of A. K. Tolstoy. "Prince of Silver", "Meeting in Three Hundred Years", "Ghoul". And, of course, the story “Family of the Ghouls”, written in the spirit of mystical romanticism. It did not bring a chilling horror, but some incredibly attractive fear - just a sweet fear that for a long time possessed the impressionable childhood imagination.
He hoped to see the film adaptation to stir up a long-standing, but unforgettable impression of reading a fascinating legend. With a leisurely, eerie-tight plot, night shooting by candlelight, expressive folk faces, gloomy landscapes and bright dialogues. I still remember these amazing minted phrases from the book: “Give me my son, dead man!” Or this one: "Kol!" Where's the stake? Whoever hides it is responsible for all the grief that awaits us.
But the film surprisingly turned out to be a lot of beach sun, strange humor, very complacent, touristically luxurious views of nature and clip shooting. And in the plot there was such an eralash that it seemed that I was about to see a remake of the “Caucasian Prisoner”, only with the action transferred to another era. The actors are good, but they seem to be ironic about what they do in the frame. And in the scenes of the righteous struggle between good and evil, they saw the worn reminiscences of old Hollywood horror films, then musketeer fights, then suddenly static skinheads and an inconclusive extra depicting greedy bloodsuckers appeared.
It was obvious that the writer and director were afraid to move at least a step away from modern stereotypes, completely entered and accepted in the cinema, and buckets generously poured Hollywood trends into the plot. They didn’t care about our classics. So I thought, who was the movie made for? Adults all this is naive and uninteresting, and children such slurred nonsense is simply harmful. Probably shot for grouchy critics like me to give reason to write a negative review. The reason, in my opinion, is obvious.
What is inherent in every classic work? A special, characteristic artistic spirit only for him. And the task of the film adaptation is to capture this spirit and transmit it on the screen. But this spirit, to be honest, does not smell here. No, I'm not sorry for the time I wasted. Pity those deep, with a trembling heart impressions of childhood, which bluntly and mercilessly stepped heavy heel of modern trendy cinema. The sweet fear of childhood, this film adaptation did not return. She crushed him. But once this is removed, then a new, completely different, real will appear very soon.
3 out of 10
And really, it was scary to watch this movie, not because it was scary, but because I was waiting for it to be over. Only recently I looked at 'Defenders', I was not enough and I went to another portion of shit, though radically different in specifics. 'Vurdalaki' is a thriller and fantasy. You know the scale, right? Russian fantasy. But I had to watch to let others know that it is not worth repeating my mistake.
And so we'll be shown a butt who kills evil. Yes, he lives in a hermitage and fights evil if it comes to him. But everything changes when the most important vampire appears, similar in behavior to Dracula, and this, forgive me, is ridiculous. He needs the blood of a girl from the village for his ritual, and the main character in the performance of Konstantin Kryukov falls in love with her. And they are ready to fight the hordes of the undead.
The film itself looks like it’s making a series. That's what the Russians do. Take foreign series, so they are more like full-length films, the authors try to do so. We don't know what they're after. The Cinema Foundation decided to shove money everywhere and this is what happened. Graphics praise, not bad, although it could be better, it was not scary at all, and on the action scenes was sleepy. Only Roman Madianov and his character diluted the situation and brought funny moments to the film. If it were a comedy, the results might be better.
In short, stay at home, and if you go to the cinema, don’t do that. And don't try to make a date on this movie, because you're definitely not getting anything.
I used to know two signs of bad cinema: the production of the Azilum film studio and the video translation of Hihidok, who took a niche, translating films that no one else would translate. Now in the domestic cinematography, it seems, there is a third sign: the film was shot with the support of the cinema fund.
To say that “Vurdalaki” – at least to some extent the adaptation of Alexei Tolstoy, in my opinion, is completely groundless. It's more like a tracing from the stupidest Hollywood horror movies. The script is miserable. Actors just don't. There's almost no special effects. There are no fresh ideas. But the signs of the cross, prayers and hopes in the Almighty are just over the edge.
Where is this story going? In the Carpathians? Then why do we see an absolutely Russian village where the Hutsuls lived, who are not very “relatives” not only to Russians, but also to Ukrainians?
Why is the castle of some baron reading spells in Latin towering over this Russian Orthodox region?
Others have already written about all sorts of other nonsense and blunders here, and I do not want to go into it at this level of the picture.
If you think about it a little, then all the nonsense here is not accidental, but ideological: both over-the-top clericalism, and the spread of the “Russian world” to where it did not exist at that time, and the cursed Western European bloodsucker, etc. However, very funny look on this background clumsily repeated cliches of Western cinema. But it seems that the creators of this picture did not care.
