I don’t like melodramas very much, but I have a special interest in this genre. It is interesting to see how people can fall in love with each other. Sometimes you believe in their love, and you realize that it is sincere. Now let’s talk about this picture, which is called “About love”.
The title of the movie “About Love” speaks for itself. It is already clear that this picture is just about love. The story itself may not be too original but quite interesting.
In St. Petersburg, in the commune live Nina (Anna Chipovskaya) and her husband Alexander (Alexey Chadov), who is also her teacher. Both are interested in their own work, so to speak. And then one day a husband decides his wife to work as a translator in a bank. There she meets Sergei (Dmitry Pevtsov), who turns out to be the owner of this bank. And Nina really loves him. I'm not going to tell you anymore.
Now I would like to say why I think it reminds me of Anna Karenina. The reason for this similarity is quite simple. Just the heroine of Tolstoy in the plot also abandoned her unloved husband. However, in the cinema, the heroine did not lose heart, and defended her love. These are the pies. . .
While watching, I noticed that this movie was directed by my favorite film “Heart of a Dog” Vladimir Bortko. In my opinion, he once again proved that he can make an interesting, exciting, smart movie that can even make you think about how love can be strong.
I also enjoyed the music of my favorite composer Maxim Dunaevsky. It seems simple, but very pleasant and beautiful. You can immediately see that a person is even more, with some zeal, striving for the beautiful, like his talented father Isaac.
On top of that, in this movie, I think all the actors were amazing. Chadov and Singers are my favorite actors. Both, each with their own acting charisma. But seeing Chipovskaya playing, I caught myself thinking that this is an updated version of the already mentioned Anna Karenina. I hope that those who see this film will understand that this is the case.
Maybe everything I wrote is not very original, but this is my personal opinion.
Thank you! Have a good time.
“Pyatka sat on the ground and speculated on chamomile, figuring out whether he loved or disliked, spit or kissed. It turned out he spit, and he was now trying to remember who he was guessing at, hoping it wasn't Pooh. And then there was Winnie the Pooh. A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh and All, All, All
Love or dislike? Spit or kiss? Options are polar, but divination is equally possible. This question, when it torments girls during the first period of love longing, is sweet and funny. If they are seriously asked by adults who already know each other well and at least approximately represent what they expect from each other, then their mental health should be questioned.
The painting by Vladimir Bortko is just from this series. Retelling the plot - do not respect yourself. Events are dark, but why they occur, what is behind all spiritual movements is a complete mystery. Why she left for another, why she let her husband go, why she called him a “whore”, why he stood on his knees, begging for forgiveness, what a banker needs from this student, why she did her principles of decent poverty, what a banker feels about his wife, why he left the family, why he came back there, why the deceived husband urinates in the front room (the case in St. Petersburg is happening) not guilty of his torment drunkards, why hired bandits who will appear once in one episode and disappear to nowhere, why the professor grabbed for a knife, why the girl did not call her during the day, why she does not get a professional tour of the city, why she does not call at night, and why she does not get a mafia girl at home, why she does not call at night. Those who have not seen the film, of course, will not understand anything in this set. For those who have seen all these questions after the title "The End of the Film" disappear, but another appears - What was it?
At first, it seems that Bortko shot a shortened version of the popular today format - "The Long Weekend Film on the Federal TV Channel." Provincial Nina (Anna Chipovskaya), living in decent poverty in a big city with an intelligent but not too wealthy husband Sasha (Alexei Chadov), meets a brilliant banker Seryozh (Dmitry Pevtsov). Then the teleformat will end and there will be a crazy heap of episodes that contradict each other in all kinds of logical, everyday, psychological, artistic. In teleformats, all heroes are one-dimensional - sufferer, villain, simpleton, intrigue. The logic of their actions is primitive, but it is there. Bortko tries to make about complex emotional feelings, but it turns out that about illogical.
Here is an example: the husband of the scientist-synologist Sasha Nina loves. The meeting with the fateful banker has already taken place. The banker was cynical, as expected. But the modest charm of wealth remained in the memory. Nina's in the library. She leaned over rare books. At this moment, on the balustrade above the hall hangs a portrait of Dmitry Pevtsov, sorry, banker Seryozha, who sponsored the exhibition for the 190th anniversary of Ivan Turgenev. The singers against the background of Turgenev are especially irresistible. And Nina decides, "Oh, I'll call you." Nervous laughter for the first time in the auditorium occurs on this episode. Then all the passions-faces will go under the constant laughter of the audience.
I will not deny myself the pleasure, I will give a couple of the most striking examples. Nina falls in love with Serezha after a night spent in the suite of the Astoria Hotel. What happened? She despised him, didn't she? Is Sergey a giant in matters of sex? Then why is this decisive scene filmed with exactly the same degree and feeling as if Nina and Seryozha sawed wood? A hand crumpling a sheet, two silhouettes moving towards each other, hair reclined on a pillow, pseudo-sensual music - Nina smiles happily. Of course, sex on a good bed and expensive sheets is better than standing with your back to a wooden door, which Nina and her husband used to have. Is that all love? The hall is burning.
Sasha, who banished the traitor from the communal paradise, pounced on her with fists shouting "Slut!" Tell me about all your cheating!, going through a hard break. The next shot is a drunken sinologist sitting at a table. In front of him is a half-empty bottle with the inscription "Vodka" and a can of canned food with the inscription "Spick". That's funny. It's gonna get better. In the room will come a neighbor - a tone St. Petersburg old woman - with the words: "Sasha, you are a professor!" The room is full of laughter.
How could it happen that a respected director, a deputy of the State Duma, a member of the Izborsk club became a laughing stock? A well-deserved laugh? It is impossible to believe that “On Love”, “Heart of a Dog”, “Idiot”, “Master and Margarita” was directed by the same director. But it is. It is as illogical as the actions of heroes.
Of course there is a difference. Still, the best works of the director relied on high literature. This is a bargaining chip, but also a great danger. Bortko happily escaped her. It is possible to argue about the degree of talent, but the fact that the spirit and letter of the works of Dostoevsky, Gogol, Bulgakov were transmitted adequately is obvious.
But the writer Bortko director Bortko was not up to his teeth.
Maybe you shouldn't have written. You obviously shouldn't have. But why was it put into production? The film was shot in the Year of Russian Cinema and was funded by the Cinema Foundation with the participation of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. This is government co-financing. But there is also a myriad of instances, pitching, synopsis, commission. How did this mess overcome all these barriers? What worked - directorship or deputy mandate?
And, going to another new domestic film, you can not guess on chamomile. With a very high probability, you will still get a "Plunet".
So much has been written, filmed, told and sung about love, but the soil is fertile and inexhaustible. You just have to know where to dig. It seems that in St. Petersburg these sources have already run out. In any case, for Vladimir Bortko certainly. The scoundrel-Pushkin stripped the most fishy places, so there was nothing left.
Nina is a student, her husband Sasha is a Chinese teacher at the university without five minutes professor. They huddle in a small room, trying to make ends meet financially. But spiritual wealth in the best traditions of the Celestial Empire compensates them for all material shortcomings, at first glance, at least. By coincidence, the husband sends promising Nina to work on the translation of negotiations in one bank, and at the same time try to settle the conflict with the mortgage, in the same bank taken. And now, dreaming of a fairy tale, Nina meets Sergey, the director of the bank: impressive, wealthy, cultural and at the click of her fingers the decisive problem. In a young woman there are doubts: did she love before this meeting? Nope. She didn’t know what love was.
In this movie, no one knows what love is. Or better yet. There are three main concepts that broadcast the main characters: fairy tale, contract and habit. Like any other theory, all these variants, albeit of questionable quality, have the right to exist, but not simultaneously with each other. That is, if the partners have different ideas about love and ways of its manifestation, nothing good will come of it: dreaming about a prince, you need to be a princess yourself, and, conversely, being a princess, you do not have to be even with the most handy blacksmith. A completely different conversation, if the couple sit down, explain and clarify who means what. The whole conflict of the story would easily be explained by a simple misunderstanding between the participants in the love triangle, except that no one in particular planned to understand anyone. All three – Nina, Sasha and Sergey – behave as selfishly as possible, guided solely by their own passions and desires, while not forgetting to change their shoes in the logic of their motives, using their own ideology in a convenient interpretation. It seems that the director and screenwriter in one person wanted to portray complex ambiguous characters with no division into good and bad. But something went wrong and they turned into the clichés of the worst TV series: a naive provincial girl whose illusions are cruelly broken by a big city and evil men, a gallant banker with a criminal past and a big heart, who is not alien to passions and family comfort, who wants to get out in people with all his might ambitious boy, keeping records of women who need revenge and prove because they were not given. The company is disgusting. Against this background, the all-comprehensive, not infallible vice-president of the bank and the astute wife of Sergey look extremely advantageous, perhaps a little more mundane, but more adequate and without unnecessary illusions.
