The tale of the Lilliputians turned into a vulgarity
Reducing people to save the planet from environmental disaster? The idea of the film itself is brilliant. However, trying to mix fantasy with typical American humor was clearly a mistake.
Physiotherapist Paul and his wife Audrey live modestly in his mother's old home. There is not enough money to buy a new one, but I want to live well. At this time, the development of Norwegian scientists – reducing people – is gaining popularity around the world. So the environment does not suffer, the garbage is much less and money from the Lilliputians is added. As a result, the main character decides to take the most important step in his life, which led to irreversible consequences.
What I really like here is the story. Paul's story is quite interesting and exciting. In addition, I am absolutely delighted with Christoph Waltz, who brilliantly played the role of an old forgeman. His facial expressions, cunning grins are simply masterpieces.
However, the attempts of the creators of the picture to add humor spoiled the whole impression. “Short” could well be attributed to family movies, for viewing with children. But stupid American jokes are definitely not suitable for children’s ears. Anyone who has seen the movie will know what I mean. It was a real disappointment for me, because the beginning was impressive.
I also hated the sectarian theme in Norway. Turning the highest minds of Europe into some idiotic fanatics was clearly a bad idea. Apparently, it was invented only to show that the most adequate in the world are the Americans. I don’t see any other option.
Towards the end of the film, the story turned from interesting to mortal boredom. The closer to the final, the more boring and playful. If you watch "Short", it is only for the sake of Waltz.
4 out of 10
"Short" is not what it seems. That's his weakness, but that's the strength of the film. From the primitive comedy about the reduction of people to a certain point, there is not a trace, because this is only the background for the disclosure of really important topics. They are introduced into the plot gradually, and turn the perception sharply and unexpectedly. In this transition, for which the viewer seems not pre-prepared, and lies the main drawback. Roughly speaking, we can compare the structure of the film with puzzles, or rather with its two incompatible details. Perhaps director Alexander Payne expected to achieve the desired effect by contrasting the two parts of the film. However, the genre and theme chosen by the director are neither combined nor contrasted properly. Unfortunately, because the idea definitely had great potential.
After watching, I encountered a semblance of conflict between mind and feeling. Objectively, I understand that the film is weak, but my heart is on his side. Not least thanks to the incredible Hong Chau, whose acting work is literally captivating and fascinating. Talented reincarnation, a deep understanding of the psychology of his heroine, skillful transfer of emotions – the Golden Globe for the best supporting role belongs to Chau by right. On the other hand, the acting technique can be described as somewhat hyperbolized, but this game is “too much” and allows you to feel sympathy for the merciful Vietnamese activist. The image of Ngoc is the personification of mercy, love for others, humanism. The heroine takes care of the disabled, the inhabitants of slums. Paul Safranek, played by Matt Damon, is similar to Ngoc. So, in the episode, in which the audience meets the character, Paul carefully cares for his sick mother, and then massages the neck of his wife who is tired at work. Yeah, there's definitely a lot in common between Damon and Chow. In this regard, the feeling emerging between them, although not consistent with melodramatic traditions, is perceived to a certain extent natural.
"In short" raises such a problem as the inconsistency of scientific progress. This is stated in the second scene of the film: the Edwardsen Institute, where the technology of reducing people was first discovered, was founded by the wife of a scientist whose invention was adapted to the destruction of people during the First World War. Scientific experiments on human reduction were carried out with the best intentions: to save the planet from overpopulation, to reduce the amount of waste, to improve the quality of life. The “practical and humane” invention is soon being used by governments of non-democratic countries to fight political opposition. Commercial corporations profit from scientific discovery by organizing entire cities under the hood, and the new civilization of short people faces the problem of social stratification and chaotic slums.
And behold, a lawyer stood up and tempted him and said, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And he said to him, What is written in the law? how do you read?
He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and with your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”
But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, Who is my neighbor?
Luke 10:25-29
Perhaps the parable of the Merciful Samaritan can end:
Watching the movie seems like an obvious analogy. And very comforting is the direct instruction on how to live in any conditions - in ' Brave New World' or on the verge of a universal catastrophe. . .
***
Most of all, I respect the work of Alexander Paine for his love of people. He does not paint superheroes or notorious villains - these are the most ordinary people, sometimes stupid or even intolerable, sometimes quite successful and intelligent, but ordinary in the mediocrity of their problems. These are the people through whose theatrical life one can see, in some light, the greatness of human life in general. This is the everyday life through which, as if squinting, one can see Being. Sometimes it seems to take some incredible effort to be human, but at the same time we can not be people.
For me ' Short ' probably the best I've seen in years. Perhaps because of the consonance of your own question to yourself, which is probably not so unique. . .
Not everyone has access to the experience of near death or the collapse of many life hopes, from under the wreckage of which, a person suddenly finds the strength to soberly look at everything around ' carefully and attentively'. But that is the real art - we can enter this river, leaving which, you can become another.
I, apparently, did not become different, but the picture gave a certain 'code'. When I feel really sad, my wife can come up to me and say, ‘You’re Paul Safranek, a good man.’ And I'm very grateful to her for that.
What's this movie about? Who will be found, even with a damaged sense of self-preservation, under any guarantees, to become irreversible ' Lilliput', realizing that he will become vulnerable to the simplest insects, not to mention the big 39; bullies and sadists? The idea is not bad, but the plot, like the plot, does not fit into any framework. To change this worthless apocalyptic nonsense, with barely justified and spoiling everything motivation, whatever was more understandable and, more importantly, justified and the film would be wonderful.
In my opinion, it was just worth it ' Cellular Decrease' reversible and put volunteers under an impenetrable cap under a clear and intelligible pretext, for example - scientific observation by contract, such as this ' Decrease' affect the quality of psychophysical reactions or whatever it is, while luring everyone to this, stupid, unbridled, consumer paradise. In any case, this 'world' is more plausible and has more room to develop and denounce the plot. Matt Damon would not have had to squeak his 'dramatic reactions' in the plot, with obviously idiotic premises.
The only thing that the authors, in part, managed to convey and give to the fullest extent, is the atmosphere and the painful self-perception of the captured, ragged hero who, in pursuit of dwarf happiness, suddenly realized that everything that was lived in vain and this is irretrievable. At the same time, Christoph Waltz (Dushan Mirkovic), in his brilliant, imposing manner, gave everything an inexplicable realism - just by his presence. Amazing, incredibly positive actor!
