The criminal drama of Akan Sataev at the release passed by the mass audience, but now gets views after the hype and popular “Word of the Kid”, with which he can clearly be compared both in directing and in universal recognition. In fact, yes: about the same thing, but “Districts” did not fall as much censure as the series Zhora Kryzhovnikov. Still, popularity decides: at one time something similar was with the Brigade, which was saved by the lack of Internet in every pocket.
I can say that the script is all right here: a fascinating and rhythmic “speak” about juvenile crime in Kazakhstan in the late 1980s. This is the second work in a row that evokes emotions a la And this is the time our grandparents still want to return? Was it better before? "Districts" also partly rhyme with "Needle" Rashid Nugmanov, while the first clearly wins by a margin, because from and to is an audience film, rather than arthouse festival kitsch with Viktor Tsoi in the title role. The guiding idea is good: concepts, boys, but justice should always be at the top of the table. The parable of the non-acceptance of society and the state of affairs in it. A story of vengeance and vengeance, which, although not trying to neonoir, still makes curtsy its story about a man going against the system. Yes, the movie works from and to "works", but it clearly lacks air. All the fault is the timekeeping, in which "Districts" is clearly tighter than "The Word of the Boy", stretched into eight hour episodes. At the same time, it is important to note that you are not bored, the plot does not trample, the script has a great sense of rhythm, and an hour and a half fly by quickly and imperceptibly.
Acting work is normal, although I do not know anyone here, so it will not be possible to mark one person. In general, the Lyceum ensemble coped with its TZ on the "five". The camera work and installation is great: lots of handheld camera, some really exciting long plans. Sound design is bad: the voiceover pumped up, sometimes it is not even clear what the characters say. If in the fresh "Snow" it was for the sake of form, then this is a fat minus and laziness on the part of sounders in the studio. Post-production will go.
Perestroika is a serious matter, however, and the Districts prove it in every possible way. Strong and vital movie, which was useful to watch in retrospect and suddenly get acquainted with it. And the truth is that ignorance of the past somehow makes you experience again, and forewarned means armed. An excellent demotivator for buzzers and the 'Alpha' generation, as well as a brief educational program that fenia and street movers are hospital, prison or death. The choice is yours.
7 out of 10
The film works perfectly until the climax. The exposition of everyday life and characters of the characters goes well - we believe in the world of "boys" and "concepts" in which Sataev's characters live. Arsene (the protagonist) is also well represented and brought under the main conflict. Arsene genuinely believes he can come out of the movement and say no, but with each scene we see more and more lack of will in him, ranging from conflicts with his mother to going to a restaurant with Rashid (an older associate of Arsene and the company).
The culmination is Arsene’s dialogue with his friend, who commits a crime under the pressure of the district system. Arsene wonders why he couldn’t “just give up,” and after this scene, Arsene decides that he can’t be a passive observer anymore. The problem, however, is that the film does not show even the slightest reflection of Arsene that would lead him to go against the districts. His remorse for his own weaknesses, from minimal complicity in gop-stops, to cheating on his girlfriend, is not shown. In my view, this realization in Arsene should have awakened Rashid as his senior comrade, and their conflict should have ended with that dialogue, not as portrayed in the film.
In general, in my opinion, the picture is still one of the best (if not the best) Russian-language drama about boy culture, and is highly recommended for viewing for fans of films about teenagers.
Whether to fit in for someone else's shit, everyone decides for themselves.
Street gangs -- especially lavishly spiced up with hair dryers -- that's not my interest at all. The scenery of Soviet times does not awaken any nostalgic warmth either. And I like color rendering either more lens or more lens. I watched the film with undiminished interest.
Unlike the Russian Brigade, the filmmakers did not romanticize banditry or friendship in this aggressive environment. Realistically, clearly and concisely indicating that you are a friend - while you have something to take. Then kick in the ass, that's all friendship. A good explanation is always there. And that there is something wrong with a high motivation to “keep the district”, if in its deep essence is to take money from junior students for breakfast and decorate the apartments of classmates, so that through a chain of petty thieves, ultimately, transfer them to the uncle-thief in the law for drinking.