For the embodiment of such clichéd types and the selection of actors appropriate: bewilderedly clapping eyes Anna Chipovskaya, whom everyone strives to undress in the frame, scraped the remains of a sex symbol Dmitry Pevtsov, who brought something from the 90s to bed in order to shake a young mistress, and actively rushing between aggressive machismo and a delicately feeling romantic Alexei Chadov, who no longer pulls on a pretty young man, but also something serious yet does not inspire. Speaking of frank scenes, it should be noted that a sufficient total number of them, by the way, approved by the Cinema Foundation. Therefore, everything is as unnatural and tangible as in a special photo shoot – sterilely erotic, so that it was not unpleasant to watch, but the desire to join should not appear. However, this could be tolerated if not for the location of the film. This is not some Yekaterinburg or Saratov, where you can find living bankers with a criminal past, but whole St. Petersburg! The notorious spirituality here, of course, in abundance: "Bohemian" is listened to, Dostoevsky is remembered. Where is the special atmosphere? The viewer, like Chinese tourists, is shown long-known sights. For the same effect, to glue together different time intervals, ripples of the frame are used - a kind of effect of leaking water and time. Only from the frequency of its use begins to motion sickness, as if 10 times in a row you are taken on a tour of the rivers and canals.
Recommended: to replenish the backpack of entertaining facts about the culture of China.
A pretty but lethargic married student (Chipovskaya), a short-sized nervous linguist (Chadov) and a bored glossy banker (Pevtsov) are the main characters in this gray St. Petersburg drama. Carnival of lifeless masks in the scenery of northern Venice.
The film was frankly disappointing. It's graceless. The level of acting resembles a soap house, when the performers, frozen by the theater authorities, exhausted by passing through Moscow traffic jams, mumble the text freshly written by cunning screenwriters “from the sheet”.
The dialogues themselves are often like a bad tracing made by a talentless translator. “I want to go to bed” – this is how, according to the screenwriter, it is customary to express myself in the circle of the family. The phrase “I’ll go to bed” is more appropriate and natural, but the authors don’t seem to hear themselves. Needless to say, the work does not offer even a hint of humor? All actors go through the whole picture with lean faces. Not in this life, not at all. Naked circuit. The plot and all collisions are predictable, there is absolutely no development of characters, there are completely no original plot moves.
It seems that all the characters are unbearably sad to live from the very beginning to the very end of the film. But how can you hope that viewers will be interested in watching a movie that was even boring to shoot? Pity Bortko, in the past a good director. The years are taking their toll.
I'll put two points as a thank you for the bed shots with Chipovskaya. There's nothing else to look at.
The crowd effect, or... - What's your name? - Petya. - It hurts, Petya... It hurts. .
So... The viewing was worth it to re-register on this site to write a review, or rather a review of this obscure film with a very low rating.
The film was broadcast on Channel One at night. Familiar surnames floated... Bortko, Chipovskaya, Singers, Lykov... Whoa, whoa. As always, I went to my favorite movie. Never without that. Rating 5.8. Without hesitation he turned off and went to bed. I started thinking this morning. It's Bortko after all. This is my master. Why would he shoot so bad at 5.8? Sit down to watch. Yes, this time ' crowd score' I was badly let down. . .
I will say at once: I am not a professional critic, and I do not evaluate the “wooden” & #39; or “lean” & #39; the acting, and what emotions this film brought me. The very atmosphere of a film that conveys our lives. Looking at this picture, I was impressed for the second day. Why is that? It's simple. To the simplicity of life (hello to the wives who destroyed, or destroy the marriage by an affair at work), truthful (hello to the husbands who are always slapping their wives, husbands who except work, playing in & #39; Tanki & #39; and do not see anything and do not want themselves loved), and realistic (about bankers having 10 mistresses ranging from housekeepers to secretaries - I am silent, since I do not know anything about this). Mistakes of people, vain hopes, wrong decision, inattention to loved ones, love, or its illusion. This is all our lives.
The actors were brilliant. I had enough of the look of the heroine Chipovskaya in the hotel, at the second meeting with the hero Pevtsov, the scene of Singers, Mironov and a bottle of whiskey - very strong, and of course incomparable scene of getting out of the car (Pevtsov, Chadov, Chipovskaya, Kovalev).
Erotica. Are you talking about temptation? Maybe. I do not consider it terrible plagiarism to turn the camera so as to show the charming Chipovskaya in all its glory. And then, for me, the eroticism in this film gives it a certain status and sets it apart from a million snotty melodramas that are stamped in packs on our Russian television. Something not everyone will understand. Here's one of Bortko's chips. Dirty straightforwardness.
Intrigue. How will it end? That's Bortko's thing, too. You don’t know what the ending will be, especially after watching the trailer.
What I personally lacked was some incomprehensible soundtrack about love, from an unknown singer (hello, Lina Milovich - Fly).
And the most important thing I remember and learned from this film:
- Cheating is always the fault of both. Husband and wife. No choice.
- Just because they want you t-- sorry, put you in bed - it does not mean that they love you and want to be with you.
- Normal women and men have polarly different views on sex. A woman is always, always looking for a deeper meaning in this. For a man, this is just one way to relax.
- Men: Think about it a hundred times, do you want to sleep with her? Can someone else do this?
- There are times when nothing can really be changed. Even if no one is dead.
- All people want to be loved. The person who says he doesn’t want wants and believes in love 100 times more than everyone else. It just hurt him a lot.
I would recommend seeing this picture for people who are going through difficult times in relationships, quarrels, who have not lost everything. It can also calm the souls of the divorced. This picture is for those who want to think about relationships with partners, about omissions in life and love. The picture can cause a lot of confusion, but at the same time make you think. For those who want to calm down and laugh, it is better to pass by.
Certainly not a masterpiece. But the film gives freedom of thought, not emptiness in the head. It gives you a chance to think.
Sasha, what are you doing, come on, you're a professor!
It was once mentioned that for a good movie you need three things – a script, a script and a script. This work of the famous Bortko can be analyzed as an anti-example for the education of taste for educational purposes.
So, a soap opera with double infidelity: she is a sweet but for some reason unhappy student (Chipovskaya), he is like an aged Vronsokoy with the same facial expression (this is Singers). As soon as we crossed eyes, and eyes from each other can not tear and mortgage, there is of course nothing to do with it. The actors (Anna and Dmitry) both tried as best they could, to get the maximum pleasure from filming, even sometimes the spark was, as it seemed. However, everything is stuck in the stupid story about the unpaid fee with a subpoena in two days (that’s how fast) – in unnecessary screaming, constant inconsistencies and empty decisions of the author of the script.
In fact, even without knowing who filmed it, it is immediately clear that this is a sharply aging and terribly joyless person, who has nothing more to say to the world except moral indignation, and except that finally let saliva on the young beauty of Chipovskaya without makeup, so impatient with him, well, that his hands tremble to undress the actress in the second minute of the film to the goal and plant so near the wall, ignoring all the laws of drama and Suspence.
Why is all this (?), it is necessary to have time to tear this "littleness" from life - come out, as if from the winded memories of the Komsomol youth (Nina, Tamara), fragments of the long-extinct longing for the girl's body. So the director becomes pathetic!!! This is definitely a prize for destitution and rapid extinction. It's so clearly felt and seen in every frame, in the mood and in the music, and the script is dead. Maybe not dead, but definitely not alive. This is a movie stroke with a complete defeat of mobility will.
Later. The second (or even the first) husband, who is apparently Antoganist – Chadov – a one-colored intellectual in glasses (Vladimir’s alter ego?), who is engaged in sambo (very disgusting), successfully trades on Chinese excursions around St. Petersburg, secretly hiding dollars in his pockets ( and it looks like ), but shouts at his young wife, they say, there is always no money and you do not work (can you think she asks a lot?, in reality she even asks , but she is simply crushed by his rudeness). But Sasha is so self-confident that, without noticing it, with the feat of a moralist explains to the girl that he writes a disser and they have a contract with her. Quite all this is terribly cardboard shot, and the essence is defined by such an unpleasant word as ' vulgarity' well, yes.
The escape of the traitor to the rich, Chadova, of course, decimated, and he begins to give in and even fight, to which the communal neighbor will shout to him “Sasha, stop you professor!”