“Sometimes I’m an ass, but the world needs butts, otherwise how will shit come out?”
Recently, Matt Damon has moved away from the usual image of Jason Bourne, and decided to try himself in the role of a family man with principles and blah blah blah. “Suburbicon” didn’t leave me a great impression, so I was hoping for “Short”. No good.
It would seem that what a great idea is to save the world from global warming, reducing the inhabitants (simply at will) to the size of Thumbelin! Such a space for imagination would open: flying on eagles, horse racing on meadow dogs, taming rats and other quirks of dwarfs. However, here the film simply includes a new branch of the development of the American dream and the end of the world.
Too long and boring, too, sorry, too small for actors like Damon and Waltz. And what is most disappointing – even comedic elements are almost not observed. Although the veil of inequality is slightly opened, there will always be masters and servants.
In general, if you want to take a nap, look, and sleep properly.
5 out of 10
Director and screenwriter Alexander Payne is a favorite for his ability to make deep dramatic films surrounded by ordinary everyday problems, and at the same time belongs to a special cohort of filmmakers who devoted themselves to creating independent cinema. Payne has already twice won the Oscar & #39; and in both cases in the nomination for best adapted screenplay. And it is understandable that when Payne took up the production of his next social drama called ' In short', many suspected that it would also become an event in the 2017 film year. ' In short' really hit the top ten best films of the year according to the National Council of Film Critics of the United States, managed to visit the screening in Venice and participated in other film forums, but the average viewer took the film quite coolly and, based on the average scores exhibited by users of IMD and KP resources, then /#39; Paine ' - this is the weakest film. Is that really true? This case is completely subjective, so I will express my own emotions, received from viewing 'In short'.
Alexander Payne co-wrote the script with Jim Taylor, with whom he has collaborated more than once since his cinematic debut. This time, they came up with a fantasy that in the near future people will open the possibility of ' reduction' that is, it becomes small to a few centimeters. Of course, this solves the problem of overpopulation, the problem of natural resources disappears, the problem of food and water bypasses humanity. But the greatest scientific achievement, which turned the course of human history, did not deprive the problems of the sensual, heart and soul. The main character - Paul Safranek played by Matt Damon - because of some financial problems decides together with his wife (Kristen Wiig) to undergo a reduction procedure, but everything does not go as planned by Paul. He still finds himself in the town of Kayfaville, specially built for short people, where he meets the impressive neighbor Dushan (Christophe Waltz) and his friend Conrad (Udo Kir), as well as the Vietnamese refugee Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau). Soon they together plan a trip to Norway, where the commune was established, led by a scientist who discovered a decrease in the number of people living in Norway. This trip will give Paul a lot to understand and make you look at the world in a different way.
This film should be viewed from a discussion point of view about metaphorical themes like the life of a little man in this huge, huge, huge world where we are really no more bugs. So, taken as the main motive of action, the fantasy about the latest scientific developments is still nothing more than a visual metaphor. We all think we can do more, but people don’t often prove it to themselves. Many dream of becoming famous musicians, actors, maybe politicians or even rich people to be in the public eye, but in ' It is shown that big actions are ready to do ' Little people' Their work is invisible to us, but every day they deserve words of sincere gratitude from other people. There is another philosophical thread in the picture, it tells you that you need to do the right thing. Did the protagonist Paul Safranek do everything wrong until a certain time? It depends on how you look, but one day he took an unusual path and became a completely different person. Therefore, ' In Short' is not some fantastic drama, but rather a lyrical story based on the eternal discussion themes of social philosophy.
Matt Damon's game was taken by some into bayonets. He was called static, emotionless, with weak dramatic play. However, in this case, I would not like to agree with the critics of Matt Damon and his Paul Safranek. After all, it is necessary to think why his character was completely devoid of any motives, why everything was so difficult for him and he hardly found friends. The answer is one: he has lost something most intimate and found a completely different world - you have to get used to it, you have to fully realize it. I think it would have been easier for Damon to reveal the facets of his character after the final scene, but it wasn’t in the plot. And if Matt Damon didn't like it that much, look at Christoph Waltz. I still have a scene in front of me when he laughed unrestrainedly at the sight of Safranek in the janitor's workwear. In general, Waltz has taught other roles that he makes wonderful villains with his charisma, but in ' In short' he plays a good man and it suits him very well. A lot of people have played Hong Chau. She really had a complex character, both emotionally and physically, but the actress completely coped, for which she received several prestigious nominations.
I agree with the opinion that 'Short' - this is not the best film of Alexander Payne, I, for example, prefer his picture ' About Schmidt' and ' Descendants', but also a failure 'Short'I can not call either. Perhaps I considered something in the film that I wanted, or maybe some viewers in advance decided that they would be in front of a film in the genre of fiction, and ' In short' is a social tragicomedy with its philosophical context.
I will say right away that, contrary to all my principles, I could not watch the film until the end! And this, in my opinion, is the first time in the history of my views at all (smile shock).
But somewhere a little after the appearance of dramatic lines, I still endured ' spectacle' waiting for the development of the plot and the appearance of interesting things (what do we spend time for?), but did not wait. I gave up watching, promising myself that I would watch tomorrow, but I never managed to do it. . .
'To view all already made films will take at least 6.5 thousand years'.
Gentlemen filmmakers, after all, even such pedantic movie dinosaurs as I (villages - so look to the end!), have already understood. And the day when people will get up and leave the theater after 10-30 minutes of the film is probably not far away. There are many of you, and the audience has only one life.
As for 'In short', from the very beginning, the convention of the fantastic line was felt in some moments, but even at the same time its stupidity was unpleasant in some places. However, the beginning was 'more or less'. As in the Truman Show, the absurdities and repulsive mannerisms of the characters have an explanation and a background, and somewhere out there, on the other side, there is a normal world with lively real emotions. But from a certain point in Downsizing began something really hard to watch, boring, pale, pathetic, slurred, dull and... sorry, stupid. I am not original and ready to subscribe to many reviews - the plot not only fell apart, but broke up into unappetizing crumbs. And here is a simple conclusion: you should not take on too much - no line can be really revealed. Perhaps the authors wanted to reach as wide an audience as possible, playing on dozens of strings at once, it is a pity that in the end, not a symphony, but a cacophony sounds.