But it influenced me as a spectator. Ideology in "Vurdalaki" is fine. But from the purely cinematic side is not good. Wasted money on a ticket and time for a session. Among the domestic horror films calcified from Hollywood (Diggers, Route built, Queen of Spades), this is generally not suitable even for the unassuming genre of “horror” and films of the category B.
The rating of the film, in my opinion, is overstated, and the ratio of allegedly spent money and rental fees in Russia ... Here I have a question: why is the budget of the picture indicated in rubles, and fees in “bucks”? Maybe because, if you count the money in rubles at today’s rate, it turns out that the creation of this “masterpiece” spent 160 million rubles, and collected so far only 43.6 million rubles. A little over a quarter of the film’s budget. And the question is why throw money to the wind “with the support of the film fund”, which, as I understand it, has budget funds?
But this, of course, is not our viewing mind. We have to pay our taxes properly. But it's up to the audience to watch this shit or not. Judging by the figures given by Kinopoisk, the viewer votes with his feet regarding this picture. So advice: to look or not to look – do not necessarily give.
Well, then. Quite a beautiful film adaptation of the work of Alexei Tolstoy with a proper admixture of modern glamour. There are no claims to the plot, and what can be the claims to the Russian classics? Of course, it was necessary to paint a bit the dull end of the classic, where the protagonist just happily escaped death, so another ambitious vampire who wants protection from the sun is at your service. A kind of import substitution of the Other World with Kate Beckinsale.
Dialogues that have not been borrowed from nowhere are monstrous. Konstantin Kryukov pronounced them especially monstrously. In general, professionals in the form of Roman Madianov, Porechenkov vs. random people in movies like Kryukov and Shilovskaya are very clearly visible. The main character is attractive, no doubt, but completely alien in this film. All the time waiting for her to get her iPhone out and start taking selfies for Instagram.
The overall picture of the village and the mountains is magnificent. Beautiful view, close-up, nature, mountains and the lake greatly add to the movie pluses. A little embarrassing ever clean clothes of the peasants ... and the ghouls, although dressed in some rags and bags, immediately you can see - the bag is new, clean! But you don’t pay attention to these little things anymore.
A little embarrassing illogical happy ending... but from the duo sweet curly guy + girl from instagram it is quite suitable. For the rest of the characters who play quite decently, the film ends not so positively.
4 out of 10
I went to this movie for a Russian view of vampires and how they could exist next to us. And behind a beautiful picture and fabulous atmosphere.
Thanks to “Twilight” and “The Vampire Diaries”, we are already involuntarily accustomed to the fact that vampires are such cool guys who, although they kill for food, but still cute and handsome, whom you can even marry. “Vurdalaki” also return us to the idea that they are evil, which should be avoided if possible, and if necessary, generously watered with holy water and pierced with aspen stakes. You're afraid of them, you hate them, but looking at them is no less interesting than looking at heartthrobs with fangs. But I don’t think they were the main characters in this movie. It was supposed to be Andrei, played by Konstantin Kryukov, but never did. I don’t like the actor a bit, but that’s not the point. Well, he didn't come out of a hero-lover, well, okay. But his beloved worked for two. The heroine of Aglaia Shilovskaya and her brains can take a ghoul with one shot, and the vampire blood can be digested without consequences, and at the same time remain a tender and touching girl, a loving daughter, sister and aunt. It’s nice to look at it without a ton of makeup on your face. Another candidate for the main character was Porechenkov in the role of Laurus - something between a monk and a paratrooper, who can pray diligently, and ghouls to the other world in packs to send. But they all pale in the background of Roman Madianov. That's who the real hero is. First, he will make the whole movie laugh with his stories, justifying his cowardice. Second, he saves everyone when the critical moment comes. What was missing was a real negative character. The count “as it is there” seemed somehow no, and it is hardly the fault of the actor Rudensky. Rather, the problem is in the character itself, more precisely in the way the writers wrote it. I haven’t read the original, so I can’t say it’s the writer’s fault.
As for a beautiful picture, you will definitely get it. Mountains, sunsets, an ancient castle, and also the color of the Carpathian village - all this gives the film a fabulous atmosphere.
In general, while watching it, several times there was a feeling that it was not Russian cinema, or some specialists from Europe had a hand in it. For good or bad, everyone will decide for themselves, but in this particular case it seemed to me that this added only pluses to the film.