And only the non-carricature character Mironova evokes natural sympathy. But she could not be included in the script to the fullest – she is jealous at first, and then persuades Pevtsov to leave the house illogically and for far-fetched reasons. And it hangs in the air itself.
The whole ending causes nothing but bewilderment - what is this darkness? Logic? Motivation of heroes? Have you heard that? In fact, Nina (Anna) received everything from life: not only love, prosperity, a good education, business, a child (like Anna Karenina, walking around Italy, she too remained crushed). But here it is definitely not her problems, but problems of interpretation of the author, or otherwise - she must die for him. But in such a design - the question arises - so what? That's why all filmed? To say that women are sluts - cheating on the first with the second and the second husband with the first? Mme
Here only the pearls of a stupid girlfriend fit: “I have a better soul and what?”
So, if you want to be disappointed in Russian cinema for the 101st time, which is often sick organically from the moment the idea is written on paper, then watch this soap. This simple unconvincing rotten used gray-beige soap is such a secondary and weak example of how you can not make a movie with bright actors.
It's an unseen terrible savagery.
Not often when viewing modern melodramas the brain is so active
This is a review, not a review.
This tape with good reason can be called a film: high-quality script, text, cinematography, acting and even music, specially written, although including quotations of the themes of Chopin and Puccini.
The film is about us all, about godlessness, which allows us to compromise, unsightly deeds. Even Nina, undoubtedly a refined nature, does not turn around and goes away on the first cynical remarks of Sergei, but remains, perfectly realizing that he said vulgarity.
I like that there is no unambiguity in the film, leading to a pre-known end.
In general, serious work, very beautiful and hopelessly sad. Not because no one in this film has mutual love, but because it shows the current relationship between the sexes, and by no means the most condemned.
The performance of actors, especially Chipovskaya, is excellent.
Thank you for this tape.
The title of the film gives an understanding of what the theme will be – yes, it is love and the relationship between a man and a woman. The starting point for the development of events is the topic of adultery.
The directors created such an atmosphere of the film and so showed the characters that none of them at first glance can be accused of something; each of them has their own feelings, which they cannot cope with. But since the problem still remains, it is logical to find its cause: the film does not directly give this - this is not customary to do - we will try to figure it out on our own.
On the power of the word
All the troubles, difficulties, disappointments and heartache that befell our heroes are the result of one event - the violation of a given word or promise. It would seem that what a trifle – “Yes, I promised, but it did not work out, this happens sometimes with people; well, I did not kill anyone?” But it turns out that any violation of a word or promise does not pass without a trace and requires payment, whether we like it or not - this fully applies to the words given by the newlyweds at the wedding in the form of a mutual signature in the certificate - and our heroes were just in a legal marital relationship.
If you go deeper, the problem of the life of the people shown (however, as well as all Soviet and post-Soviet ones) is that they enter into family relations without a firm conviction that they need to get married. These people do not have a clear understanding of why you need to live with the same person for life, why you can not divorce or change. The concept of divorce is not alien to them (albeit unconsciously) – such a popular reason as “did not agree on characters”, none of these people consider stupid and do not condemn even at the level of conversations over a cup of coffee.
Infidelity is often a stricter attitude, although, in fact, it is the same divorce, only in a more rude form.
The beauty of the film
The appearance of the film is beyond praise; it looks beautiful and refined. Of course, this is thanks to the magnificent Peter, in which the shooting took place, although any city can be shown in an unsightly way. From the first minutes it is clear that skillful operators and designers worked on the film. This all manifests itself in the color scheme, and in music (classic Tchaikovsky and Chopin), and in the actors themselves, who are very beautiful. Each episode is well shot and admired.
A little bit about characters
As I said before, all the characters are nice and compassionate. Yes, it is, but even if the offense is committed out of ignorance (as described above) and causes similar feelings, then, legally, it does not remove the guilt from the person. So,
A young wife, mistress is a girl with excellent appearance, who sincerely believes that she was elevated to the role of mistress due to her soulfulness, not her body.
Personally, my sympathy for her disappeared in the middle of the film because of the state of her thinking, which did not allow her to show elementary respect for her legitimate spouse – is he not a toy?
Let’s say a girl falls in love with the best man and wants to be with him always – can you be honest? Is it possible to first peacefully part with her husband (to file a divorce), and only to lead a public life with a new boyfriend?
Otherwise, the spouse is humiliated and pathetic, which is very well shown in the film.
A young defrauded spouse, athlete and a year-old professor – yes, this man has strange ideas about love and earns a little, but he works honestly and loves his wife; before the conflict, he never looked at others. I cannot accuse him of these sins, for they do not become such people at once; this must have manifested itself before marriage. In this case, the girl knew whom she was marrying; otherwise, it is rashness (windiness, youth, inexperience).
Her fate is skewed by her own hands and she does not deserve compassion.
And in the personality of this young man I find nothing wrong.
A mature husband, a lover, the head of a large bank, the master of life – if a girl can be justified by her feminine nature, then a man should be asked to the fullest extent. God gave men brains and logical thinking that allows them to understand everything. He had to judge what he pushes a girl and her husband to do when he destroys their family.
A mature woman, the legal wife of a lover is the best character in the whole film. For her meekness and for the fact that she does not make scandals, allows her husband to quietly leave the family, allows him to walk and does not spoil his nerves, and also due to the fact that after several years remains such – she is just a holy woman, besides beautiful!
Age restriction
There are several bed scenes in the film. It is clear that the producers protected themselves before the legislation, setting the age threshold for its viewing “over 16 years”.
Yes, these scenes are beautiful, pleasant and natural. Why should the viewer look at them? Of course, you can close your eyes, but this is not why a person comes to the cinema or sits near the monitor?
My fears are that these scenes, like the whole film, are very high-quality and romantic. They are not filmed on cheap soap in Khrushchev - they are carefully prepared. This is provided by the lighting of the room, the necessary scenery, the cosmetics of the actors, appropriate music, computer processing and the efforts of the actors - you know what I mean?
The result is a super-idealvirtualimage of copulation, which is far from reality.
What happens as a result of the mass broadcast of these scenes and pictures in films (as well as in music videos, from scenes, from advertising posters, from magazine covers and from social media accounts)?
This I am afraid to go into detail - too intimate topic, I will only say that these perfect and easily accessible pictures knock off the normal course of all their viewers, but first of all - young people: yes, exactly the one who is already 16 years old and who has the right to look at everything.
What does not depend on happiness
I like that the film shows all the characters without exception deprived of happiness, but not experiencing financial difficulties – they all have medium and very high incomes. The family lived modestly, but not below the poverty line. Mature couple - in choirs with carved furniture and servants. After the girl became a mistress, she got an apartment and did not need anything. It turns out that happiness and love cannot be bought with money - this is illustrated by this picture.
I can’t give the film “About Love” a low rating (it is too beautiful and pleasant), but I wouldn’t give it a big award. Four!
The film “About Love” is based on the theme of adultery, feelings and the eternal relationship between a man and a woman.
I will not make a detailed preface, I will start immediately on the points:
A) On the influence of words
All the troubles, difficulties, disappointments and heartache that befell the heroes of the film "About Love" are the result of one event - the violation of a given word or promise. It would seem that what a trifle – “Yes, I promised, but it didn’t work out, this happens sometimes with people; well, I didn’t kill anyone?” But it turns out that any violation of a word or promise does not pass without a trace and requires payment, whether we like it or not - this fully applies to the words given by the newlyweds at the wedding in the form of a mutual signature in the certificate - and our heroes were just in a legal marital relationship.
If you go deeper, the problem with the lives of these people (as well as all Soviet and post-Soviet people) is that they enter into family relationships without a firm conviction that they need to get married once and for all. These people do not have a clear understanding of why you need to live with the same person for life, why you can not divorce or change. The concept of divorce is not alien to them (albeit unconsciously) – such a popular reason as “did not agree on characters”, none of these people consider stupid and do not condemn even at the level of conversations over a cup of coffee.
Infidelity is often a stricter attitude, although, in fact, it is the same divorce, only in a more rude form.
It is difficult to accuse our compatriots of such behavior because of the 1917 revolution and the policy of the new socialist state, in which there was no place for religion (Orthodoxy), which was and is the only stronghold of family values.
Returning to our heroes (and people in general with a similar worldview), I will say that they are slaves to their feelings, desires and hobbies - they put them above obligations and common sense.
B) The beauty of the film
The appearance of the film is beyond praise; it looks beautiful and refined. Of course, this is thanks to the magnificent Peter, in which the shooting took place, although any city can be shown in an unsightly way. From the first minutes it is clear that skillful operators and designers worked on the film. This all manifests itself in the color scheme, and in music (classic Tchaikovsky and Chopin), and in the actors themselves, who are very beautiful. Each episode is well shot and admired.
B) A little about the characters
As I said before, all the characters are nice and compassionate. Yes, it is, but even if the offense is committed out of ignorance (as described above) and causes similar feelings, then, legally, it does not remove the guilt from the person. So,
- a young wife, mistress - a girl with excellent appearance, who sincerely believes that she was elevated to the role of mistress due to her soulfulness, not her body.
Personally, my sympathy for her disappeared in the middle of the film because of the state of her thinking, which did not allow her to show elementary respect for her legitimate spouse - is he not a toy?
Let’s say a girl falls in love with the best man and wants to be with him always – can you be honest? Is it possible to first peacefully part with her husband (to file a divorce), and only to lead a public life with a new boyfriend?
Otherwise, the spouse is humiliated and pathetic, which is very well shown in the film.
- a young cheated spouse, athlete and a year-old professor - yes, this man has strange ideas about love and he earns a little, but he honestly works and loves his wife in his understanding; before the conflict, he never looked at others. I cannot accuse him of these sins, for they do not become such people at once; this must have manifested itself before marriage. In this case, the girl knew whom she was marrying; otherwise, it is rashness (windiness, youth, inexperience).
Her fate is skewed by her own hands and she does not deserve compassion.
And in the personality of this young man I find nothing wrong.
A mature husband, a lover, the head of a large bank, the master of life – if a girl can be justified by her feminine nature, then a man should be asked to the fullest extent. God gave men brains and logical thinking that allows them to understand everything. He had to judge what he pushes a girl and her husband to do when he destroys their family.
A mature woman, the legal wife of a lover is the best character in the whole film. For her meekness and for the fact that she does not make scandals, allows her husband to quietly leave the family, allows him to walk and does not spoil his nerves, and also due to the fact that after several years remains such – she is just a holy woman, besides beautiful!
D) Age restriction
There are several bed scenes in the film. It is clear that the producers protected themselves before the legislation, setting the age threshold for its viewing “over 16 years”.
Yes, these scenes are beautiful, pleasant and natural. Why should the viewer look at them? Of course, you can close your eyes, but this is not why a person comes to the cinema or sits near the monitor?
My fears are that these scenes, like the whole film, are very high-quality and romantic. They are not filmed on cheap soapbox in Khrushchev - they are carefully prepared. This is provided by the lighting of the room, the necessary scenery, the cosmetics of the actors, appropriate music, computer processing and the efforts of the actors - you know what I mean?
The result is a super-perfect virtual image of copulation, which is often far from reality.
What happens as a result of the mass broadcast of these scenes and pictures in films (as well as in music videos, from scenes, from advertising posters, from magazine covers and from social media accounts)? This I am afraid to go into detail - too intimate topic, I will only say that these perfect and easily accessible pictures knock off the normal course of all their viewers, but first of all - young people: yes, exactly the one who is already 16 years old and who has the right to look at everything.
D) What does happiness not depend on?
I like that the film shows all the characters without exception deprived of happiness, but not experiencing financial difficulties – they all have medium and very high incomes. The family lived modestly, but not below the poverty line. Mature couple - in choirs with carved furniture and servants. After the girl became a mistress, she got an apartment and did not need anything. It turns out that happiness and love cannot be bought with money - this is illustrated by this picture.
The film “About Love”, despite the annoying moments, is very beautiful and pleasant. I'll give him a plus!
I liked the movie. I started watching TV by accident and not from the beginning, became interested, then found it on the Internet and watched it from the beginning.
What did the movie do? Very masterically, through the situation with a love triangle, the director shows the often-present lack of spirituality in human relations. Alexander, for pragmatic reasons, pushed his young wife into the arms of a womanizer banker, with whom Nina fell in love without memory. Like her predecessor from the novel Tolstoy Nina left her unloved husband, but unlike Anna Karenina, she did not give up without a fight, did not commit suicide, and gnawed her seemingly complete happiness with her teeth.
And what we see in the end is, is Nina really happy? Has she managed to bring happiness to others, to build a new family? Nothing like that. Before us, a cynical lady from the upper world, the meaning of her life to do what she wants, to dispose of her body and her soul as you want - this is her life credo she outlined to her ex-husband. But where is happiness? There are no tears at the end of the film. After all, if you consider your life, marital relations only as a contract, where do you get harmony in the family, peace in the soul? Families are happy where spouses can not only take from each other, but also give to each other - and voluntarily, without any contract.
This is what I think the director wanted to show. However, like any talented work, the film is very multifaceted, and everyone sees in it something of his own - close and understandable to him.
Directorial and camera work at a height, actors play well. I don't really like Chipovskaya, but here, I think, she is in place.
7 out of 10
Perhaps there is no more “punched” genre in cinematography than the genre of melodrama, which in my opinion has long been explored back and forth. Allowing filmmakers only willingly repeat their predecessors and present to the audience virtually identical in terms of history and its presentation. To refute these principles decided the director of this tape Vladimir Bortko. But it turned out to be absolutely futile.
The plot of the picture is a real storehouse of numerous clichés, stamps and stereotypes of the genre, which have long been erased and used in other paintings to holes. Again telling the story of a young idealist who falls head over heels in love with a rich but married man, whose relationship willingly passes the test of strength throughout the film.
A small revolution of the creators of the film is only that, despite its name and promises, the picture is not at all about love at all. Rather, enthusiastically exploring the relationship of the love polygon of the main characters of the tape and around this laying in the picture several dominant plot layers and lessons. It is at their expense and allowing themselves the freedom to assert that love as such does not exist and sooner or later it comes to an end. No matter how strong and passionate she was in the beginning. Any relationship can be easily bought with money. Each of our actions has its own consequences, which are worth thinking about at the beginning. Sometimes it is impossible to get back lost.
This film directed by Vladimir Bortko willingly raises a number of topics on the screen, none of which, in my opinion, received a detailed and worthy disclosure on the screen. Representing a very crumpled, precipitous and ambiguous story with an abundance of plot holes, torn and sharp manner of narration, as well as scantly prescribed characters. Except for the main character of the tape, which slowly but surely unfolds on the screen throughout the tape. Presenting in the final tape prudent, cold and cynical special, which she hides throughout the tape.
Perhaps the name of the director Vladimir Bortko and does not say anything purely mainstream viewer. However, Bortko has long and deservedly earned the fame of one of the pioneers of domestic cinema, behind which there are many truly worthy and iconic films. Therefore, it is a little surprising that Borco decided for the first time in my memory to try himself in a melodramatic genre, which in my opinion was not given to him. The picture turned out very gray and monotonous. Even passionate bed scenes depict not with the passion, beauty and eroticism, but very restrained and cold.
The main role was performed by Anna Chipovskaya, who perfectly managed to open up on the screen as a selfish, cynical and cold-blooded person. Very exactly his role was performed Dmitry Singers. Much more vividly and unexpectedly manifested himself Alexey Chadov. The main strong asset of the cast was, in my opinion, Maria Mironova, who managed to embody a very characteristic and deep image on the screen. Much deeper and stronger than it may seem at first glance.
6 out of 10
About love is a very gray, cold, monotonous and very ambiguous film that turned out to be far from what it could be. Choosing a good course to reflect the alternative side of love, but lost behind a frankly weak script and lack of experience in the genre. Allow me to watch this movie once. But no more than that.
Not going into the intricacies of acting, but only about the message and meaning of the film.
First of his love story, Bortko showed us a young married couple. Which has some material difficulties. Namely, a delay in the mortgage, which can result in something more significant.
The heroine of Chipovskaya Nina is shown to us doubting with a certain note of detachment from family problems. But why? What's eating it? Maybe she's at home. Or does she really feel uncomfortable because she doesn't bring money to the family? But Chadov’s hero is quite satisfied with this, because they have a contract, according to which she prepares sandwiches for him, and he deals with family welfare issues. And love? Love is the main point of the contract. But how do the words love and contract relate?
The hero Sasha (Chadov) is ready to go to hardship and sacrifice for the sake of his family. And what does not suit the heroine Nina (Chipovskaya)? Dim and very distant prospects of the husband for a bright and comfortable future? Is there some inner dissatisfaction with your life? In her thoughtfulness, you can read all this. After all, a woman already at an instinctive level needs confidence in the future, which will help to live calmly and raise future offspring.
A simple but far from stupid student meets a successful banker and hesitates at first. The moral background keeps her from treason. But the impetus and at the same time justify their actions are sent to the court case on mortgage. Then instincts take over. Nina chooses ready-made success, leaving the future professor with his prospects out of the lot.
The director shows us that love actually does not exist, there is a calculation in everything, maybe not always conscious. This can be seen as a "loving" banker, a student over time turns into an emasculated, insensitive businesswoman. Love is always in the background, first money and the pleasures that they give.
A new meeting with her ex-husband at the end of the film confirms the guesswork. In dialogues with him, it turns out that in her relationship with the hero Pevtsov, too, there was a contract that suits both parties and on which she still went (whether there was love here), but she does not intend to violate it for the second time. And the first time she violated it, not even for money, but somehow instinctively. And why violate it a second time, if already sought confidence and well-being have been found. That doesn’t make sense anymore.
Leaving the room after an intimate meeting with her ex, she tells the doorman, Petya is hurting, how painful it is. Such words could only give birth to a still loving heart, in which the wounds of separation had not yet healed. There is some internal dissonance here. She doesn’t know what she felt about the poor linguist or the rich banker. Or did the university teacher, having become successful, tip the scales of the favor of the main character in his direction? Again, love is in the background.
Bortko destroyed love, sprayed it into pettiness and mercantility, considering this feeling as a background to success, showed us that it does not exist, but only passion with which we sometimes confuse it. First pragmatism, and then feelings. Excessive eroticism in this analysis of the film does not seem so superfluous.
5 out of 10
The title of the film was chosen by chance. Another couple of films with the same name can be found on Kinopoisk. There is everything in this movie, except the above feeling. There is treason, betrayal, a little violence, attempted murder, but not love.
The plot is monstrously banal. The family of students falls into bondage mortgages. Financial difficulties force the young wife to cheat on her husband with a banker. At first, she resists her “feeling” a little, but her wealth and mortgage addiction push her into a “strong peace” bunk. And it is pushing, because foreplay, courtship, love fever, flirtation - all these feelings that accompany the emergence of true love are omitted or minimized. The dialogue throughout the film is boring, unnatural, in some places. Once five "in love" heroine repeats on different occasions: "I don't want anything." At least it's not interesting. The actors’ play seems formal against the background of bland phrases that the script prescribes for them. One of the replicas contains a reference to the famous film “Pretty Woman”. This is what makes your hair dry.
What a snack detail. In some places in the frame "banker" appears in the jacket worn by the editor of regional newspapers. In the film there is a scene where two bankers ski in some Sorochan. It seems that on the skis of one of them, the inventory number of the rental office is not even wiped. This undermines the credibility of everything that happens on the screen.
However, is it necessary to have this very credibility? The film does not teach love, does not make towering discoveries, does not stimulate any bright feelings. He only hints faintly that wealth attracts vice and devastates anyone who touches it. It's a poorly told, bad story. I can’t even believe that the director and screenwriter of her was the beloved and respected Vladimir Bortko. It doesn't fit in the mind. Most likely, the script was written by a novice literary slave, and on the site hosted some debutante apprentice.
Vladimir Bortko decided to make a film about love, but for some reason it turned out to shoot about something else. The plot is trivial to the pain - a young student is married to her Chinese teacher and they have all the treads of a young family: a permanent lack of money, a dreary division of household duties and a mortgage (of course). And somehow, a young husband who is working on transfers, sends his wife to the bank for important negotiations instead of himself - to transfer from Chinese and at the same time resolve issues on an overdue mortgage. A student falls in love with a banker. The banker is married and can only offer hotel dates on Tuesdays. But the student was not found in wood, she eventually gets a banker in his own use. There were a couple more bed scenes and a ridiculous knife attempt. The finale is quite vital, where the heroine finally understood everything about herself, love and life in general.
To be honest, I was especially looking forward to this moment, because the banality of the narrative has already begun to go off the scale, and a touch of common sense appeared very timely. The actors, of course, are good. Anya Chipovskaya is a very beautiful girl and undoubtedly talented, Alexei Chadov coped well, although I do not single him out as an actor for myself. And, of course, Dmitry Pevtsov is still good, although he has nothing to play here. What struck me most was the name of the director. It's Bortko. Bortko. Remove "It" after "Heart of a Dog" and "Idiot"? How, why and why? I'm not sure. Yes, this film is not an outright failure, but is this the level of Bortko? I don't think so. I don’t know if I would recommend this movie, it’s average, but you can watch it. At least for a realistic ending.
It would seem to be a hackneyed plot: she is a young, beautiful student, coming, married to an equally young but poor professor. But one day she is hired by a banker and then she becomes his mistress. One question is, why did you marry this man so early? It stays open. Although it will be clear to many by the middle of the film - why.
Actors. I expected more. The movie drew only Chadov, who showed at least some emotions on the screen. Chipovskaya for the whole film did not show a single emotion, nothing. Her character is boring, not interesting and absolutely not touching. And even a large number of naked scenes with her participation did not save the situation. Because in the movie you want to see not the body, but the acting. What Nina loves is what she says. It seems that the viewer believes her in the sincerity of her feelings. But no, you can't play love with a stone face. Everything is very playful and not natural. Singers look solid, his hero is justified cold and calculating businessman. But I don't want to empathize with the heroes, well, no way.
A far-fetched plot ' about love', absolutely insensitive movie. And the same shots with views of St. Petersburg, which now and then appear on the screen, are generally superfluous. Too many changing frames, not shown the development of relationships between the characters. In my opinion, an absolutely talentless movie, a film is not about love and can not be called that way. It is about passion, cold calculation, ordinary Russian reality, but not about love. It's too loud, audience, please don't fall for it. The level of this film, as rightly written here, TV channel Russia 1. I do not recommend watching this movie.
The film ' About Love' found a response in my soul, because the feelings that the main character experienced are close to me. When you're 25, you still believe in love and princes, and in reality there are only agreements. At first it's frustrating, then you accept the situation and then you try to take advantage (as much as possible).
Nina (Anna Chipovskaya) made absolutely correct conclusions, she quickly realized that there is no love, and accepted the rules of the game. Thanks to her rich lover, and later husband Sergey (Dmitry Pevtsov), Nina organized a business and became an independent business girl. In general, the first husband, professor (Alexey Chadov) was a promising scientist. Consciously or unconsciously, the calculation was always there.
However, this is not the story of Cinderella, who was happy with the prince. In our film of family happiness, the heroine never found. Are there many who have found him?
I like the story, there is life there. Thoughtful dialogue, well-chosen actors. Anna Chipovskaya is beautiful, suitable for this role, but still she never plays convincingly. Alexey Chadov was very surprised to play his character. He did brilliantly! Dmitry Pevtsov is more tired than business. Maria Mironova perfectly played the wise wife of a banker. Alexander Lykov also perfectly conveyed his character, the only one who knows how to love romantic love.
I did not like the bed scenes: the lighting suffered, and the sad gases of Dmitry Pevtsov were suppressed. It seems as if the person did not experience the pleasure of intimacy with the main character.
The choice of location and time of year well conveyed longing and luxury - the state of mind and aspirations of the heroine.
The film is good, but ' for the dull look of Dmitry Pevtsov, not always convincing play by Anna Chipovskaya and for the too banal line of the oligarch-student.
8 out of 10
For the most beautiful views of beloved Petersburg. This is the Russian answer to fifty shades of gray. Well, what about?
In general, this is a film of the format of the channel “Russia 1”, and the mistake of the creators was to let it on the big screens. The difference between budget and fees is proof of that.
The audience tried to lure explicit erotic scenes. They are ugly, ugly, in general - none.
We have seen this story many times before. A girl, confused in her feelings, abandons her poor husband for the sake of a rich, successful adult man. But years have passed...
There are no questions for the actors - for a film of this level they coped very well.
The music in the film is just creepy, it would be better if it did not exist at all.
And the transitions between the scenes - blue blurred vertical stripes give tasteless and cheap.
I have long suspected that the remarkable erotic thrust of domestic cinema from time immemorial was based on the hopelessness of solitudes, there is nowhere to be exhausted, if we were talking about ardently desired intercourse. On the sighs of Svetlychny with the Round on the painfully open eyes of the vigilantes of the boulevard bench. On the physiological, unexcreted hormone poisoned brutality of Lavrov, eating breakfast in the wind blown Kama "float" to the silly-gentle chatter of Inna Gulai. On fatigue from running around the ceremonial outposts of Ilyich stale after a sleepless, aimless night of Popov with Vertinskaya. In the mocking custom of yarn always sticking in the cramped living quarters of the grandmother and the painfully deceptive proximity of the cold Moscow beaches. In the eyes of the underbelly in the Martnov heat, coffee with cognac on the last in the Cheremushkin bar, ice drafts in a damp barn. On the extreme bodily and social risks that lie in wait for any of the intercourses. Duska, stupid, had an abortion! “Marusya was poisoned, the hospital will be taken!”
What will remain of Russian cinematic love in the conditions of eliminating the shortage of secluded beds and the risks that “the pestle in the stamen will drop the larva”, Bortko estimated for a long time: the script of a new melodrama lay on his table ready-made year from two thousandth. As in "Blonde Around the Corner", it was important for him to say whiplashly about the already formed, but not clear to everyone, but only the most subtle-hearted on the one hand and the most clearly structured intellectually on the other. It is about the fact that love in our country finally came out of the sphere of subtly unknowable, and therefore dust and rye with false covered matter, passed through an alkaline solution completely denying its cynicism of the period of the initial accumulation of new capital - and, cleansed of patina, entered the list of resources for personal well-being and development, standing there on a quite honorable place between health and respect. Smart girls from the periphery of the hungry nineties gave themselves to marry for a residence permit, and without a stamp – to Rublevka, believing that after achieving these specific goals, life was a success. In the fat of zero in addition to the grossly material, smart-beautiful began to demand gold senses-s, necessarily testing it for purity and karate with sharp bleached incisors. Alas, the years passed, the portraits changed, Paustovsky almost forgot, such blue-eyed students now we can not find. It's the price, the price.
In general, the hero of the melodrama, which for the first time voices new emotional dominants, can not be: a man, the creation is inert, lazy, egotistical, always at least half a corps, but lags behind the rushing rush of time, exposing himself to ridicule or going on about the stupidest social pressure in the direction of an adulter unnecessary to him, or filled with the consciousness of his own male irresistibility, having no other means to maintain the reputation other than the dragon pose for indistinct sex and a dozen common and humiliating quotes from the publication of Lazy for holding his wife. Such a melodrama can only have a heroine - sensitive, receptive, precisely penetrating, when love is given the need for something else as an emotional crutch, and when - the whim, escapade, exhaust of accumulated fatigue. The heroine - and the city, classically true to its reputation "and, having met the face of a passer-by, he would not care if he did not read the desires of the same in his eyes", the city is gray, the city is gallstone, the city is eternally cold, floating naked and dead granite of its sidewalks, as if with evil melting under the feet of its inhabitants, too strict in terms of structure.
Love triangle. The gray Russian routine of people living from salary to salary. Abounding in all that is possible, and therefore quite annoying monetary reality of the rich. An affair. Treason. Betrayal. About such things, roaming from film to film and very popular especially among luscious melodramas, shot according to a monotonous script, tells the film by Vladimir Bortko “On love”.
One thing is for sure: the best works of this author are far behind. "Heart of a Dog", "Afghan Kink", "Idiot", "Master and Margarita". “About Love” is nothing more than an ordinary domestic melodrama, telling about how someone from a married couple, burdened with dissatisfaction with a life in which they have to make ends meet, decides to forget in the arms of another person.
That’s the story that is being played out here. The young wife of Nina (Anna Chipovskaya), part-time wife of Professor Alexander (Alexei Chadov) and a housewife, chose the role of a submissive quiet woman who cannot say words against her husband, who is constantly dissatisfied with everything possible. This is manifested in the endless reproaches of Nina - in his opinion, she does everything wrong, and suffers from this primarily he - the luminary of Russian science.
Perhaps that is why Nina decides to get new impressions in the arms of banker Sergey (Dmitry Pevtsov). Well, then - everything is as if it were rolled up: sex, scandals, divorces, pregnancy, the choice between wife and mistress ... “About Love” is somewhat similar to the old TV series “Stop on Demand”, in which the Singers were filmed, only there he was the head of a poor family who fell in love with a rich lady. There was something similar there too: intrigues, infidelities, difficult choices.
In the movie "About Love", in fact, love is not told. Only its mutated or perverted or rather distorted forms are described, but not the very bright feeling that embraces people of all ages in different situations, at different times of the year, deprives them of sleep and does not allow them to think about anything more than the object of their sighing. Honestly, I don’t know where to find love here: in the relationship between Nina and Alexander. She's humble, yes, but judging by the look on her face, when they first have sex, she's more like a docile toy that doesn't feel or has long forgotten her passionate emotions. In this case, he is in love with his scientific work and treats his wife as a subject with which to relax and forget about his doctorate for a while. Nina and Sergey's relationship? She falls in love with him, but either because she needs money (in this case, she can not be called a prostitute, and love in this case is not exactly necessary), or just tries to find new feelings from something unknown. The last scenes clearly show that she turned out to be a calculating, but still weak in the front line lady, who was seduced by the money of a rich banker. Sergey is a person who knows absolutely no problems, changing women in packs. He is just looking for a new mistress, because his wife as a woman has long been attracted to him. A new and young body is nothing more than a new and young body. And when the question arises about the health of the child, he primarily thinks about the family, not about a minute affair. No matter what, there is no love here. There is a fascination with the young special Sergei, there is an obsession with Nina Alexander, there is Nina, who can not understand herself, as if she fell in love with Sergei not because of money, but not loving him, which, as I wrote above, is confirmed by the last scenes. If the director wanted to show the heroine Chipovskaya throwing between two men, he managed to do it, because she runs to bed with everyone who has become successful, cheating on who she is with at the moment. To me, “love” is a story about people not knowing what they really want.
Yes, the movie is replete with candid bed scenes, but Chipovskaya’s naked body is perhaps the only way the film will attract attention. The rest is a mediocre story of dislike.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
The film tells us the story of love and adultery for the hundredth time. “Ms. Bovary”, “Anna Karenina” and many other works are devoted to this topic – the bicycle here is not invented, but the relevance of this arrangement will never lose. Because it is true and true.
But the picture of Vladimir Bortko did not impress at all. The far-fetchedness and improbability of the plot, infantile and strange behavior of the characters, the wooden play of some actors could not justify the loud title of the film. The director promised to tell us about love. In my opinion, he did not succeed.
But in order. Nina is an inyaza student, married to her teacher, without a five-minute PhD. Despite the high-profile titles, Nina’s husband is not rich at all, the couple live in an ordinary St. Petersburg communal house and are up to their ears in mortgage debt. And then a plot twist worthy of a tale about Cinderella. Nina is rolled from head to toe by a car, the culprit of the incident is the director of the bank, in which Nina’s husband owes. And when, a little later, the girl accidentally finds herself at a work meeting, her employer turns out to be, who would you think? All right, let's trust Mr. Chance. That's not what happens.
Then the banal story unfolds from “I am given to another and I will be faithful to him forever” to “I am all yours.” In fact, I've seen it in the movies many times. And things happen in life that are out there. But everything is too trivial and playful.
The only people I believed were Pevtsov’s hero Sergey and his wife Tamara. They conveyed their characters perfectly. Tamara is a very wise woman to learn from, and Sergey is an example of a confused person. Like smart and strong-willed - but powerless in the face of circumstances.
Anna Chipovskaya is a beautiful girl. But it’s the same wood in all the movies. She can be admired, there is something. But the actress is not at all. Chadov is not bad, but his metamorphoses are again strange and incomprehensible.
I don’t think this movie is about love. It's about lust, about hobbies, about jealousy, about passion. These emotions can also be described beautifully, but did not happen. It's a boring picture for once.
A novelty from a director who needs no introduction (Taras Bulba, Master and Margarita, Heart of a Dog and much more).
If you start from the title, you would think that this is a simple love story of two young people, but, alas, not. Everything here is much more complex and multifaceted. In a nutshell, the film is a story about five minutes of betrayal, the result of which lasted for many years. This is a psychological drama with elements of eroticism. Fans of actress Ani Chipovskaya will be delighted. In the film she is presented in all its glory with all the intimate details. And the girls will certainly be happy to see real male heroes performed by actors Dmitry Pevtsov and Alexei Chadov.
I won’t say it’s a great movie, but it’s worth seeing at least once. A rich story will not let anyone get bored, and the sharpness of emotional moments will be a bright moment in the memory of any viewer. The film is well and clearly spelled out morality, which will allow everyone to draw their own conclusion.
Have a good time.
Even in the domestic cinema, which is generally not trusted, there are names, seeing which on the poster of the film, the viewer begins to believe unconditionally in the film, and the name of Vladimir Bortko can rightfully be attributed to them. Is it a director brought up by a legendary Soviet film school, who gave us cult series “Streets of Broken Lanterns”, “Bandit Petersburg”, “Master and Margarita”, “Idiot” and “Peter the First”. Will, immortal "Heart of a Dog", "Afghan Kink" and "Blonde Around the Corner" can remove an outright hack? I don't think so, I thought, sitting down to watch "About Love."
St. Petersburg Nina leads a pathetic, in her opinion, existence in a close communal apartment, bought in a mortgage together with her husband, a professor-Sinoist, who believes that the eternal destiny of his wife is to feed him sandwiches, while he writes a doctoral thesis. He is so passionate about it that one day he asks Nina to replace him as an interpreter in important negotiations, where the pretty Nina draws the attention of the chairman of the board of directors of a large bank. Nina succumbs to courtship and passionately falls in love with her boyfriend, not even imagining that he is married.
Seeing the poster uncomplicated title "About Love", many expected from the film Bortko passionate melodrama, and leaving the hall, bewildered shrugged: "Where is love here?". And indeed, contrary to the title, "About Love" has everything you want, but not the last - there is passion, there is lust, there is affection, there is animal sex, there is finally a cold calculation - there is no love. Does Nina Sasha like her? Hardly for him, a selfish and arrogant egoist, Ninochka is only an object of constant humiliation, an opportunity to demonstrate his machismo and once again poke his nose that he is the only earner. Does Nina Sergey like her? Also hardly - having gone to an affair with her on the advice of a companion, experienced Casanova (the magnificent role of Alexander Lykov, diluting with his cynical humor the seriousness of plot collisions), he is just looking for a breath of fresh relations in her, because on Tuesdays he is comfortable with her to rest from his family. Does Nina love herself? It seems to her that yes, but the experienced viewer understands that her love is nothing more than a cold calculation. Bortko fiercely denounces the mores of modern consumer society, even to such a high feeling as love, suitable from a consumerist position - how else to explain the ease with which we rush to adultery, get married in a hurry, and after a year equally happily divorced? Raised on Soviet morals, Bortko the current situation is depressing, and in an attempt to prove to the viewer that the momentary passion is destructive, he offers him a modern version of Anna Karenina, albeit without a spectacular diving under the train. Nina, who evolves from a romantic provincial to a cynical businesswoman by the end of the film, finishes no better than Karenina. As a result, “About Love” turns out to be much deeper than its simple uncomplicated name – Bortko together with a wonderful cast – looking great in the frank erotic scenes of Anya Chipovskaya, Dmitry Pevtsov and Alexei Chadov, revealed in a new way in romantic roles, with fury fall on modern morals, representing love differently than Pushkin, Pasternak, Bunin or Turgenev. Anyone who knows what I mean will understand.
6 out of 10
The very case when the characters are alive, the actors play well, and the plot is too far-fetched and banal.
There is nothing new or unusual about this story. No breath of freshness: there is a married man, his mistress and a boy suffering for his mistress. Singers, Chadov and Chipovskaya played well. In principle, there are no complaints against them. But the story itself is too "fairytale." Here Nina walked out with a married man, he provided her with the most “don’t spoil” and she suddenly became so cynical and angry that where to go. In fact, the main character built a career and a new life only thanks to a rich lover, but again sheds crocodile tears.
Chipovskaya plays similar heroines everywhere: she is loved by some, she is in love with others and is just so fatal that it is bad. Within the framework of such sleazy women who are just lucky, she plays normally, but it would be nice to see her in other images.
The singers are also not far away from the usual role. Somewhere I have already seen this eternally gloomy face, empty glances and heard dry lines.
Only surprised Chadov. Usually he plays the roles of lovers and romantic guys, and here is a sharp turn towards a tedious and aggressive linguist. His role is well written.
The film is just a variation on a long-overdue theme. The actors are good. It is quite easy to watch, but to revise his desires will not arise. I think the whole problem lies in the banal scenario, where the next “fool” becomes another “cinderella”.
4 out of 10
After watching the movie "About Love" there were some mixed feelings. I can't say I didn't like the movie, but I can't say I did. I don’t understand a lot of things.
First, I absolutely agree with the opinion that the film absorbed all the visible and invisible clichés of the series on the First and Second Channels. Everything is so played out to the point of impossibility: these throwing from side to side, turns of the head from the series "I looked back to see if she looked ...", calls at night, not removed vibration and so on.
Secondly, what is the artistic value? To show that all people are “soldier”, especially young girls, and to girls more experienced to remind one more time that you wait, your husband is necessarily going left with a young nymphet because you are getting old?
Third,, I didn't like the method. The same views of Peter several times inserted between the next tragedies of the main characters. It seemed that the work is an amateur, not a professional in the installation business.
And if you think about it, sometimes it's good to look at things from the outside. This is how you analyze the life of a poor student Nina and do not go to play pins later with the first banker who turned up to you ...
Speaking of actors, I liked the composition. It so happened that for many years I have been following the creativity of all the people involved. Anna Chipovskaya is known to me from Operations: Color of the Nation, and Dmitry Pevtsov from Stops on Demand. Beautiful actors and a decent performance is not quite worthy of the plot. But as I have said before, movies are different, movies are important.
As a result, , who likes to suffer under the sad music and sad St. Petersburg - those film "About love" will find a response in the soul. Usually, this requires either the appropriate mood, or an impressionable age, when you still dream of ' sick' love.
6 out of 10
The main character lived a normal married life, nothing superfluous. And if it weren't for the circumstances in which an object appeared that really helped her, and as he said, 'just so' And it was her choice to go to treason, to change the root of life.
She'll remember her husband. Because after some time and in a new relationship, everything turns into a routine.
I was struck by the banker's wife. She doesn’t care who her husband is. She's absolutely calm, even hands her phone when they call, no jealousy scenes. . .
She rejected the words of her teacher husband. Love is a contract... And then she understands the truth of this expression in her new relationship.
The evolution of love from one simple romantic form into a cynical and calculating one is really shown.
Everything I think about this movie sadly illustrates the title of the review. Sorry for the tautology, but otherwise in this situation and will not express.
I am surprised how this short film could accommodate all the stereotypes and patterns of Russian TV series and TV series. And doubtful love, and insidious betrayal, and fervent jealousy, and fights of males, and everyday stupidity, and cunning, not forgetting to grab a piece of the plot, the girlfriend of the heroine. It seems that the soap opera about love from two hundred series was compressed into an hour and a half melodrama, discarding everything superfluous, leaving only the essence.
Once again, we are presented with love as a disease that captures the human mind and makes us commit acts that destroy the lives of many people. We did, we know. The story is kind of lifelike, instructive, but where did I see all this ... maybe in the series on the First?
I don’t know why I had to put a movie like this on the big screen. Anyuta Chipovskaya and her breasts, which we were given the opportunity to look at in full, are charming, there is no dispute. But in some places her gestures and phrases were unnatural. Lesha Chadov, the husband of the heroine, in my opinion, played better, but he had little faith in his plot actions. Dmitry Pevtsov (by the way, respect the actor), as usual, almost did not express emotions, such a person, but the role of a rich banker was exactly on him.
And, by the way, the trailer of the film misled many, including me, convincing me of the similarity of the plot with the famous ' Shades of Grey'. There is no similarity, the meaning is completely different. Plus, not 'plagiatili'. And minus ... maybe not in vain 'splagiatili'?
As a result, a melodrama of the serial type, which makes you think about rash acts committed by lovers, look at your fate and understand what you want. Nothing new. Nothing unusual.
Love these stories, the movie is for you. But I’m higher '5' I can’t put it, I didn’t see the highlights of the film.
5 out of 10
For the sake of Anna Chipovskaya’s beautiful liquid breasts, Vladimir Bortko’s new film is certainly worth watching. You can also admire the views of winter-summer, autumn-spring St. Petersburg and enjoy the music of Maxim Dunaevsky. That's about it.
Mysterious female soul, unrequited love, betrayal, scenes of jealousy, family discord and disintegration. Not new? All right. After all, “all songs are only about love”, apparently, the author of the script and director Vladimir Vladimirovich Bortko considered. And I decided to show us the story of how a simple girl from Kamchatka (the first cliché, but, alas, not the only one) met the prince, but he turned out to be just a banker, wanted to be loved, but became only his content, and a little later - a new companion of his social events. And all because some mysterious “contract” underlying love (the idea of fixing her ex-husband) was violated.
It seems like an idea and not bad, but, my God, what a bad embodiment!
From the first frames there is a distrust of what is happening, which over time does not pass, but only increases. The main character of the film student Nina Sazonova stands at the checkout in the store and bargains for twenty (!) rubles. She and her husband, a professor at the same institute where she studies, live, of course, not rich, but not in poverty.
And then, her poor, was watered by a passing car of the future prince. It's him, no one else! The prince-banker did not pass by like some cattle, but went out, apologized and even offered money. But then the girl was unspoiled, and only covered up the abuse. It wasn't good. Not all princes are so delicate.
The most colorful character is the husband of Nina Sasha performed by the fattened (at least in the movie) Alexei Chadov. He receives a letter from the bank that he has failed to pay his mortgage and blames his wife. She learns that she didn't take the money she won at roulette, screams again. You cheated, get out! Kill! And her, and him, and everyone in general who comes to hand, including the drive-by drunks, who before, before the discord, apparently did not come here: they sense, creatures, troubles in the family of intellectuals! Sasha drinks bitter, tracks down his departed wife, whom he himself drove out, grabs a knife. Professors, they are, especially Chinese! And then suddenly he says, Get away from him, your bad man Zheglov. Oh my God, your banker!
The image, to put it mildly, is inconclusive. Some kind of hysterical, "alcoholic and idiot," not a teacher. A boy, not a husband.
Outplays not only Chadov, but also the beautiful Anna Chipovskaya. Here, we were just tumbling in bed, and the prince say, "You see, it's good to trust your instincts." How do you react to that? Especially after the poems and the champagne already spilled over the glasses? Just run. To come back, because a girl fell in love. And he's back to his point: Come on, he says, meet on Tuesdays. How about a beast like that? And all this with tears, hysterics, wringing of hands, ah, sighs, withering and weary female indifference: what is the will, what is not the will... I'm sleeping with someone else. In all situations throughout the film.
The prince turned out to be a banker, the heroine concludes after a while. He's always been. And when he offered to sleep for the first time, and when the mortgage problem was solved, and when the apartment was rented for a new mistress. If the filmmaker wanted to emphasize the cynicism of the St. Petersburg financial tycoon, he achieved the opposite result - banker Sergei in the brilliant (note this) performance of Dmitry Pevtsov against the background of the surrounding hysteria looks very worthy and remains true to himself: he does not swear eternal love, but life makes a fairy tale; he leaves the family, but not irrevocably. He's not a cynic, he's not a crackpot. Nice little guy, in a word. The hope and support of the new Russia.
The "loser" husband on the background of the lover looks pathetic. Although objectively he (deceived, but not out of love) should be a hero positive. But the director is clearly not on his side. “Weak” even a new life partner chose the first one he came across – his student and girlfriend Nina. There's a woman's gun on the wall, let him shoot. At least it's crooked. Stamps, stereotypes.
Much more advantageous is the wife of Sergei Tamar (Maria Mironova). She perceives the situation almost cold-bloodedly, one might say stoically, because she always knew that this would happen. And although in her hearts she launches a cheating husband with a book and swears with bad words, she quickly calms down, because she understands thanks to whom everything in her life, albeit not quite well, but safely. Even their break is not fatal, but some kind of contractual: leave, but sometimes come back.
One of the main drawbacks of the film is that there is no real modern Russian life. At the beginning of the picture, some meaningless titles-indications appear: “A few years ago.” It’s like a long time ago in a distant galaxy. The film should be about Russia. But she's not there. There is a bank, apartments, hotels, restaurants. And as a “life”, Sasha and Nina’s apartment with their financial problems is planted. But the social contrast, which, apparently, the director wanted to emphasize in this way, somehow blurs in the interpersonal relations of the characters. To move them to some other reality “somewhere abroad”, and everything would be the same.
What's the movie about? A film about love, I hear already the cries of the indignant blessings of the woman, it is also called, and you, stupid, did not understand anything.
Maybe something else?
That you should be faithful and not betray, live with your unloved, but your legitimate husband, remain poor, but honest and proud? Or, on the contrary, that a banker is more reliable than a crazy Chinese teacher, and a loved one is better than a loving, but unloved, and even a beggar?
Both of these morals are true in their own way. But which one is the true one? In the film definitely wins, no, just triumphs the latter.
Question: What about life?
Answer: Yes, exactly the same.
The question is, is that right?
Answer: Well, that's not who we are.
If so, then doubt: sell yourself more expensive and live happily! Just don't get hysterical and don't even let a tear. That's too much. We don't believe that.
Atypical Chadov in the film about women's happiness
I went to the movie because I love Chadow! And I can say one thing - he appeared in this film in his non-standard role, nowhere saw him like this! My beloved ' asshole' turned into a humble professor preaching the rules of love.
Anya Chipovskaya also pleased, who showed in her heroine the heaviness of a woman’s burden – the complexity of choice, inner strength, energy and decisions for which she is able to answer. I am sure that all women who have experienced infidelity will understand it.
Overall, the Chadov-Chipovskaya pair is very harmonious on screen. And the story itself is not at all banal, as it may seem in the first half of the hour of the film.
The fine line between love and contract, which the characters of Chadov and Chipovskaya talk about, is revealed more than ever in the film: there are experiences, betrayal, sin, and guilt - all components of the movie, which makes not only think, but also empathize & #39; love' the main characters.
Naive student Nina, experiencing inside herself ' and whether it is love' Professor-Chinese, the collective image of which keeps inside and ' correctness' and ' selfish' and a charming banker seducing the main character to sin. The most important thing is that we believe the main characters, believe the situation in which they find themselves, the feelings that consume their heart and soul.
Everything that the main characters do comes from the heart and sincerely, there is no arrogant playfulness inherent in Russian cinema. The storyline keeps the viewer in suspense - we do not expect the final denouement, but we understand inside ourselves that the heart of the heroes keeps love until now.
Frank scenes, vividly shot in the film, only emphasize the realism of the picture. Modern society is ready for them, and beautiful shooting only emphasizes this art and the feelings of the characters.
Strong actors, a good script and a beautiful St. Petersburg add up to one beautiful picture, permeated with complex relationships of people. It can happen to us: now, tomorrow and next week.
Of course, such bitter conventions as a loan, a rich man who is ready for money to solve the problem of a young family - seem a bit stereotypical, but is this not what we encounter daily?
And in the end, the film, I think, is not really about love, but about a strong woman, able to overcome grief with her inner strength and find her real, female happiness.
It is always interesting when someone takes on unpopular genres. It is especially interesting when you take the one from whom it is least expected. It would seem conservative, brutal even director, author of “Heart of a Dog”, “Master and Margarita”, “Taras Bulba”, deputy of the State Duma – and suddenly an erotic melodrama with an uncomplicated name.
Moreover, he managed to find in himself the most unexpected - sympathy for women's problems because of weak men, criticism of men's actions. Of course, this is not a feminist message, because the main character is in a position far from feminist ideals.
A beautiful girl from a regional town lives in St. Petersburg with her husband, a young professor who does a lot of wisdom but earns little. Loves her, but is explained in love by pragmatic monologues about the theory of the social contract. Like, you to me, I to you. You give me sandwiches and love, I give you money and love. However, all the points seem to be violated by both parties. I will not tell you the whole story of an ordinary love triangle, when a woman suddenly finds love on the side (and women, as you know, cheat not with the body, but with the soul). I would like to note here the thing that does not lie on the surface – how this “idea of the social contract” is transformed, how logic breaks down against irrational feelings. As in the beginning in a house where there is no female love, on the table - dumplings and semi-finished products. How this is contrasted with soups from a loving girl, taken "to replace" his wife.
How the illusion of a cynical attitude towards the feelings of a Chinese professor is being destroyed. How the theory of contract goes to the main character, disappointed in love.
As the most, perhaps, cynical character - the hero of Alexander Lykov, pronounces a manly dirty, depraved dialogue, but a dialogue about real male love.
In general, in a seemingly simple story about betrayal, there are so many psychological nuances, so many revelations of the sexes - perhaps sometimes unpleasant, difficult to perceive, difficult to empathize with - because you see in the actions of the characters the mistakes that you are capable of.
The film disappointed. Except for the cast and beautiful St. Petersburg views, I have not found anything interesting in it.
She is married to a teacher with dreams, but without money, meets him, married, impossible rich and pragmatic. I never noticed love as such between them, judging by the bed scenes with Chadov, she lacked emotions and passion, and Peskov took the experience, showed ' another world', and went... And then another hour we are shown in detail the relationship of a stupid little girl and a pragmatic adult.
I’m not going to go into more detail, just nothing, alas.
The film can be positioned as ' based on real events'.