It didn't catch the actors either. In some places there were hints of sarcasm, but making fun of someone, you can make a fool of yourself. This is where it happened.
In general, the film gave the impression of an unsuccessful craft in the genre of humor. This is not fiction, not drama, not melodrama, but comedy. Attempts to shudder, to expose the funny and ridiculous, to make think about the world in which we live, about the people who are nearby and about themselves through laughter. But at the same time, humor in the genre is not stated. Unfortunately, fiction and drama are read even less in the film. . .
Too bad. The canvas of ideas, I think, is just brilliant. The film can be revised, but only as a guide on the topic ' why your blockbuster will not become a blockbuster '
2 out of 10
This is exactly as in 'Suburbicon'. A wonderful scenario and a very smooth implementation. To my taste, this is where Alexander Payne's universe burst into new colors. By adding a small fantastic line to the plot, the author allows himself to fully decompose many social trends of our time.
Indeed, the project to minimize people looks very true. Much more true are the aspects that Payne highlights. Are they not relevant: divorce, unemployment, rampant profit, illegal emigration, violation of human rights? All of this falls on an idealistic picture of minimalist America. And here we get a personal hell quite conformist-minded average resident. The hero of Matt Damon clearly seeks to follow trends, and therefore time after time finds himself in situations that are not so profitable for him. He easily falls for loud slogans, strives to be politically correct and courteous, and most importantly - takes everything at face value.
Well, in this space, Payne deploys heavy artillery sending the hero to distant Norway, raising the theme of the Apocalypse and conducting a test for political correctness for the viewer. Payne offers us all this phantasmagoria with a serious look, making us smile and reflect thoughtfully on the days of today.
In this section, a lot was expected from the tempo of the tape, its dynamics and everything related to the external shape. Unfortunately, the author did not succeed. Definitely, the tape doesn't fit too well with a powerful script. An even narrative style is perhaps not the best solution. Too many nuances are drowning in the flow of routine. Well, except that, you can praise Hong Chau and Christoph Waltz for more than accurate hits in the role.
5 out of 10
I certainly didn’t have any hopes for this film and that’s very good, otherwise I would have been disappointed. I watched a good philosophical drama. No, the beginning is really interesting, who is not aware of the film as a basis took the problem of overpopulation of the land and as a solution proposed to reduce people, but this is fantastic. Interesting idea and a cheerful start. The film even touched upon the economic problems associated with human miniaturization.
But then the writers went somewhere in the wrong place, there was of course an attempt to go out on a banter with fanatics who were waiting for the end of the world, but it was so blurred, there was a feeling that it was completely accidental.
The main themes raised in the film:
- end of the world.
- fanatics
Become a millionaire without doing anything.
All of this was actually flushed down the toilet.
In general, the film I would not review it exactly. And it's not for nothing that he didn't take the cash register.
The first sign of Hollywood 'cabbage' is a bunch of stars. Here you and Matt Damon, and Christoph Waltz (snitch-fascist from ' Inglourious Bastards'), and Kristen Wiig (beloved from ' Walter Mitty'), and also a bunch of other familiar faces, to which it is difficult to substitute names. Everyone plays on a grand scale and from the heart - it's nice to see how people enjoy playing.
The second sign of Hollywood 'cabbage' - some kind of topical topic. 'Brief' perfectly beats downshifting, slightly remaking it into downsizing - the process when a person is reduced to the size of a few centimeters and he goes to live in a specially equipped town. Do you want to change the situation, and nothing keeps you in the old place? Welcome to a world where you can actually feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fish (it’s unforgivable that they didn’t beat this gag). At the same time, humor hits two points at once - of course, on ridiculous situations, such as the delivery of old wedding rings in a van bending under their weight, and secondly - on the ridicule of the consumer society. For example, such people 'prols' do not like, and threaten to terraform faces for paying less taxes. The situation is well thought out - all the problems of living on the difference of potentials and leaving problems behind without solving them are perfectly shown, as is the dumping of burdens from sick heads to even more sick ones, such as the exploitation of the low-cultured layer of hired workers. The problems and sharpness of satire are on top, especially since it is often interspersed with not very joking problems.
The third sign of Hollywood 'cabbage' - he quickly loses his fuse. Having shot all the jokes and rolled the obligatory program over the heads of careless supporters of the wrong way of life (it does not matter what), it turns out that it was not enough to put a certain point and express the moral position of the forces - breathing hard we say ' Damn, man, we explained everything to you here for two hours, let us think it out yourself now, and if you do not want - then you are a fool!' You could have made a super movie.
6 out of 10
I like it if the process of good jokes is more important to you than proof.
You won’t like it if the tearful stories about social inequality and the fact that humanity is burying itself are stuffed with tiredness.
kinobalashow
There are many different problems in our world that humanity cannot cope with. Terrorism, hunger, overpopulation and so on. All this is an integral part of our life, and no matter how hard we try, we will not get rid of this soon. But the Norwegian scientist Jorgen Esbjørnsen has invented a technology that can shrink a person, thereby taking up much less space on earth. Of course, the smaller you are, the cheaper everything is for you, which is why many people around the world have begun to reduce themselves due to financial gains. Such (irreversible) procedure will be subjected to a couple consisting of the head of the family Paul and his wife Audrey. True, the story is much more twisted than it may seem at first glance.
The film itself, as strange as I liked, I do not understand people who expected a comedy from this film. Even the trailers showed that it was a good and interesting story for family viewing. The first 30 minutes of the film was all very interesting, revealing the main character and the opinions of different people on the new wonder of the world. After that, there will be an even more interesting story in the city 'Kayfoville'. But already in the middle, everything becomes somewhat delayed, and it becomes boring to watch. And that feeling lasts up to about 80% of the film. After 80%, the film comes to life again, there are many interesting plot twists and watch again becomes interesting. You'll definitely think about the ending! You may even change something in your life.
Also can not but please the composition of actors, both famous and not very well known. As for me, Matt Damon played his role one hundred percent, so pleased with her acting Kristen Wiig. But most of all, I was pleased with my acting by the little-known Swedish actor Rolf Lassgaard, who played the Norwegian scientist Jorgen Esbjørnsen.
Outcome: This is an interesting fantastic film with elements of drama, recommended for family viewing!