Dressing the characters in costumes was a good idea to build a frame. Although it is unlikely, of course, in the 80s, the costume could be associated with style by thieves, and not "lokhs" - simple Soviet people who went to work in the research institute.
In general, the main problem, as I see it, is whether to fit in for someone else’s shit, if at the planning stage you were not invited to take any part in the decision, to create it or not, is correctly set. Not as decided by the main character as I would like personally, but also in that, its own realism. Each of us, it seems, there are life situations in which we are drawn to fit into the defense, in retribution, before realizing that the defended in advance was not interested in our opinion, to do what he was going to do or not.
Almaty, 1987. From a military town in the center of Almaty, high school student Arsen moves with his mother and sister. On the very first day in his new school, he makes friends in the face of the boys from Theateralka, who teach him the basics of life in the neighborhood. The deeper Arsene delves into a new life with its laws and hierarchy, the more he realizes that all these “concepts” contradict his own beliefs.
Almost ten years ago, Akan Sataev masterfully closed the theme of the boy-bandit cinema with the film “Racketeer”, burying together with its heroes an entire era in which, in fact, the very “district” life was settled. The nostalgic project “Districts”, unlike “Racketeer”, came neither to time nor place. Yes, it seems that adolescent problems with determining a place in this life are always relevant and always the same, but from the first frames a giant gulf between today’s teenagers and teenagers who lived 30 years ago is striking. This is a completely different system of values, worldview and attitude towards others.
Remarkably, this is the second picture of Sataev, where the central characters are children 14-16 years old, but the viewer is much easier to identify with the characters. Jaujurek Myn Bala, who lived several centuries ago than with those people who today are about 45-50 years old. The reason is simple: Sartai and his associates fought real enemies that made them superheroes of their time, Arsene and his friends fight enemies made up. Or rather, cultivated within their own community. Yes, perhaps in this factor the creators of the picture put a kind of pedagogical element. The “District” party here looks like the Lerney Hydra, which grows three new ones in place of one severed head. And from the point of view of mythology, the main character of the film is ideally suited for the role of Hercules, however, instead of a feat, there is a banal revenge.
In addition, the picture has great problems with dialogue. Corresponding to the time epoch, the slang here rains on the viewer, but it becomes clear that the actors do not catch either his interpretation or intonations. At the same time, for some reason the same characters repeat their lines several times. For example, in scenes of conversations Arsene with his mother three times repeated the same dialogue:
- Where were you? You don't feel sorry for me at all. You need to prepare for admission.
You know exactly who I want to be.
- No, I don't know, and I don't want to know. My father is gone and now I decide where to go.
The main cast here works exactly halfway. Alas, but Elteres Nurzhanov, who played the main role, is significantly inferior in the frame to his more experienced partners Sharip Serik and Sanurzhan Suleimenov. Daniyar Alshinov and Zhandos Aybasov perfectly fit into their images, and debutante Maryam Satayeva was pleasantly surprised. But all the other characters of the picture remained characters for whom a certain function is assigned, such as we need a “long Russian boy” in the frame or we need a “fat comic boy”.
In general, as a nostalgic product, "Districts" is quite likely to appeal to a certain audience. The problem is that it is quite difficult to drag her to the movies. However, as a separate cinematic work, Akan Sataev’s new painting suffers from a lack of dynamics (which was created inside the frame due to camera work rather than the plot) and a clear message. In addition, she was at least ten years late. Today’s teenagers earn a reputation with photos on Instagram, and the individuality (which distinguishes the main character) is valued much more than “a place of honor in the pack.” The district era has gone down in history and, if you believe the painting “Districts”, to return it is not only senseless, but also dangerous.
The film tells about the life ' district boys' in the late 80s in Almaty. And, it is worth paying tribute to the authors, the spirit of the time is transmitted on the screen brilliantly: from the general atmosphere, school uniforms and arrangement of Soviet apartments a couple of years before the collapse of the Union to almost imperceptible details, such as a phrase from ' Gentlemen of luck' and the mention of a major Soviet book publishing house ' Adventure Library' And it's because of these details that the era is alive on the screen, and you really believe that you're watching a movie about a particular time period in history. This is a huge plus in the piggy bank of the creators.