Go to the cinema if you miss a good old story. And take the kids with you, they're not going to be scared by a couple of fangs. I'm sure they haven't seen it before.
Russian fantasy thriller appears on the court of the audience in the cinema, this time from Sergey Ginzburg. Brightly gloomy, filled with ferocious undead and oppressive atmosphere of the Middle Ages, the film clearly stands out against the background of its fantastic predecessors, and creates a special impression that can hurt, alarm the viewer with its story.
The plot is pretty thought out. After viewing, it seems that the script was really done competent work, clearly spelled out every moment and action.
Fans of the original source Alexei Tolstoy will be satisfied - when filming the film, the book was used as a canon, which they tried to truly reproduce on the screen.
The director clearly laid out each plot twist, making the viewer really feel fear and adrenaline. The main characters help convey the whole mystical atmosphere, making it more saturated. The visual part did not disappoint – even to indifferent viewers, the picture will seem fascinating, which you can not only see, but also feel.
And of course, you can not ignore the melodramatic side of the film, which flows into the exciting whirlpool of events. The film flies in one breath, causing a storm of emotions and leaving behind a pleasant impression of watching.
7 out of 10
The main villain is a vampire whose ridiculous name I don’t even remember because it was Dracula, and there’s no point in giving Dracula other Russian names.
The script is like reading an old story. Where by default there is a good beautiful heroine and a prince saving her on horseback, and the ending is known in advance.
The villain wants to kidnap the princess, but the prince comes and beats the villain. Dracula wanted to kidnap the girl because she is a half-blood vampire (Blade's theme) and he wants to reward her with his strength, and get her strength - not to be afraid of the light. (That's the whole script.)
Hero play is disgusting. Porechenkov plays a humble priest, but in his eyes such insincerity that it becomes ridiculous. The girl is cute (it's all about the girl), and ' Prince', doesn't laugh, doesn't cry, doesn't get angry, and you don't see that he has a character at all. Character was only the servant, a secondary character who was a coward, which contributed a drop of comedy to this terrible picture.
Battles are frankly weird. Characters wave swords (or sabers), but no ' battle choreography' No. They show the flickering of blades and that's it. It’s like they’re crossing them to ring.
Some scenes are filmed from the shoulder. These are slow scenes, and the camera trembles and twitches, as if the operator had drunk a couple of glasses of cognac.
Three people in the castle hold the attack of the undead, who come by storm to take the castle, with a battering ram in their hands. And the hero shoots them from the crossbow with burning arrows. From the crossbow, one shot, Karl, against the horde of the undead!
The undead moves against the laws of physics on a steep wall. Not with hands and feet, but with some antigravity force, which spoils the overall impression of the siege scene.
The film does not make you empathize with the characters, or try to predict the plot. In fairy tales, everything moves according to the standard script to the final. This is a terrible parody of some 'Evenings at a farm near Dikanka' + ' Dracula'.
“Vurdalaki” is living proof that Sarik Andreasyan is far from the most important filmmaker (from the word “broker”) in Russkino. Not every incompetent Armenian can abuse the work of Alexei Tolstoy.
And if we add that all this was filmed in the occupied Crimea, then the topic of quality on this could be immediately closed. But!! But still, it is not for this that the most incompetent actor of our time #Kostyakryukov starred in this shit so that his shameful work was not even mentioned. Not for that #Porechenkov degraded so rapidly that he was not noticed. And #AglayaShilovskaya is also not in vain role after role diligently spoils its filmography.
About the ridiculous main villain-vampire (#AndreyRudensky) even to remember awkward. Although among his disgusting roles, this is not the most wretched ...
The script of this film is not even worth mentioning, well, if it really was, and not written by Alexei Timm and his TEAM, during the alcotrip of the whole group in the Crimea. As proof - dialogue, modern-moronic and clumsy.
Operator Andrey Gurkin apparently agreed to all this for the sake of nature and the sunshine star between the chins during the kiss Kryukov and Shilovskaya at sunset. And the director of #SergeiGinzburg just really likes money. He doesn't care what to shoot.
And this is also the rare case when the work of a production designer, a costume designer, makeup workshops and hairstyles is so VISIBLE WITH a MINUS IS SOMETHING that it is just awkward. Modern boots and clothes, cool modern make and awesome eyebrows of the village-Shilovskaya... The permanent on the head and constantly not in the theme from frame to frame, Kryukov’s unshavenness changing in length, wretched false beards and makeup of ghouls ... etc.
In short, this film is a real pain from beginning to end. Every scene is a new pain! Especially the final one! I suffered for your sins beforehand. Don't repeat that.