8 out of 10
I love movies that make me think after watching. Who doesn't like them? So Alexander Payne makes me think for the second hour after the session. About what? The future, life. This is what the director’s new film tells us.
Starring Matt Damon, a therapist who once decided to take part in a program to reduce people. Program managers promise mountains of money, luxury mansions and add to the fiery speech that the reduction is good for the planet. How can I disagree? And now, after the operation to reduce the hero begins to reflect on his role in society. Here the concept of “little man” is revealed extremely witty and creative. The picture is not evil, but rather a warning satire on American society and its problems.
Despite the global message, the tape looks easy and pleasant. In general, “Brief” can be safely called a social comedy with interesting reflections on the future of our world and a couple of references to the Bible. The film does not aim to upset the viewer. On the contrary, it gives only pleasant emotions.
The cast is also impressive - the main roles were noted, as I wrote, Matt Damon and Christoph Waltz (with a signature villainous-good-natured smile). Jason Sudeikis and even Neil Patrick Harris himself took episodic roles. Yes, the film is only because, you can say, legit ... wait, wait ... gifted!
In short, the film is an amazing and worthy contender for numerous awards. Fun, happy, makes you think. What else do you want?
What a rare and surprising theme the film reveals is the reduction of people. This is unlimited fantasy, cockroach fighting, riding ants, increased water viscosity, flying on dandelions. The subject is very graceful, and very difficult to shoot.
There. The reduction could not have been added. He's just not there. It could be replaced, for example, by moving to another city, and the film would not lose anything from this.
Instead of a science fiction film, you will get a weak drama with elements of petrosianism, a grand piano in the bushes, in the form of an unknown apocalypse, and disappointment in the director.
Great idea for a movie. But there's nothing but an idea. The truth delivered the face of Christoph Waltz, who slightly leveled the overall dull impression.
Watchable gum about the HG half-ass and his love story.
For me, this film was the second biggest film hoax after the Hamiltons'.
But if ' Hamiltons' instead of horror turned out to be a warm unusual drama, which is close to me, and which turned out to be much more valuable than just a horror film, then the film ' Short ' I was disappointed.
We were promised - not directly, but very loudly - an entertaining movie with a cool whole idea. We were promised something for big screens, for going to theaters with friends and relaxing. And they showed a social film.
They're on purpose.
They wanted to show social cinema to people who would never go to social cinema. Such good intentions to the filmmakers ' Short ' paved the way to their special cinematic hell. They will sit there with struts in their eyes and watch a movie that they do not like.
Starting with all the good things that the trailers showed us, we slide into unpleasant characters, as well as confusion and mess. At the same time, we are distracted from an already not too interesting viewing by the fact that from different sides they poke sticks of moralization.
5.5 out of 10
I definitely liked the movie for many reasons. First, it's about complex concepts, devoted to a very simple cinematic language. the distinguishing feature of this work, in my opinion, is that it is priceless. The author has created a world of pure ideas, which he clothed in the form of people, our hero, meanwhile, does not have a pronounced character (a scab, as many say about him) simply because he is a blank slate. The hero only observes the world around him, in front of him I lay out abstract ideas in the form of people and circumstances (which many appreciated as plot moves thrown by the scriptwriter). It is they, these ideas, concepts, that is, people and situations, that are priceless. There are the rich, there are the poor and the sick, there are the burners of life, there are those who will shrink to save humanity, there are those who do it for profit, someone goes down into the depths of the earth in search of last refuge, someone remains on the surface. But the author does not give preference to any of this, just shows the possible variants of the human relationship with the world, which changes only for each individual, while remaining impartial in itself. The hero of Damon, passing through these concepts, making some decisions - even if they create new difficulties for the hero - fills this blank sheet, forming his worldview - the idea is not new, and it is quite simple, but on conscience and could gather a much larger audience, but as a result only became a deception of universal expectations. Pity. It seems to me that in this case, I pumped up post-production, which gathered an untargeted audience in the cinema halls.
Second, the story and the characters themselves. I like that the director makes us a little out of our comfort zone (the usual Hollywood movie for us) and makes his characters ordinary, with flaws - Damon with a belly, a rude Vietnamese woman with stumps and a creepy accent, etc. And at the same time, they become not obsessively mundane or even ugly, as they like to do in an art house (that’s what people really are!), but simply earthly. In general, the Vietnamese woman has become my favorite character – her relationship with the world is incredibly inspiring, as she looks at the issue of life and death or health and illness, religion and much more. Her figure is so attractive because she is neither a victim nor a saint, nor a sickening Mother Teresa, nor a religious fanatic. It does not take on itself all the worries and all the pain and injustice of this world, it only does what is in its power, not regretting anything: not that people die, not that they get sick – all this is only the natural course of things.
Thirdly, it is, of course, the technical and artistic component of the film. The film is just perfect, all these tidbits of the world of short people and the world of big people – a living rose or a huge cookie that the nurse brings GG after waking up, the whole process of shortening, the city, etc. Everything is done with great love and creates an incredible atmosphere, in which you are happy to immerse yourself for 2 hours. Since this movie is not focused on acting at the level of heartbreaking drama, the actors play at a very high level, and they coped perfectly with the task set before them.
The whole film is filled with concepts and ideas that everyone is free to choose, because none of us ultimately knows why we are here, but we can use our lives to get a little closer to the answer to this question.
9 out of 10
Another picture of the famous satirist and two-time Oscar winner Alexander Payne and his colleague Jim Taylor with incredibly 'humiliated' Matt Damon and Christoph Waltz in the cast can not help but attract attention, especially if the picture is shot in the genre of science fiction and fantastically failed at the box office.
The plot tells about the revolutionary achievement of Norwegian scientists to reduce man. Extremely concerned about the problem of overpopulation, scientists assure that in 200 years it will be possible to reduce all of humanity to a miniature state and thereby help Mother Earth. In addition, the process of molecular reduction has many social benefits. The main characters: a married couple Safranok played by Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig decides to undergo the procedure, move to a miniature suburb and thereby dramatically improve their financial situation, without thinking about the negative aspects of their new life.