Screenplay. This is another strong feature of the picture. The story is worked out to the smallest detail, all the declared "Chekhov rifles" & #39; in the end they shoot and lead to a completely unexpected ending. Moreover, it is interesting that in the course of the plot, the film increasingly acquires the features of a detective, and the relaxed mood at the beginning is replaced by the alarming realization that everything that is happening is much more serious than it seems. But immediately it is worth noting that this is not a story ' about special teenagers who go against the system and save everyone ' ala ' Divergent' No, no and no again. Here the motives of all the characters are clear, the events taking place are not fantastic and could well happen to people of the same age in reality.
But the main advantage of the script are well-written dialogues. The fact is that the characters talk a lot, but keeping track of their conversations is really interesting (partly thanks to camera work, but more on that later). The screenwriter, who included the regime of the Soviet Tarantino, uses a huge amount of jargon and slang words of the time in dialogues, and they are inserted not as if they were just random, but in the right places and on the case. And this in turn suggests that the person himself at one time ' brewed ' in this language and actively used it.
It is also worth noting just great music and camera work. Beautiful and very unusual, since the editing gluings in the film are used only when transitioning between scenes, and the scenes themselves are shot in one frame, which creates ' the effect of presence ' and even more immerses in the story. Interestingly, there are almost no close-ups in the film, medium and general plans prevail. But if you need to focus on the emotions of the character, then again it happens without gluing, but with the help of a camera hit.
Keep going. The main character and secondary characters of the film are spelled out well, harmoniously interact with each other and are revealed by performing actions, not verbally. It is interesting to watch the main character, because at the beginning of the film he falls into a completely different environment, and in order to exist in it, he is forced to follow the rules imposed on him. It's addictive in terms of the problem of society's pressure on the individual, and whether a person can at one point say to that very society 'no' and leave. As for the friends of the main character, these are the simplest 'gopniks'. But (another plus to the filmmakers) they are not shown as cruel and vile villains, the authors themselves provide the viewer with a choice of whom and how to sympathize. Here 'Gapniks' are quite ordinary guys who are doing the wrong thing and are a step away from finally turning on a curved track. But not all of them really want this, they are just as much as the main character is pressured by the environment. And it’s also a plus that there’s not just good or bad in the movie. Even the main character sometimes commits very contradictory actions, but this makes him more alive and you believe him even more.
And here we go smoothly to the game of actors. With the exception of perhaps one actor, you believe everyone they play really well. No underplays or overplays. Here I will take brawls, namely their staging and execution. Fights are also not collected on the editing table, but shot in one frame, executed realistically, without kung fu techniques and triple flips back, and this, of course, speaks about the skill of the director of these scenes, and the skill of the actors who performed them very qualitatively. And this applies to both brawls ' one on one' and mass scenes, which is very reminiscent of ' Oldboy' and causes genuine respect for the creators.
So, what we have on the bottom line: 'Districts' is a great film that, frankly, has no weaknesses and drawbacks. It is clear that the creators of the film and director Akan Sataev approached the matter professionally and seriously. Unlike many domestic 'filmmakers', here people worked conscientiously and did not allow hoaxes. And even more so, they did not allow (again, unlike our propagandists) the exposition of the USSR as a kind of Mordor of the XX century. And therefore, it turned out to be an addictive, realistic, worked out and perfectly realized film, which is only indignant from negative emotions - why is Kazakhstani cinema not released outside Kazakhstan and does not take bastions of major international film awards? And that's really sad. . .
Unlike the movie itself, which is definitely recommended for viewing.
10 out of 10
The film perfectly conveys the atmosphere of the late 80s and early 90s, when often naive people are not used to rampant capitalism, enter a new era. Young people quickly adapt to the new realities, where the words: decency, honor, justice - only empty sounds.
The process of urbanization and human adaptation in a rapidly growing large city is shown. Teenage crime with drinking alcohol, drug use, fights vividly illustrates this film.
Kazakh film about the boys of the 80s. I looked at the advertisement of Bedkomidian, who praised for revealing the character of the main character as opposed to some Russian shit movie.
Cinema, of course, can not be called highly artistic. Hello 90s with a more or less modern picture. Although the atmosphere and the acting are very old-school, post-perestroika.