From the first shots, the film captivates the main plot, focusing not so much on reducing people as on the economic and social consequences of this procedure. Payne and Taylor remain original in their satirical vision of the plot, exploring the behavior of society in a world they invented and drawing parallels with modern American sentiment. And in addition, generously pamper the viewer with the smallest thoughtful details associated with the processes of reduction, captivating the viewer more during the first half of the picture. Matt Damon and Christoph Waltz as always great in the images ' scurrilous' representative of the American middle class Paul and adventurer-swindler Dushan, by the will of fate collided together at the very crossroads of the middle of timekeeping, where the problems of the picture begin, the main of which can be distinguished genre uncertainty from which it is not quite clear what the authors wanted to represent: sci-fi, . satire, drama or romcom. Pro-liberal notes ranging from environmental hysteria to a caricature Vietnamese refugee with a disability who became a victim of the mythical bloody-red terror do not help the picture either. Payne and Taylor give their heroes a huge excursion from Omaha to a mini-suburb, demonstrate the local ghetto and, through conditions of class inequality, a change of life landmarks, send them on a trip to Norway, but they seem to walk in circles or trample on the spot with an unenviable speed of the dynamics of this monotonous story, originally had great potential.
+: Plot, cast, humor.
Not all the gold that shines. And not everything small is irrelevant.
Smart cinema speaks to us in the language of symbols.
The situation in which the main character of the film is also symbolic. The world he is entering is not what he appears to be. It's not a spoiler. This is an invitation to think.
This film is about the struggles of life that can make us give up. Sometimes what seems like a problem isn’t really a problem. I call these problems ' plush'. People also became ' plush'.
The film shows that someone lives in a world of real problems and shows the difference between fictional and real.
We are also told the story that fleeing from problems and from oneself, finding oneself, can force one to repeat one’s mistakes. The only question is whether a person can learn from his mistakes or not. And here is the key point of the film and the main message of the authors of the film to the viewer.
I really liked the movie with its unusualness, presentation, freshness. The problem in the film may not be unique. The problem of finding yourself, choosing in life is a well-known problem. But the script in the film is written so unusual that everything looks fresh and exciting.
And the pair of the main character is very unexpected and the heroine herself is not as simple as it seems at first glance. The authors want to tell the viewer not to judge people by the cover. And that the inner part of a person, as well as the contribution that he makes, the traces that he leaves behind, are often not visible immediately and you need to know a person to understand who he really is. However, the surface can be quite different.
This is a smart, intellectual and deep film about the present.
No wonder he doesn’t have high grades.
It reminds me a lot of The Truman Show. An absolutely brilliant film about how the world may not be what it seems. . .
But if you believe in the theory of multiple universes, then maybe it is true - everyone lives the reality he deserves?
I liked both the original idea (except for Gulliver in Lilliput or, there, dear, I reduced our children), and the quality of the details. But, in general, it is obvious that reducing the size is not the solution. Either expansion (space, exoplanets) – an extensive method on which, it seems, we have put an end (I hope, not forever), or the transition to another form of existence (say, energy) – waste-free and powered directly from the Sun – is an intensive method, therefore even more fantastic. With our genetic mess. . .
A little bit of a smart talk.
You have problems wherever you are. You can't escape reality. . .
Slightly surprised a neighbor from above, named Dusan and for some reason Francophone Serb. It would be better to see a Russian oligarch. Predictably a cynic/scumbag. Not because ' Wild West' but because Serbian, of course. You have to explain it to the layman. . .
To question '- How will your ship get there?' was answered '- Mail, my dear. Sonya will get there faster than I can.39 In the dubbing, this moment passed a little. . .
'Enter the darkness to see the light' The stars are only visible in the dark. ..
Pro ' The world needs ass' a very correct thought. It reminds me of another brilliant movie, The Destroyer. There it sounded like 'Look, you can't take away people's right to be cattle!' Why? Because it's like unlocking the last car. The prosperous West will always have cattle and ass... and he enjoys it. If only whole countries can be declared ' rogue' and not choked. . .
Spangle immigrants, Vietnamese women... prison, of course. People living in the United States as pets. Millions. Yeah, it's worse at home, the only excuse. But maybe that's why it's so good - where slave labor is used? Partly and not for everyone... This is among other things.
39: Capitalism is the only life-saving organization of the state; the rest are too good to be true. You just have to see both sides. Capitalism is a system of survival. In foreign policy, at the expense of others.
China? What is it now? And how it's different. . .
Ensembles in churches are beyond anything. I remember in the early '90s I looked at them like a miracle. To me, an agnostic, all this is wonderful (communication directly with God, understanding his plan (apparently), since you consider yourself one of) - but ensembles of songs and dances ... I will never understand that.
Googled methane in antarctic - say, 'methane bomb', 21 trillion tons of organic carbon. Which ' threatens to turn into a dangerous greenhouse gas ' Jokes are jokes, but with the climate is really going on hell.
': Birds prefer lemmings' Logically, after the reduction, it remains only to get into the crevices of the earth ... yeah, and donate sperm ...
And it is not a fact that everything will not happen this way.
Or here's another thought from the side: our asystemic oppas think that Russia is too big - if it were to divide its parts into eight, it would be better. Yeah, and then into the tunnel for 8,000 years. What would it be like to be counted 'trach'...
I am not a fan of Matt Damon. By the way, the Americans are doing well: they even give the actors of the second plan a chance ' shoot' in the title role. Whatever it is. At least there will be something to remember in old age. That's right, apropo.
The right film with unobtrusive English humor. For once.
"In Short" seems to contain almost all the hallmarks of Alexander Payne's films: a dark but comic tone, sincere compassion alternates with frivolous ridicule, a bright array of characters that make up a kitsch and, finally, a bored protagonist in a midlife crisis. And yet "Short" stands out, offering the viewer something like Mike Judge's serious "Idiocracy," since in this case the conventions of the science fiction genre build socially relevant satire. Alas, the idea and, probably, some witty finds with a comical premise of the local universe and remain the main advantages of “Short”, because none of the above is consistent with other elements of the story.
The plot superstructure itself is almost a precious stone. In the near future, scientists have developed a technology of reduction and all over the world began a large-scale advertising campaign to popularize the life of the “little man”. The process is irreversible, but there is less waste from the baby, which means that it allows you to solve environmental problems and overpopulation. And predatory marketers even turned the reduction into fashion, because having undergone the procedure you can live in a huge mansion. Huge, of course, for the new Lilliput. In other words, be small, but live big.
And, in fact, “Short” tells the story of Paul Safranek, who because of family troubles decided to change his life and shrink. Going to the colony of kids Kayfoville (where the grass is obviously always greener), the hero did not know what he signed up for.
"Short" exudes comedic charm throughout most of the first half. Skillfully using a modest budget leads to good visual humor, combining large and small items with different perspectives. Plus, winning cameos (ah, Neil Patrick Harris, and Laura Dern) only add to the sense of frivolity, and attention to detail actually details a world that looks familiar, but still clumsy. The viewer follows Paul through an unpleasant process of cramming to the size of a finger. The culmination is the arrival of Paul in the colony of babies and, in fact, the beginning of the main plot.
And this main plot is not really there. Or rather, there are so many events here that the narrative is simply destroyed. First, the plot includes new and brighter figures, in comparison with which the main character looks faded. We are talking, of course, about a fraudster and trader performed by Christoph Waltz. The latter came up with an excellent scheme of earnings, but his idea (quite topical, in my opinion) is not getting proper development. The plot penetrates the second figure performed by Hong Chau, whom Paul meets and this again changes the direction of the story. As their interaction develops, the plot manages to change its development two or even three times.
Second, as one scene replaces another, the tone changes from consumer satire to almost class issues. This is not so bad, but then the main idea again turns to utopia with thoughts about the value of humanity’s place in the world and the good side of bureaucracy, and then the problem of the influence of technology. The concept only slightly does not work, since the title of the film in this case justifies the content: a reduction for the sake of cuts and an attempt to walk along the tangent on something relevant.
But the underlying issues are more narrative than tonal. In his final act, "Short" tries to be ironic and serious at the same time, wandering between speeches from the heart and emotions. Again, this doesn’t always work, as some characters (I’m talking about Paul, of course) aren’t very interesting.
Summing up, we can say that “Short” is strange not only in terms of extravagant plot premise. Strangeness is everywhere and primarily in the wrong accents: part of the plot has to be thought out, and some chapters of the script obviously require a reduction. The subtle subtext, which is undoubtedly present here, is generally blushing, since the theme that man pollutes the Earth is generally thrown in the face. In other words, from a dozen drafts, something absurd was made, as if new scenes were written on top of some already worked-out material. On the one hand, it lets you enjoy Waltz's hilarious hero or Hong Chau's complex character, but Shorter doesn't seem interested in either the characters or the subtext of the plot. It seems that from this project it was possible to make a mini-series or, conversely, to create from “Short”, sorry for the pun, the film is shorter. In the meantime, all that remains to be enjoyed is some not-so-competent hodgepodge, albeit one that does not reduce my overall positive impression of this life-affirming picture, and an incredibly altruistic note on which Short ends. After the epilogue scene, lines pop up in memory: “We are simply not noticed because of the difference in size and therefore forgiven, very small, but bold”.
6 out of 10
“Why do people want to shrink? To help nature? I beg you! They want it to be rich!
The story of the film unfolds in a world where scientists have quite original approach to solving the problems of overpopulation of the planet and the coming ecological catastrophe. The lights of modern science have learned to reduce people! Ten-centimeter representatives of humanity require much less space for comfortable living, eat incomparably less and, of course, leave behind a tiny amount of garbage. The financial benefit for those who decide to reduce is not even necessary to speak - the wallet of a representative of the middle class is literally converted into millions of dollars in a new "small" world. Unlucky guy Paul and his wife after much thought agree to an irreversible process. Waking up in a new world, the man realizes that the other half left him at the most critical moment.
It is quite clear why the picture so upset the mass audience. The expected rugged comedy with toilet humor about Lilliputians suddenly turned out to be very difficult for the layman with satire on the consumer society. The authors made a very simple, but brilliant move to transform the new world – it has not changed at all. An interesting fantastic idea did not lead the plot beyond the heady facet of reality, truthfully showing that the world order directly depends on the nature of human society. The considered utopia instantly crumbles right before our eyes when it turns out that the toilets of the new millionaires also need someone to clean, and it will be done by the same poor who have exchanged a big cruel world for an equally cruel small world with the same trivial social stratification. The betrayal of his wife and the imminent divorce lead Paul to an ironic state of affairs - he falls from the middle class into the same middle class, but already with a broken heart that hurts regardless of his size.
In short, it talks about the importance of recognizing your role in any of the worlds. Paul, being an indecisive mattress and constantly reflective personality, during an amazing journey will be able not only to look at things from a different angle, but also to find his purpose. It cannot be said that Paul’s character will undergo drastic changes, but he will find no less a path to reconciliation with himself by releasing his inner goodness. In addition, the original plot, filled with characters of different destinies and beliefs, does not cease to modestly but gracefully remind the viewer of the fundamental ideas of humanism and the importance of the unity of humanity with nature.
A separate mention deserves the cast for the convincing embodiment of the images of reduced heroes. Matt Damon quite successfully changes his usual acting role of a person of action to an unremarkable klutz. Hong Chau becomes a brilliant discovery in both comedic and dramatic terms. The material is cemented by Christoph Waltz, who is again magnificent in the supporting role.
“Short” is a very adult comedy with a non-standard fantastic background and interesting philosophical views on modern society. An excellent example of the symbiosis of a “light” picture with an important overtones, which, unfortunately, was not appreciated.
8 out of 10.
This film, oddly enough, stands out against the background of the gray-brown Hollywood stream, merging on the viewer in recent years. This is at least a colored spot, so it catches the eye. I can’t write a positive review just because I don’t understand the position of the film’s authors, who painted a realistic (this is now permissible only in fiction) picture of the globalized capitalist world, ready to create poverty and slums even in the expensive “paradise” that turns out to be the American MMM. Or a copy of American society. Which is the same. Fraudsters thrive and honest citizens survive. And for others, the American dream comes true when a vacuum cleaner or mop is in their hands. And even the sectarians who have gone underground will eventually build slums and ghettos.
This picture is not an entertainer, a frivolous action movie or snotting a template sentimental. It's a comedy. More precisely, tragicomedy. More specifically, Tragifarce. Don’t look for the meanings of words in pediatrics, look in dictionaries, or you’ll get me wrong. This is laughter through tears, this is the theater of the absurd, in which modern society with all its wretchedness and contradictions is clearly guessed. This is the most realistic Hollywood movie of recent years. Separately happy for Matt Damon, who finally played the role of a real person, and not the stencil “superheroes” that she earned the last 20 years. It should be noted that he played, after all, not the best way. The director anticipated this, and insisted on a more masterful dramatic actor. But company bosses insisted on Damon as an attractive label for the masses. It came out like that. But the Siamese, who played the role of a Vietnamese woman who does not like hydroelectric power plants, was at the height.
Finally, the rubric of nonsense. The authors of the film constantly confuse Norway with neighbors: with Sweden, when they talk about a bloody scientific award (an allusion to a Nobel), with Finland, when they bring vodka there, with Iceland, mentioning geysers. However, perhaps they do all this on purpose, for better comedic effect. The film, after all, is a comedy, albeit sad, to anguish. A sad comedy parable.
Matt Damon has long been a mark of quality for me, almost all of his recent works, except for his return to the image of Jason Bourne, were quite watchable things. Yes and Philippe Kirkorov very much praised the film 'In short' in his instagram.
In fact, the film turned out to be of good quality, only here it was possible to do without a story with a decrease. Scientists in Norway have invented a technology capable of reducing people to the size of a thumb, the dream of the Boy-S-Finger has come true. Humanity rushed to shrink itself, as it saved them from food problems, tax cuts, and increased income. Married couple Paul (Matt Damon) and Adri (Kristen Wiig) Safraneks dream of a large private house somewhere in the area of Veschka, a good car, etc. Then they decide to decrease.
I was very glad to meet the actors who disappeared from the screens, James Van Der Beek, the last time I saw him in ' Rules of sex', here he has very little screen time, the role is very short. Udo Kir, perfectly performed the role of Conrad, I liked his comedy component in this film, rehabilitated for 'Bladraine'.
Christophe Waltz As always chic, the role of Duchamp is very suitable for his role.
Alexander Payne managed to make a chamber film, not for everyone, for lovers of beauty. But the attempt to pass authentic cinema for science fiction in the trailer stage led to the fact that the film was visited by fans of another genre and left a negative opinion about the film.
7 out of 10
The movie had a great idea. Show how the invention of reducing people will change the world and people. How this innovation will affect the lives of ordinary people, and what social, economic and political consequences will be in a global sense. Sounds like a good fantasy with a version of the world of the future, from which you can learn lessons for the present.
The set-up in the movie is great, it's quite long, but not long, no. Enough time is given to get acquainted with the hero, to see how he develops, the world changes under the influence of new technology, and to understand how the hero came to this decision, to reduce himself. It will be shown what a difficult situation the hero got into. All, the connection with the main character is established, give a story in which you will need to empathize with the hero, together with him go on an adventure through the fantastic world, meet interesting characters. It won't be anything. After a certain point, the plot stops, you have to watch the everyday life of a simple loser in the city for small people. There are no fascinating dialogues, no good jokes, no catchy drama. The main character does not develop all the time after the decrease. Which quite accurately in the end will notice the character of Christoph Waltz. By the way, the acting game is worth celebrating. All the actors got into the images and played them well.
The film ends with nothing, the story never ended, although nothing interesting in this work in principle and did not begin.
When watching this movie, the question “What’s going on here?” was asked so often that it had lost all meaning. And the only answer is an art house: no comedy, no fiction, no catastrophe, and, especially, no drama. Forget about logic, motivation and common sense.
Fantastic? Reducing people requires removing all inorganic fillings and...suddenly hair! Why? We get the answer almost immediately, right in the forehead - the writer desperately needed a reason for the "drama", namely for the divorce of the main character. Yes, for a woman, removing all hair is probably a disaster, but it would seem that everything will grow back, it is not a disease. But no, let's put this idiot to promote the plot, if the audience swallows. And this is one of many, many, many examples of how a writer and director give a pretty pendel to the viewer.
Well, then begins a solid thrash and panic, and in the literal sense of the word. The main character is trying to “break away” in a new world, and the film is trying to make... However, looking back at two hours of time spent, we have to state that the director is not even able to bring a smile to the audience. It could have been a great comedy.
Moreover, in the course of the development of the plot, they are trying hard to impose a cripple from Vietnam (which, suddenly, everyone knows, since she is almost a national hero) - apparently, for a sense of empathy in the viewer. So, as a viewer, I was not interested in either the life of this character or his problems. The idea creeps in that the director tried to show the world of “short people” as a dystopia, but it turned out, rather, a self-parody.
Towards the end of the film, some environmental problems appear (glaciers are melting and therefore ... methane is produced!), which can only be solved by "short people" because ... because. The director doesn’t even try to connect anything logically.
But what really turned out well is the atmosphere of sluggish schizophrenia, which is impregnated with both the characters and all those who created this film. A separate line I want to note "dialogues" - the best sleeping pills, in my opinion, you can not find.
Conclusion: one of the worst films of the past year. And how did such good actors get stuck in it? Only at gunpoint.
A very unusual film, and both for science fiction and to see in such Matt Damon unusually doubly. It begins with a classic problem for Americans, attempts to dump debt anchors, which they overgrown a lot during their lives, but tried in the middle, a sharp change in the plot, begins another story about the human good and projecting it on others.
After watching, there is an impression that either the writer or the director initially changed their views on life and the film as a whole, and decided to transfer sharpness to drama from fiction, and later it is almost forgotten that it began with fiction.
In general, the film turned out to be very lifelike, if you discard elements of fiction in the beginning, which I think was only a fantasy screen. That you need to be kinder to each other and help those in need as much as possible, I think just that, only for some reason from the second half of the film, and wanted to convey its creators.
Confident 7.
I was surprised by some of my friends who were “offended” by the fact that the traditional comedy did not work, and so they did not watch it until the end. It's a strange demarche. But the idea of the film, albeit not revolutionary, but absurdly funny and even provocative, plus all the fantastic love story could not but entice.
In short, a good melodrama and an unusual comedy for family viewing succeeded, albeit slightly and protracted. Several universes appear in the picture organically and inventively. In some places ' smiles' and funny.
I was glad to see Matt Damon not in an ordinary action or another blockbuster, but in a different role and in a comedy melodrama. Of course, I expected some trick with tricks and chases, and most likely even got used to the new and simple Damon, to the loser, to the “finger boy”, but his role I still am not disappointed.
There are many sensible thoughts in the picture, funny situations from observing the eternally suffering, which is comical, humanity. You are convinced once again that no idea, utopia and good intentions will save a person from self-destruction and fall, even if all evil is committed by people inertly, out of habit and stupidity or joking.
In short, if you are not biased, it is quite easy to get positive emotions from watching and even have something to laugh at.
In short, the introductory word usually doubles the story.
Well, we have to state that the picture turned out to be a failure, although until the last there was hope for Alexander Payne with his team. How was it possible to turn the fresh trend of cinematography into a dull "When will it end?"
- In short, let’s just make money by feeding the viewer promises? A good trailer, potentially interesting actors and humanity's problems on the topic of the day. All this is beautifully wrapped and quickly passed.
That's what happened. The emerging idea of the writers initially developed succinctly and consistently, setting a good tone (albeit template) of the US film. Measured pace, meaningful frames, real heroes. As soon as you were inspired and tuned in, the focus of the film was lost, the idea began to die. We no longer realize that the broadcast heroes are little people in their own little world. Quite ordinary situations of tiny everyday life, which are peculiar to the "giants". Of course, you might think that A. Payne wanted to say: “A person will not run away from himself and his essence”, but no, we are transferred from personal dramas of heroes to world dramas, from world to mini-human, then back and so on in a circle where you do not understand the message of the thinker, because you do not have time to cling to such a stated essence.
Scale with great potential melted with each new scene after the first hour of viewing. In the end, everything came to naught, where the film is definitely not to save. The first call to the uncertainty of the writers was a ridiculous mix of genres, completely inappropriate comedy tricks within the framework of the drama, completely disgusting “snot” within the framework of fiction. We need to think, but no, let’s laugh. It seems that you need to be surprised and admire, and no – let’s go to household “husks”. And in this cauldron of chaos, my biggest disappointment was Matt Damon, who didn't seem to play badly, the impression that he didn't participate at all. Turning to the cast as a whole, I want to note the wretchedness of Hong Chau and the simply not taken away charisma of Christoph Waltz, bravo. But the ability of one actor to capture the viewer’s attention does not save the mass of uninteresting and synthetic characters. They do not cause a desire for complicity, involvement in the created world, which destroys an already poorly aligned scenario.
"Short" was a halo of disappointment over a brilliant idea. Time spent is not a pity, once again you make sure that they do not judge by the cover. But I, as a spectator, am tired of the beautiful fantasy of greedy directors.
“We’re made for more,” reads the movie’s tagline, but the words “made for” are written too finely on the poster, so it reads like a... More on that later.
"Briefly" is positioned as a comedy, and the humorous, if not satirical potential of the film is very, um, great. Just imagine – the world is split into two new classes: ordinary people (they are “big”) and reduced (they are “short”). No matter what the scientific background was, the world is overpopulated, so it is more humane to reduce people than to destroy or sterilize, isn’t it? “Shorts” live like kings: their doll houses are palaces, a bottle of vodka is enough for the whole city, and a tiny (by our standards) diamond necklace here can afford almost everyone. What happens next? It is logical that the “big” will envy the “small” and oppress them in every way. Maybe the short ones will be infringed? And why is everything so obsessively great in advertising brochures "reduce oil"? Surely, after an irreversible operation to reduce the poor people will learn a terrible secret that advertisers from science keep from them! And how many comic and tragic situations can arise - a short man can be lost, accidentally crushed, and even a cat in the city of "babys" would become a national disaster.
What a story palette! In short, "Short" manages to get past them all. Instead of satire or social drama about inequality, the authors prefer to follow Paul Safranek, a loose physiotherapist from a meat factory (!), who was driven into the world of “short people” by fate and mortgages. His wife dumps him right in the clinic for “decrease”, chickening out at the last minute, and now he just has nowhere to go in a boring “perfect world”. Any opportunity to sharpen the plot authors fail miserably. Yes, the "shorts" are going to infringe on voting rights! Only one drinker in the bar mentions it. Not a single short man for the film will die from the "giant" who sat on it, and even birds bite not them, but exclusively lemmings. The joke about the height difference in the film is exactly the same – when the lawyer of the hero’s wife asks him to sign the divorce document “more”. And the terrible secret about the secret side of life in the mansion is ... hot water problems. Really?
After waiting for half the film, while Matt Damon demonstrates the depth of loneliness that we have already seen in the film “The Martian”, the authors sharply turn the steering wheel of the films towards social drama – it turns out that in the world of “shorts” there are also poor neighborhoods, and even refugees, and the spiritual salvation for Paul becomes a one-legged (!) dissident cleaner (!!) from Vietnam (!!!!) It's all great, but why did you need all the scaling down? Paul could also meet a rich friend’s cleaner and immerse himself in the world of her daily worries. And even in this situation, the hero behaves too passively - before he obeyed his wife, and now a screaming cleaner. He goes wherever they say, does what they ask. In fact, all his “moral choice” comes down to the last scene, when the authors for the third time decide to change the theme of the film, suddenly steering to a natural disaster – and even it does not make the film sharper, because there will be a catastrophe ... in two hundred years.
At the same time, the film claims a stellar ensemble of wonderful comedy actors, each of whom got such a small role as if it was “reduced”: Kristen Wiig as the cowardly wife of Paul disappears from the plot immediately after his betrayal, Jason Sudeikis flashes in a couple of minute scenes, Neil Patrick Harris and Laura Dern are engaged in exactly one, uh, short episode, Oscar-winning Christoph Waltz with a glued smile plays a life-giver and a smuggler between the “big” and the “small” world, saying Kirdo in a joke to the end of the film, it seems to be closer to the joke in Norway. As a result, the film is stolen from all stars by Thai actress Hong Chau, whose energy is enough for a dozen “big ones”. Matt Damons. That's who really moves the film forward - the janitor-rebel in her performance shameless, brazen, cheerful, sometimes even dangerous. She perfectly “builds” rich little ones around her, forcing them to charity, and utters hilarious monologues like arguments about the “eight types of American fuck.”
Perhaps, the film can be seen for the sake of her character, the elegant music of Rolf Kent, as well as for the beauty of the Norwegian fjords (don’t ask) and the creepy scene of the “reducing process”, where two dozen men are cut naked, all the hair on the body is shaved (for some reason leaving pubic hair – probably for memory), pins are removed from the teeth, an enema is made (and you thought? reduction is a serious matter!) and transferred from the hands of “big” nurses to “babys”. And all this to classical music.
That's a lot. But... In short, we expected more. That would be an honest slogan.