The film celebrates not criminal romance, but the so-called boy movement. When you have to be honest, keep your word, help your friends and not forgive your enemies. The main character at some point went against the system, imposed by the friendly environment, while managing to remain a person and keep friends. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, this is probably the stereotypical image of a real man. Direct, sporty and fair. A little knocked out the general theme of the finale, giving a hint of a sequel, which is likely to somehow be associated with crime. Yes, and the movie certainly lacks humor. Probably all the Kazakh humor went to stand-up.
So I recommend the movie to all nostalgic and supportive.
The director of the film Akan Sataev shot a couple of dozen films, apparently about the same subject. I saw a couple. What I'll tell you later.
In the film ' Districts' well and naturalistically filmed scenes of fights. Also, the strength of these scenes is the technology of shooting them with one camera without editing, without gluing. The actors themselves fight quite naturally. This adds to the heat when viewing.
In general, throughout the film, the actors play hard four. One of the characters in the film remained undisclosed - Dina (Arsena's girlfriend). You don't have to worry about her at all. And why did Arsene love her? Not clear.
There is in this movie and a funny moment: Gopniks the whole film go in costumes with ties. In real life, during the Soviet period, I rarely met such Gopnik schoolboys who walked all day in shoes, suits and white shirts with ties. A clear flaw in the artist's costumes and costumers.
Filming, editing and musical design are excellent.
The plot and script for the four.
According to this film, it is worth filming a sequel, which will show the further fate of Arsene, his girlfriend Dina, seniors and boys from the districts. In other words, a film about the decline of groups, their going underground.
9 years after the cult "Racketeer" the most famous director in Kazakhstan Akan Sataev shoots his 8th feature film "Districts".
Despite the fact that the theme of the dashing 90s has long left the minds of ordinary viewers from the post-Soviet space, including viewers from Kazakhstan, apparently the 90s themselves have not left Akan (soon, for example, the film “Businessmen” also comes out about the period of the 90s). Although the events take place in Almaty 87 (technically it is not the 90s), the events can be said to be a prequel to “Racketeer”, so the viewer is not familiar with the history of post-Soviet states, the picture will clearly explain where all these Brothers came from at the end of the XX century.
If you briefly talk about the plot, then in the center of the story is a high school student named Arsene, an athlete - a judic with an acute sense of justice. Who finds himself at the center of the neighborhood movements of his new friends.
One of the main features of this picture is excellent directorial and especially camera work. The picture is very pleasant and quality. The story is instructive and with a logical end. Acting, of course, is not at its peak since mostly non-professional actors were filmed, including the main character, but it is clear that the guys tried. It’s great to see Akan Sataev grow technically as a director. The picture is not cult, but if you watch this film you will not waste time.
7 out of 10
The main character finds himself in a new society, a new world for himself, encounters its features.
The plot of the film describes the life of young people of the late 80s, with their division into districts, “arrows” and “elders”.
Arsene, a high school student, an athlete, moves from the military town, where he lived and studied in a sports boarding school, to the city, and meets local guys. Having a strong character quickly receives the recognition of peers, enters the company of local scum. But after looking at the lives of his new friends, he realizes that this is not for him. Explains to everyone that he is not satisfied with this, and at first receives a sharp negative attitude in his address, but then receives support and how many guys have similar views.
The film is designed for a certain viewer, and it is unlikely to be interesting to people whose youth did not pass in the 80s and 90s.
This picture, like other films by Sataev, evokes a sense of vitality of what is happening, there is something in his films, the main characters, that leaves a certain aftertaste from watching. I didn't regret watching.
The crime drama from the Kazakh cinema again pleased me as a spectator. The novelty from the director Aktan Sataev, who was remembered by the “Liquidator”, impressed with the “Racketeer” and touched the military drama “Road to Mother”. It is not surprising that after all the films mentioned, I was thrilled to expect a new job and took the analysis of the film seriously.
I won’t say that I was delighted with the film, but it’s worth watching because the quality of the director’s work is very impressive. In the story, a young guy with his mother, having received an apartment, moves from the suburbs to the city center. It's late '80s. The guy plays sports and dreams of becoming a military man, like his father, but the fighting spirit of backyard life instantly takes possession of him, and drags an innocent soul into the depths of criminal romance.
A strong and meaningful story from the first minutes immerses the viewer in the very essence of what is happening. Without unnecessary digressions and permissible prefaces, the hero plunges into the epicenter of criminal romance, which reigned in the late 80s throughout the Kazakh territory. This story revolves around a small area of the city, for which the local boys are responsible. Each of the characters values his authority, so words and behavior from the outside can seem like a funny curve of schoolchildren, imitating adult bandits. The dialogue in the film is spelled out very well and even realistically, which proves the author’s direct belonging to the rebellious spirit of the eighties.
As for the acting ensemble, there is no doubt, because the director has repeatedly proved a perfect understanding of the criminal images of his heroes. The actors look convincing, which gives the picture an additional plus. Of course, the budget of the film leaves much to be desired, as the picture looks poor and quite simple, but despite all the technical disadvantages, the film looks easy and with great interest. The beginning may seem a little faked, but then, completely immersed in the story, it is difficult to break away.
So, if you are a fan of criminal subjects and you do not cut the hearing of noble jargon, then I ask you to the screens. I want to mention the dramatic music, which I really liked.
This film is for those who spent their childhood in the USSR in the 80s. The film conveys the atmosphere of the 80s, when the concept of honesty and friendship was the basis of any relationship, when for people honor and dignity meant more than personal happiness, prosperity, when people were not afraid to pay for truth and honor with their lives. This is the time of repairing telephones, tape recorders "Romantic", boiled jeans, banned foreign rock bands, when the word "merchant" / speculator was bad, when caring for girls carried their bags from school, etc.
The atmosphere of the 80s
The film accurately reproduces the atmosphere and relationships of young people in the courtyards, districts, schools in the former Soviet republics, in the 80s, early 90s. This one takes us back to the past. We can say that the film is life, which accurately conveys the atmosphere of 80-90x
Actors
The characters are selected very accurately, the straightforwardness of the children who grew up on the verses of “The Story of the Unknown Hero” by Marshak is shown, as well as those who live according to yard concepts.
The director
Akan Sataev already has successful experience in the production of criminal melodramas, it is enough to recall the film "Racketeer (2007)" which, according to many critics, is perhaps the best Kazakhstani film about the dashing 90s.
Watch or not
Definitely look to everyone who wants to plunge into the days of school youth. As well as young people who are interested in the life of ordinary peers / schoolchildren / youth in the era of the USSR and their morals, concepts, principles.
Some people make good movies, others don’t. Sometimes you get the status of a cult director thanks to one picture. Unfortunately, this picture was viewed only on behalf of the director.
Everything in this movie is bad, from script to timekeeping. The film lasts 90 minutes, but due to uninteresting dialogue, useless characters, strained motives and disgusting acting, the film lasts infinity.
In the process of watching the film, it seems that only the secondary character Louise (Asel Sagatova) managed to play her role.
The film can be divided into 4 parts: Presentation of key characters, introduction to the course of events, tipping point, ending. In proportions 4:4:1:1
Speaking about characters:
16-year-old Arsene is the only true character. At the beginning of the film, his sporting abilities are no longer shown. The character does not even try to express his opinion and do what he wants, not what his friends impose.
Playing the mother, just leads to a stupor, scenes with the mother create the feeling that watching a children's play.
The girl of the main character ... her actions, play, reasoning are disgusting. Sometimes you should not give one of the “key” roles to your daughter, Mr. Sataev. You can just remember the picture Guy Ritchie "Gone With", where the main role was played by his ex-wife Madonna.
Friends of the main character, in essence, only the reasons for the actions, despite the fact that he knew them for no more than a year. Which also does not give obvious reasons for the actions of the main character.
Antagonist, it is difficult to call it such, a two-minute acquaintance with him does not describe him in any way.
Watching this film, realizing that although incredibly long, but still lead us to their conclusion show us a climax, lasting ... one minute, no more. Even if denying the fact that in fact no one would do this, this is not what people expected.
If you remove everything superfluous, the film can be compressed in 20 minutes, which would be ideal for a film with such a plot. But still clearly, this film was made only for box office, which even so, is not a profitable business.
Result:
