This modern kind of colored version of the well-known ' Boomer' is a very interesting, good and high-quality film, which, in my opinion, is absolutely undeservedly incinerated by low ratings and a modest box office.
To the disadvantages, I would include not quite a successful selection of the main two actors, of whom (especially Kozlovsky) and through intelligence, diligence, correctness, and their heroes lack easy buddiness and strong motherhood, in order to rightfully justify the title of the film. In addition, secondary Kozlovsky, due to its growth and its greater medianost, popularity and importance, no matter how steeper than the main Vovan - and this is also in the negative. The duality of heroes is also unclear. Two cool peppers from the area, which are absolutely alone and there is only one another - what coolness here, significance for the district and in principle logic can be discussed. In any small town & #39; district & #39; the company is NOT ONE, namely the company of the same like-minded in reason and way of life. Therefore, the symbiosis of two intelligent handsome Muscovites trying to play bad guys with a good heart and without mats is a phenomenon, to put it mildly, fake. Let them play (especially Danya) quite well and convincingly.
I like almost everything in the movie. The film is interesting and boring, despite the predicted dramatic / tragic outcome. The palette of colors is simply magnificent, and in combination with an undisturbed, but sea, such a distant, right-handed and mysterious Vladik... Just fire!!
Continuing flattering epithets, the film is glued together well. The characters are bright. The girls are beautiful. Shooting from a quadcopter is always in the theme, in the theme lighting and the picture itself. The sound row is high. In short, you can watch (no need to say...), interesting and fun!
I really liked Olga Zuyeva in the frame - a very bright, albeit short-lived character. Vovan's girl is also very spectacular and cuts into memory. Yes, in principle, the selection of actors is also the merit of the film!
...when watching, you often catch yourself thinking that the film could become a festival if it were not so massive, simple in essence and somewhere banal. The film could have been more successful and understood had it not been partly festival-like. . .
This tape may not carry a deep semantic load, but glued and decorated very folding, sweet and clearly worthy of greater appreciation than it has now!
Maybe Russian cinema is a stool, but clearly not this time. . .
8 out of 10
(Deservedly because after watching, I don’t regret spending an hour and a half.) I'm fine. .
The plot is based on the inner struggle of the protagonist, who can not answer himself to the question ' Who am I?': on the one hand, his life is connected with crime, and he has both certain achievements and earnings in this field of activity. But the other, almost dormant part of his soul and a small part of his life is kind and romantic. And what happens if his value system gets hit by falling in love? Drama! Oh, and what?
The drama in this film unfolds in several storylines at once:
The main storyline is the inner struggle of the hero: here you can observe interesting crises and victories, which are defeats, for the other side. The hero overestimates his actions, his past and future, changes his morality, and all this forces the viewer to live through these crises and, together with the hero, reflect on these eternal questions of life.
The crime storyline is quite simple, but well done, and the inevitability of some of its moments adds to the film’s points as a drama. It is inextricably intertwined with the relationships of the main characters, and the inner conflicts of the protagonist are reflected in his actions, primarily those related to crime.
The love line of the main character is, although simple, but occupies an important place in the plot, launching the entire chain of main events, and many of its moments reflect very well what the hero has in his heart.
Now the music. It is the level of interaction with the viewer, which is often neglected. Yes, it’s not uncommon for a cool soundtrack to add points to a movie, but it usually happens when the soundtrack is good apart from the movie, so there’s actually good music overlaid on the film, so that’s good. In this film, a fundamentally different approach is used: the music does not sound against the background of what is happening in the frame - it sounds from the frame itself! And that's just fine, because it puts the viewer even more into what's going on. For all the main characters of the film, music is not just a way of expressing emotions, it is their life: it is the classical music of the theater actress and it is the rap of criminals. Interestingly, both main characters are associated with rap, but their lyrics tell about different, which is completely consistent with the character and values of these characters.
The symbolism in the film is expressed in the form of symbols and images that refer the viewer not only to his own memories, which enhances emotions when watching, but also to moments inside the film itself, which creates interesting connections within the plot that make everything that happens truly whole, without letting go of the event of the plot, even when something significant has already happened.
The film is a very good drama, the characters of which experience strong emotional swings at once in various planes of their lives, and the narrative almost in the first person completely immerses the viewer in what is happening, forcing him to experience the entire hour and a half of the film.
10 out of 10
The picture that was cursed, in my opinion, absolutely everyone. I will insert my ' special opinion'.
So, a film on a seemingly worn-out gangster theme; a director-newcomer, who invited her husband Danila Kozlovsky to the main role - in general, you should not expect anything special - the first thought at the beginning of the viewing. However, the film hooked me, and, moreover, despite many shortcomings in most areas of the shooting process (script, acting, music, editing, etc.), the film turned out. Olga Zueva quite coped with the directorial component of this film, and the main value of the film is not Danila Kozlovsky (whose game I, by the way, did not like).
The film sends its message to the viewer. It is about true male friendship; about the value of loved ones, about family; about how important it is to stop and look at your life from the outside; about the inner moral foundations that are so important not to lose in the pursuit of success and money; about how important it is always to remain a person, no matter how you live and what happens in your life. The film deserves attention, and I think for the debut it is very, very good work. For example, if you compare the directorial debut of the same Kozlovsky (“Coach”) with this debut, “On the district” I liked more, no matter what. It was more emotional and sharp.
Of the additional pluses, I want to name the play of a young but very talented actor Ilya Malanin – no matter how good I feel about Kozlovsky, in this film he lost to Malanin in persuasiveness. He wants to say “I believe” in every scene he has. And the character he turned out absolutely wonderful – bright, interesting and multifaceted.
If we talk about the minuses, the main ones for me were the plane of the other characters, the terrible music and poor hearing of the characters in several scenes (well, such a joint could be corrected when reviewing scenes). You can keep clinging to other aspects, but I probably won’t.
Olga Zueva, from my point of view, is a talented actress. But it's not hyped. Unfortunately, I never remembered her in any of the movies. Even Salt and Coach showed that she was a completely ordinary girl. I would say that I did not like her game. It is intelligent and educated, but it is more of a model (which it is). On the other hand, her attempt to make a film is not bad. I would say that this film should have been made not in Russia, but in the United States. After all, she always refers to Vladivostok as similar to New York, Chicago and San Francisco. And Daniel and Ilya Malinin (of whom, frankly, I have not heard anything). I didn’t know he was playing black. That is, she is trying to show us American images on Russian soil. Not a bad attempt, but not too consistent with the precepts of time. I can say that she got something between an action movie and a black comedy.
Not even Tarantino, but the Wayans Brothers. Such as, Very Scary Movies 1 and 2. That’s what I unwittingly compared her film to. Maybe I'm wrong, though? However, it is up to the viewer to decide what is better or worse. And yet, Daniel is more like Ray in the Wayans movie in this film. The same type and about the same behavior. I'm not surprised he wasn't at the press conference for the film. Apparently, he realized that the film is more like a parody, like Ruslan Balzer. Malinin played better, but something like a small one of the same Very Scary Cinema.
What about Zueva? I'm not talking about her acting. Sadly, even here, it doesn't belong. On the contrary, it only causes more confusion with its game. It would be better if she made this film in the United States, where real black actors would play. It would have worked.
An unconvincing drama with a deliberate criminal raid and the inevitable prefix quasi. Another story (among others of the same kind, which are quite tired and fifteen years late) about how hopeless and inexhaustible everything in Russia is, with access to the deepest bromance, now and then balancing on the verge of frank commasculation.
The picture, of course, has such advantages as: the beauty and youth of Angelina Strecina, decent camera work (however, it has a weak effect on the overall atmosphere of the film, which seems rather sparse, because it does not have a powerful dramatic support) and very, in my subjective opinion, reliable play by Elena Obolenska, but here's what about the main characters...
Danila Kozlovsky in the role of a street rapper is convincing about the same as Borya Moiseev in the role of Mikhail Baryshnikov, and, acting as gopnik-kostolom, the acting tandem as a whole looks almost more comical than the famous duet from the show ' Our Rasha'
Can someone find this interesting? Judging by the rating 'Kinopoisk', only the creators of the film. Does that surprise anyone?
The film is weak. The film is about nothing, empty.
Not so often you can come across a picture woven from solid minuses. The main characters are weaklings and losers who do not even know how to love. Many people shout that the film shows true feelings. Rough lies. They're not there at all. The usual act of copulation was to be regarded by the static viewer as the beginning of great love. And I, naively, always believed that love is a spiritualized, platonic, first of all, a feeling. The main characters are literally obsessed with sex with each other. They barely communicate, don’t know each other. Their interest starts at the physical level and gets stuck there.
Sadly. After all, if you wanted, you could make a decent movie, but for this you had to change everything - and the actors, and the director, and the plot. The plot, by the way, is not at all. Gravity is boring and heavy. Heavy not in terms of emotional load, but in terms of its complete absence. There’s nothing worse in a movie than heroes who don’t summon anything. No positive emotions or negative ones.
What could you capture in a tape like this? True feelings, strong and sincere experiences. There's a lot of crap in modern cinema. It seemed to me that the topic of homosexual love in this case was just a bait for a sophisticated viewer. It was boring, stingy, mediocre and sloppy.
Tommy Wiseau started directing classes? Nope. I'm serious. I can't explain it any other way.
I haven't really been following the news in the last few years. And I learned about this film by accident (after seeing a review of it from Evgen BadComedian in the recommendations of YouTube). And something went off in my head. I decided to look.
I'll start with the pluses: the operator did well. gave everything. I haven’t noticed any more.
And otherwise... Otherwise ' Darkness, dirt, fear and nothing human' as the character of Evgeny Leonov said in ' Gentlemen of Good Luck'. And it seems that the main message of the picture seems clear: being a gopnik from the district is not the best prospect. But this is how it's handled.
The whole movie is filled with characters. Mostly in the person of Danila Kozlovsky and Ilya Malanin, but there are a lot of secondary characters. And you don't believe them. No way. Speech, behavior, appearance ... They don't fit together. People don't communicate that way. Don't act like that. For example, the scene from the beginning of the film: the main characters arrive at .. rap battle (although it is so difficult to call it) the hero of Kozlovsky boasts to others & #39; squeezed & #39; for debts with a jacket, then reads the text (judging by the staging of the frame - his friend and GG part-time) and the two of them leave. And now imagine that you come to your friends at a cafe / beach / home, brag about a new jacket / backpack / shoes, read a poem and leave. .. Don't you think that's kind of stupid?
And that's pretty much the whole movie. The only scene that somehow gets knocked out and looks like the truth is the scene of GG walking with a girl with whom he is in love. And it seems to me that because there are literally a couple of lines of dialogue between the characters. The scenes are replaced by one another with a very weak (yes, it almost does not exist) connection with each other.
The actors in the film make up the images they are supposed to play. They do not want to believe or empathize. I do not believe in Kozlovsky as a gopnik, I do not believe that this is a person who is ' a six' a local gangster who in his 29 years (in the plot) beats people for debts, ' pushes ' personal belongings (up to cars) on account of debts, but after beating one only girl, his unfaithful friend ' the boss' realizes what a villain he is and wants to change. I do not believe that GG, the son of an intelligent woman and, as we are told, a good pianist, is a part-time geek who deals with debts. I don't believe people who pretend to be cops. Because it's not the police. That's how kids play police in a sandbox yard. And I don't believe everyone else either.
And in light of what was said, it was a shame for Kozlovsky: after all, there were 'Duchless' and 'Friday', it was fine. And here . . . 'In the neighborhood ' No, Danila, you won't be accepted in the area. This is not even the level of sketches from 'Give Youth'. It's some kind of fictional, sterile world of its own. And let Olga Zueva position her film as an image of life without embellishment, but on the output we have the same ' plastered' stylists film.
Thank you to the cameraman for the beautiful picture -
2 out of 10
P.S. Rethinking what was written and seen, I come to the conclusion that Zuyeva, the director, sees his native Vladivostok as “a beautiful place, but living here is not an alle”. Hence the flight of GG to Moscow for a better life.
P.P.S. I wanted to make the review neutral at first, but changed my mind.
"In the neighborhood" - through the eyes of a major girl.
This is ridiculous.
The main characters are two feminine boys who try to show themselves as guys from the neighborhood. The relationship between them seems to be friendly, but very clearly visible closer, which raises questions. The director, of course, says that this is a strong male friendship. Well, maybe so, but very much to the place for such a phrase remembers the humpback mountain. The main problem of these two comrades, besides their unclear relationship, is the order to beat a woman for treason - which brings discord between them. One of them believes that it is ignoble, and the second is not against such earnings. Beating men, dealing drugs, doing other things of the same plan - OK, there's nothing wrong with that.
A cardboard world that you don't believe in, guys who are bandits who look more like a couple of lovers than guys from the neighborhood, a ridiculous head of bandits, dialogues written on the back, a plot knitted on his knee and sewn with white threads - and all this is about this film. And all with the support of the Ministry of culture.
Throughout the film does not leave the feeling of inauthenticity, untruth, lies. It is difficult to imagine a person with such a stable moral code and belief in justice as the main character. There just aren't any left. They're extinct. Last century.
Can you imagine a teenager who is popular with girls but doesn’t have sex with them because he doesn’t feel for them? There is no such thing! At least because a young man who is overwhelmed with hormones will come up with love as quickly as excuses for his mother.
But if you take the main character as a role model, then everything falls into place. The director's faults are forgiven. Even the fact that the director himself undresses to the goal in his own film! The shortcomings and outright stupidities in the plot cease to worry when you begin to perceive the film as a fairy tale.
The girl made a film about the prince without a kingdom, but with a huge soul! About this Ivan-fool with principles.
The plot of the film tells us about two friends who wholeheartedly strive for a beautiful life. Do not hesitate to break the law if necessary, break someone's arm or leg if necessary. Until they are asked to beat the girl up! Girls aren't beaten, are they? That's the whole conflict!!
No, I'm lying, the conflict is much broader and deeper. It is about the readiness of modern man to sacrifice his own humanity, to sacrifice moral principles for money. For the sake of a new car, a beautiful life, respect and envy of others.
A film about a world of total alienation. In which the poor spend their lives and health to earn at least some money, and the rich do not know where to go and are in a state of boredom, despondency and dull despair. About our capitalist realities! In which sincerity, peace of mind and peace are impossible.
It is in this world that our prince runs. Showing an example of humanity, openness, mutual assistance and not vulgar, but pure love. He is the embodiment of all the good that can be gleaned from classical literature. As beautiful, clean and fragile as a dandelion that grew out of a crack in the asphalt.
It is dangerous to imitate him, not profitable, because his humanity leads to the fact that people die around him, and he himself throws himself on the run. His principles do not allow him to work like everyone else. His sensitivity to justice prevents him from becoming a highly effective scoundrel! It has no place in the modern world.
He's the Ivan-fool everyone thinks is an idiot, a crazy jerk. Until he finds the Humpback Horse or Sivka Burka. The tragedy of the main character is that he is just Ivan a fool. No bonuses or unique skills. And there is only one thing left for him... to hide his true essence, mimic others, pretend to be his own or run without looking back.
That's what makes the movie beautiful. It shows how modern culture, capitalist society grinds down, destroys, expels those who miraculously preserved their dignity, honor, respect and openness to other people. He doesn't need those. Here you either eat others, pretending to be good and constantly smiling, or eat you, taking away the latter, taking advantage of your trust and sincerity.
Killing the main villain doesn't solve anything! Because the scoundrel itself is the system of social relations! Only people like the main character can destroy it. But to do this, they need not to rush into hiding, but to unite into a single force.
A role model that is dangerous to follow.
I ask you to understand and forgive me, but I had some hopes for a film that was intriguing with a story about typical guys from the neighborhood. For unknown reasons, I was very interested in the trailer with the aggressive Danila Kozlovsky and the beautiful views of Vladivostok. Alas, my expectations regarding “On the District” were, to put it mildly, not justified. Squatting down and running a rapper, I began to write this review.
If we consider “On the District” as a ship, we can single out the most significant holes that pulled this cinematic ugliness to the bottom. The selection of actors and a talentless plot literally drowned this film, not giving it a single chance.
The cast is a quiet horror that causes the most outrage. Kozlovsky’s game seemed to me extremely unnatural and saturated with curves. He looked ridiculous in Status: Free. Ilya Malanin did not give the impression of a noble guy from the district who wants to take the right path and be the right person. His experiences are more similar to those of teenagers during transition. The main characters were as inorganic and flat as possible. I did not believe in their friendship, for they are empty and uncompassionate. The cherry on the cake absurd is the character of Olga Zueva, who is also the director of the film. Perhaps the most unnecessary character I have ever met in all of 2018 (and I watch movies very often).
The story does not cause positive emotions either. The story of stupid is clichéd and predictable. Such dramas about emotional torment and questions about what is good and what is bad, I have seen hundreds of times. And, believe me, “On the District” does not bring anything new to the genre of guys who wanted everything at once. Friendship, love, relationships with parents, social inequality are shown somehow strained and childishly naive. There is an insulting feeling that the authors of the film are far from the problems of youth and do not see the real picture.
“In the neighborhood” is a banal, dull and stupid tape in which the problem has not been formed. Only people with a very narrow outlook can like the film. For in this picture action is for action, and conversation for conversation. Morality and idea did not want to be present in this creation.
You're right, I killed people, Mr. Bailey. Sometimes to protect yourself. Sometimes it's money. A lot of people came to us. Business partners, rivals, lovers. Some things we did, some things we didn't. I would never take your case, Mr. Bailey.
- Is this a way to get revenge?
- Nope. That's just how I look at things.
'Once Upon a Time in America', 1983, dir. Sergio Leone
No matter what film critics say, viewers-writers, pleasing the audience with reviews, and now breaking spears indignantly, but I liked the film.
This is a Gangster Cinema. And 'Once Upon a Time in America' a roll call of heroes. Their heroes are with Ours. There's Noodles and Uncle here, Wovan and Kitty. Two pairs of hands fit for any job. And this is ' Zhmurki' Alexei Balabanova with his Simon with Sergey wheeling ' on business ' Mikhalkova, sorry, ' Mikhalich'.
What, you think it's a weak movie? So don't judge, the lady filmed. Where did you see a Gangster movie shot by a woman? Well, this way, without reference to encyclopedias, ratings, REVIEW? What? Nothing to say? That, that. Accept it. And have mercy. If you are ready to overcome your own pride.
Well, no, so look what a girl's job is. Except for the shorts, it's Debut. Debut, friends. What a fight! Madame or better, Mademoiselle, I kneel before you. Sergio Leone created ' parable' at 54. This is the master's seventh film. Alexei Balabanov is the tenth film and 46 years behind him at that time. Olga Zueva was barely 35. What do you want, dear ones?
Yes, the film ' suffers' a certain femininity. He can't be any different. Initially. Of course, smoothed, combed, ironed, sponges summed up, well ... there are arrows on the trousers, a jacket at the very beginning of Guchi - and after all, it was a trial, so to speak, ball, in us spectators - ladies' things. And in the first shots about the childbearing organ, the bathing scene, only a woman could serve it. Not a man. Don't you understand?
How did film lovers not see all the charms? Fountaining Primorye with a breath of fresh sea breeze from the Golden Horn and Amur Bay into our open-screened computers.
Two washed, handsome boys cook in the city's winds looking for their place in the sun. They take on semi-criminal cases for a living. Stress someone, push them, scare them. All right, hand it over. Isn't it real? Quite. One is colder, the other is hot. In conjunction, they complement each other. Almost brothers. Where are the boundaries that cannot be crossed? Everyone has their own internal censor. And morality, norms are blurred and shifted by the culture of upbringing, the environment, the conscience at last. Crossed the line and there is no return. And everyone makes their own choices. It's elementary. It's simple.
Cinema for recreation.
I recently watched the film ' On the District' which was the debut for Olga Zueva as a director. In my opinion, there are many shortcomings in this picture, but what I did not like the most was the problem that was not fully formulated.
Let’s start with the main thing – the lack of meaning. After watching this movie, I asked myself: '. What was the film about?' Unfortunately, I was unable to give an accurate answer to myself. The main character, Vladimir, is a bandit who wants an honest and calm life. Having acknowledged his weaknesses, Vladimir embarks on the right path. But nothing comes of it and everything falls apart. In a scene where the main character dips the employer in the paint is very important for posing the problem of this film. According to Vladimir, people of low status are also people in the full sense of the word and have the same rights to happiness as everyone else. It seems to me that the purpose of this film was just to convey to the audience about the equality of people. But all the subsequent events tell us little and from the middle of the film there are little meaning to the associated scenes and at the end of the film Vladimir escapes from the city to Moscow, in search of a better life. Thus, it becomes very difficult to understand what the author of the picture wanted to tell us. In conclusion, I dare say that there is no specific intent or very poor interpretation of the film.
Now I can’t help but tell the secondary storyline of the main character. Vladimir believes in true love, and he finds it. However, throughout the film, we see a single scene of love between the bandit and Cinderella & #39. Nowhere else can we find the hero’s feelings about his beloved. It seems that the director for a while forgot about any love in principle. And only at the end of the film, the Hero plunges into the happiest memories, namely that single scene of love.
So, the only advantages of this work consist of a good performance of the actors and keeping the viewer interested in the subsequent actions of the characters. So I can give this film a 4/10 rating.
Rap culture as such has had a major impact on street culture. Luber brothers and Gopniks gave way to the boys from the area, who are long over thirty, and the victory in the battle is the only thing they can be proud of. Entrance romance is not etched out by museums and educational channels, so everything eventually results in something like the film “On the District” – a pretentious attempt to look into the soul of modern young people choosing between the remnants of honor and a comfortable life. The idea is commendable, but not so necessary: it is doubtful that anyone, except fans of such lyrical images, "On the District" will be interesting, and this target audience is unlikely to watch it - the series of "Real Boys" are not yet wiped to holes.
So, Kisa and Vovan live in Vladivostok, drinking beer, rapping, bathing and knocking out debts for some Shamil. Wovan wants to break out of the circle of idleness, and Kisa gets bogged down in the criminal world. The next task separates friends – concepts do not allow one of them to beat a woman, and then Wovan falls in love.
“In the neighborhood” is just incredibly conditional in terms of its history. The script, woven from some ideas about how such people live (the feeling that the director Olga Zueva her characters, or at least their world, were not interesting herself - so everything here is presented in a stereotypical format), is built on conventions. These conventions are opposed to each other and certainly not for the sake of increasing contrasts; "good" Wovan resonates with the scumbag Kisa to go from a tidy rich quarter to some slums.
Such a harmless interpretation of events only worsens the atmosphere. Olga Zueva lacked the energy, or perhaps even some anger, to show the world of young people rejected by modern Russia. All this results in caricatures of these same representatives of the lost generation, who, according to Zueva, can only call each other “brothers” and behave like teenage primates.
“In the area” and bad implementation. There are two main claims against her. One is creepy caste. For “our everything” Danila Kozlovsky “On the district” would be a good opportunity to experiment with the dark side to move away from the image of a sweet young man. Alas, the gopnik from Kozlovsky failed, and it is not as an acting game: this is absolutely not the role that Kozlovsky needs in filmography. The sham tattoos and habits of the gopnik do not complete the image, but rather enhance the miscast. The second reason is the decorations. The action takes place in Vladivostok, but the color of one of the most interesting Russian cities is not absolutely conveyed - Olga Zuyeva in her project spread her thoughts on the tree and embodied some collective image of the village from vast and powerful expanses.
Curiously, the release of “In the district” took place at about the same time as another drama about the lives of young people – “Acid” Gorchilin. The latter raises questions about the existence of well-fed Moscow slackers in modern Russia, and Zueva, as if on opposition, wants to look into the world of the extreme rung of the domestic social ladder at the other end of the country – busy, “eternally young, eternally drunk” Vladivostok renegades. It seems that Zueva looked at this world from somewhere, not immersed in the topic: except for the philosophy of the level of “boys’ publics”. There is nothing in the neighborhood.
Imagine a teenage girl. 15 years. She likes bad boys, she listens to Russian rap, swears and drinks beers. And she feels really cool. This girl can even be a diligent A.D., but with an even greater love for bad boys. And these boys are definitely listening to rap, swearing and drinking. And they walk around the district as if they keep it, imagine themselves at least Sasha White, and their friends - a brigade. And this girl may be 30 years old, but somehow she still has a love for bad boys. And she likes this stupid backyard aesthetic. And it seems that by the age of 30, she can treat this with maximum nostalgia. Well, we all wanted to feel cool at 15. But somehow she's doing it seriously. As you know, this girl was Olga Zueva - director and screenwriter of the film "On the District". Director Olga is as bad as the actress. And it's even sad that Danila chose one. But you can't tell your heart.
So here's the movie. Two friends of Kis (Kozlovsky) and Wovan, who want to live beautifully, make a living doing errands for the local authority Shamil (I don’t even want to wonder why the director/screenwriter awarded him such a clique). The authority is stupid, stupid and arrogant, drives a huge wheelbarrow with the inscription “Combat” all over the board, constantly eats, talks to strange voices and tries to push philosophical speeches. The problem is that the image is not comic. This is not a banter over a man of 40 years, who in 2018 is trying to live according to the concepts of the 90s.
At first, both friends are not bad. They run up on people they don't like Shamil, they read a rapper, they try to get girls. But Wovan likes life less and less. The final rejection causes the commission to beat the lady of Shamil's heart, who cheats on him. On the basis of this, friends swear, Vovan goes to the construction site (well, where else?!), starts a relationship with a good girl from the choir (well, with whom else?!) and even her mother begins to be proud of him. But then everything goes downhill. Interestingly, Vova (as a positive hero) has a background. We see his mother, his relationships with women (“I can’t do it without love,” as he tells Zueva’s heroine, who tries to sleep with him), and Kozlovsky’s hero is a flat and uninteresting character. He has no past, no interests, true aspirations and desires. Just "car, apartment and girl." Just like everyone else. So he rolls into the abyss and frames his friend. Forgiveness, by the way, such a real bad boy can only be in the style of rap. It is he who reads from a leaf when he tries to reconcile with Vova. But a director who is in love with yard aesthetics cannot make him such a negative character. No, of course not. He is subtle, sensitive and full of dignity. This is what we should feel in a dramatic scene in the pouring rain in the finale.
I don’t know what the director wanted to say, but I had to hold my head for the whole film because I hadn’t seen anything more ridiculous in the movies in a long time. And absurdity is not just untalented. She's stupid, limited and shameful. I like this movie can only those 15-year-old girls and boys who are still fascinated by all this rebellious coolness. And the only thing that could save a movie with such a theme is the banter. Well, in 2018, adults cannot seriously admire the unfinished authorities from the district. They can either be scolded or condemned, showing the tragedy of their worldview and the ugliness of their actions. And Zuyeva sincerely admires them, which kills the last respect for himself.
2 out of 10
I haven’t seen a Russian movie in a long time. I can not clearly and clearly describe what drove me to attend the premiere of the film & #39; On the district & #39; and even to drag friends with you (with enthusiasm, please note). Most likely, we were influenced by one simple teenage ' fun '. The name was funny, and Kozlovsky in the role of Gopnik seemed the apotheosis of the stupidity of Russian cinema. However, coming out of the cinema on our faces was shock, surprise, and the condition resembled some kind of trance. It may sound senseless and merciless, but it was! During the film, we looked at ambiguous expressions several times, but I will say one thing – the movie influenced, grabbed the skin and hit the mud of Russian realities.
1. Olga Zuyev. This is her first film, and I hope not her last. The girl definitely has the makings of a good director, extraordinary thinking and a fresh look at the worn-out impossible things. She managed from the banal plot to make quite suitable drama, with real conflicts and justify.
2. I also want to mention the work of the group that remains outside the film. Well-chosen musical accompaniment, as well as outstanding work of the operator (except for the first frame, when the pier and the coast of the Sea of Japan were spinning for two minutes and I almost vomited).
3. Actors and their characters. To begin with, I will touch on the secondary composition - for example, the heroes of Olga Zueva and Angelina Strecina. Both girls are beautiful and perhaps talented, but in this film their roles are empty. There is very little time for them, and that might not have happened. They look fake, fake and nothing at all. It would have been better without them!
Mother Vova, that is, Elena Obolenskaya, quite got used to the role, caused sympathy, and throughout the film did not strain. As for the main characters... Danila Kozlovsky is a good talented actor, all his films are interesting for the target audience and have a very not shameful rating. His character Kisa is crazy and unpredictable. But Ilya Malanin has the opposite - his character strives ' to the light ', tries to correct. Despite all the differences, they are together. And when you look at it, it seems that 'together' they are literally, literally. I don’t want to bother with this topic, but the way the guys look at each other, interact, as they say – from the first minutes to the end. I’m not lying, saying that in Hollywood films with LGBT themes and that relationship is dry and fresh. Moreover, what I liked - the authors of the picture did not go into it, left on the surface, they say, clear boys smoking and swearing with mat, also people and also feel something. This I considered very serious, and if at first everything seemed just ridiculous, then in the end I tried not to choke on the snot from the troubles piled on Kisa and Vova. Surely, on such ' warm & #39; the relationship between the characters was influenced by the female hand of the director. I would not like to generalize, but the film is still made by a girl, she is inherent in tenderness and romanticism, which she gave these guys. I'm not the one to judge. It looked good. Maybe it's better that the heroes were softened by a kind of affection for each other, rather than they were wild savage brutish men. Hell, what to hide - to me, as a young girl, it is in principle sympotistic!
4. I laugh in a fist at the negative and even aggressive reviews of people, apparently waiting for ' On the district' a powerful social drama, author's cinema, 10/10, ' so that grandchildren would not be ashamed to show' Of course, it was immediately clear that there would be no masterpiece. We are still in Russia, and here is a chic film about Gopniks, sorry, a phenomenon almost impossible. So, for its level, the film is beautiful, with pleasure to review for the second, perhaps the third time.
The ending is appropriate, everything ended as it should. Such a story simply cannot have a different ending. Anyway, I advise everyone. Sometimes we need to look at such a life and thank you that the truth (albeit a little pompous and theatrical) is still shown to us. A separate plus for Vladivostok - the city is amazingly suited to the atmosphere 'On the district'.
That is for sure many, as I was tormented by the question - who the (censorship) Olya Zuev?
The girl did not come from where and immediately directorial debut. Yes, with Danila Kozlovsky!
No, I don't want to discuss their personal life! Let the tabloids of a known color do this.
Director is a very difficult profession, which many go for years. And those who got into the profession with young nails can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And we have a young lady playing!
We've seen it somewhere before. . .
The picture is feverish in every place since history. She's very primitive. We wanted to make a crime drama - so even peripherals in soap operas are more interesting for housewives. Gopniks? Well, they don't sympathize. Not convinced.
Again, the subject of rap. It was so interesting to be able to do this. But no! I may not know much about the genre, but Nigative is clearly two or three heads below artists like Husky or Scriptonite. And even before Miron Yanovich he is like the moon.
The camera work of Fyodor Lyas was also upset. It seems to be one of the top operators, and the second picture in a row was replaced. What's that shaking camera? Why are there no interesting plans?
And apogee, Danila. Well, look, he's never played such a nasty game! Saying he doesn't believe it doesn't say anything. I don’t think he even played in the theater.
All this from an inexperienced director. And the producers (including Kozlovsky) who supported this outrage. No, if it was at your own expense, then no question! But when such a surrogate is made for public money...
Life is far more imperfect than cinema. Don't pick on me.
When did the movies promote anything? And when someone was held back that in movies, bad guys get paid for their nefarious business? It is not necessary to ascribe to an artistic work non-existent functions. And the fact that men in Our Rush have a hard time is for sure. And, yes, the choice is not rich - either to bend or not. You have to live now. I know nothing about film criticism. I’m not talking about the script, it’s also the director. But he aroused genuine feelings, despite Shamil’s mooring and other sins. And Vladivostok is a huge, terrible, beautiful city. And there's all sorts of things going on. The hero will not escape from himself or his pursuers. He wants to look at himself in the mirror in the morning. Let him try. I'm in. Yeah, look around! This is life, not a work of art. It has no main character line and no love lines either. There's just life. And more often it looks like an endless series, in which the sparks of successful series and seasons come across, and in general - not a masterpiece. That's how it works. How do I tell you about life? This is an almost impossible task.
I am not an expert in ballet, equestrian sports, aircraft construction and in many other things, respectively, I do not express my opinion about them. And I am surprised, if not outraged, when they make a movie about things that neither the writer nor the director understands, and the “consultants” apparently have an idea about the topic gleaned from the Internet. This film is not about guys from paradise, this is an adaptation of foreign analogues to our realities, which of course causes a smile and regret about the money spent by the Ministry of Culture (state, by the way), since the resulting symbiosis is far from Russian realities and does not carry anything in itself.
Written and directed.
We wanted to make everything cool, it turned out as always - miserable. When I watched, I had my first question: Who are all these people? And two, what are they doing? No, the canvas was clear to a couple of gopniks do not bother with questions about how to earn money and commit crimes under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and in the category of serious crimes. Well, I agree with the film and it is not surprising, but why suddenly one of the Koreans suddenly decided to become honest and break with the criminal past is a matter of motivation. The explanation in the film did not suit me, it is impossible with a light heart to go on crimes for a number of years, and then abruptly tie up because of the pangs of conscience, and then just as sharply again to violate the law. Going further, apparently, the screenwriter and director is simply not aware of how the Russian Federation is looking for criminals, that one move to another city the accused will not hide from the investigation – also the question of what nonsense – the federal search no one canceled. The line of Vovan and Lida is a mini masterpiece in the film itself, if you thought about showing Zuev in underwear, then it is clear, and if you relate to the hero, then again his motives are incomprehensible. And of course, the wonderful rap battles - it definitely shifted Western analogues to our tracks and turned out nonsense, the intelligence of the guys from Rayna will not pull them in the form shown. Shooting on such a theme, it was necessary to study the preferences of heroes in music outside the Garden Ring and the Moscow Ring Road. The main villain Shamil is generally a cartoon character in both appearance and actions. That's who turned out to be whole so Kisa, but also with a clear distortion in some Western pathos. In general, the scenario was unsuitable, both in meaning and in action. The director’s hand, which was supposed to fix it or at least smooth it out, lacked experience. Instead, there was a fascination with species plans for Vladivostok, beautifully and thank the operator, but I did not go to the cinema to cut species.
Actors.
Danila Kozlovsky (Kisa) was probably the only one who understood that he was playing, albeit with pathos, albeit in pseudo-reality, but his gopnik turned out to be at least integral. But Ilya Malanin was less fortunate, his Gopnik intellectual clearly failed. Vovan's torment is the thumb-sucking suffering of refined plankton from a cafe in central Moscow, but not a guy from the outskirts or a ghetto, as the film says. Female heroines did not turn out at all that Angelina Strecina (Sonya), that Olga Zueva (Lida), that Elena Obolenskaya in the role of Vovan's mother - none of the word at all. I’m not going to talk about other actors, it’s very bad.
Conclusion.
Probably, if I were to express an opinion about ballet, equestrian sports, etc., I would at least try to study the peculiarities of what I have to deal with, and would not put on the same board ballerinas and striptease dancers, race horses with horseback, plus give them the peculiarities of Western countries, if we are talking about Russia. In the film “On Raen” happened exactly the opposite, filmed about “clear grooms and typonics”, only forgot to study how and what these characters live.
And I will express my opinion on the support of the Ministry of Culture - I am for such films, if they are shot on their own or attracted money, failed at the box office - it happens, the risk of entrepreneurship, raised money, so guessed with the topic - well done. But the state support for such projects is still strange, since the film does not carry any morals or incentive message. And at this rate, you can expect the film “AUE” about thieves’ romance.
" I, as a student, missed my most important lesson.
The social and criminal drama “On the District” is another directorial debut, this time Olga Zueva, a model and young actress known to viewers for the role of Varie in the film “Coach”. The film tells the story of two friends, such “real boys” from the province (Danila Kozlovsky and Ilya Malanin), who are closely connected with the world of crime and live according to their own laws, but one day their paths diverge. Olga Zueva also acted as a screenwriter. The film is not based on real events, but at the same time it is not a look from the outside, the main characters have prototypes. As Zueva said in an interview, she is from Vladivostok and has a younger brother who was a very troubled child. “It’s like coming home,” says the director, “I always feel this flow in the neighborhood.”
This film is a revelation about life outside of social gatherings in “cities of opportunity” like Moscow or St. Petersburg. Unlike the characters of Acid, its heroes cannot be reproached for infantileness. Here are the aesthetics of the 90s and “reality” (“the boy said – the boy did”), which is completely deprived of secular society. The true discovery of this is the film by Ilya Malanin, whose game is striking in its realism and unusually “catchy”. As for Danila Kozlovsky, one can see how difficult it was for an intelligent person to portray cattle, but he coped with the task: his character turned out to be so disgusting that, as Ivan Urgant aptly put it, “you want to spit directly.” And, of course, it is impossible not to mention the work of the operator Fyodor Lyass: impressive views of Vladivostok, beautiful plans, non-standard angles - all this, of course, is very adorning the picture.
The film asserts, though not indisputably, the priority of these concepts over the power of the material stimuli of being. Two friends are welded together by a common past, and a high degree of trust, which allows not only to verbally cut the truth into the eye, but also to reinforce it with physical actions. The hero of Ilya Malanin realizes that they are going in the wrong place and tries to convince his friend not to plunge further into the dirt into which they got themselves in the service of Shamil. But Kozlovsky’s hero is too eager for a “beautiful life” and is unable to “jump off the needle” of material well-being. Nevertheless, in a difficult moment, one and the other are next to each other, sacrificing their own interests and risking everything, as befits true friends.
Malanin, in my opinion, is in no way inferior to the eminent partner, who very clearly appeared in the unusual role of the “boy from the street”, who stayed in the role of an errand boy. Elena Obolenskaya shrillly showed endless motherly love and the phrase - I will love you anyone - sounds very convincing in her mouth. The heroine Angelina Strecina attracts with purity and naturalness, although she shows initiative, as well as party girls in chic outfits. The colorful image of a drug dealer, who thinks himself a philosopher and a subtle connoisseur of truths and drinks, looking around with a tired squint, complements the gallery of bright characters of the film.
As a disadvantage, I see the inappropriate pedaling of rap without music.
Better to watch the trailer a few times than the movie itself.
Before the next movie, my wife and I saw the trailer for this film.
'O! Kozlovsky in a new look. Vladik, not a beaten-up location. Oh! The trailer is so cheerful, there is a conflict. Let's give a chance why not. Let's go!'
Come on.
I was very surprised to learn that the writer and director is the girl with the slurred acting: Aida. Literally from the first frames of this film, I began to feel dizzy, from incredible camera decisions. I am sure that the same girl was directly involved in the camera work. So, then the head will be cut off to the actor, then the dialogue will be raised from above from below. Ugh. A lot of shots and shot scenes that do not carry any meaning. It’s just a beautiful scene, but if nothing changes, the logic won’t break.
Oh, what a beautiful scene of GG and BOSS meeting in an empty stadium.
': Why do we meet in a landfill? Do you think the mall is closed?' - In all serious cases
Logic. The narrative is extremely ragged and unstructured. A long introduction to the affairs of the boys abruptly ends for no reason (a small dialogue in a cafe with chewing moral values, is not the reason).
Then one of the GGs is punished (and this is quickly forgotten). Next, show the relationship of the same GG with the mother. Then something else happens... Sorry, I sometimes completely lost the thread of narratives, or rather it was extremely difficult to find this thread.
It seems that this is a set of events in different periods of time. Moreover, the way of showing these events and inducing a particular action is dialogue. GGs talk about what they're doing and why. And this is a marker of the insolvency of the director and screenwriter (one person). Cinema is the language of visual narrative. But not in this case.
My personal opinion is that the dialogues were written by a person who believes that people in working-class areas talk like this. They can neither confirm their thoughts logically by a chain of judgments, nor explain what they want from each other. They can't do anything. The dialogue in this movie, the concrete garbage. That's what I think.
Yes, I probably underestimated my grade, but I didn’t make it to the end of the movie. Got up and left. It's a pity I've contributed some money to the creators. But who is not mistaken?
I hope my humble judgment will help someone not to make a mistake as I did.
2 out of 10
I want a house, a girl, a car. I want to live like everyone else. Now, not later.
Recently, Kozlovsky’s films have caused only pleasant impressions, so I went to this picture without thinking. However, it was a hasty decision. History, in one word, is empty. There was no great meaning, action, storyline to tears. I walked out of the cinema and could not even put into words what the movie was about, it turned out so badly. So what is it about and why is it not delicious?
In the center of the plot are the two best. Two grown men about to turn 30. They do not do what would be worth in their years, but just look for ways to easily get money. One likes to drive a car and has long dreamed of a new cool car. Another kind of brain is bigger. What else can we say about the plot? Oh, yeah, they work for a local thug. He asks them to get money out of the debtors. And maybe that's what the guys would be if one day the boss didn't order his mistress to be beaten up for walking left. That's where the boys' opinions diverged. One had a conscience, and the other just wanted everything at once.
Then you sit there and wait for something. The hero is about to come to his senses, or he may decide to change. Either way, the brains will turn on. But no. Everything's going well. The farther into the forest, the scarier.
As for the love lines, they are extremely stupid. One character doesn't have them at all. The other one has two. Both are strange, illogical and extremely ridiculous.
I can’t say much about music either. Their eternal rap motifs, performed by actors ... sounded just to the ears. I wanted this to be over soon.
In general, I can say that the director clearly created something that he does not understand. Everything is too stupid, so much so that sometimes you want to close your eyes and stop looking. Events jump like one solid blunder.
It’s a shame that Kozlovsky’s new film came out like this. Shame. And yes, it is a pity to spend money on going to the movies.
3 out of 10
When at the beginning of the viewing I see the stigma of horror with the inscription ' With the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation' I have a trigger: the film begins to be perceived many times more critically, and the hand itself begins to look for the stone. But this time the throw didn't happen. Why? Because this film is not a sickening comedy, is not a vile remake of Soviet classics and is not a bucket of impurity poured into history. There is no advertising at every step, there is no vodka on the rights of almost the main character, there is no craze, drugs and other things. There are no policemen behaving like moral freaks, no army behaving like degenerates. In other words, the worst thing that happens in films with such a label is not on the screen. At the same time, the picture, albeit with reservations, carries the right message that being a hopnik is kind of not very good and you can end up badly. And although I sincerely doubt that even one adept of AUE culture will change his views after watching, we will not throw stones. But what about rotten eggs and rotten tomatoes? After all, it is a work of art and one should appreciate its elements.
Let's start with the pros:
1. As already mentioned, the plot carries a relatively certain morality, and if you scroll it briefly in your head, it is not so bad. Events are quite coordinated, the main characters are prescribed motivation, words and actions mostly coincide, I did not see hard plot holes. So at least the canvas can be praised.
2. 'Good Gopnik' performed by Malanin. Well, mostly because he's kind of 'good'. At the same time, it is absolutely incomprehensible how a person with such a delicate mental organization and an intelligent mother (the actress’s play, by the way, is excellent) came to life like this. But in general, the character is spelled out well, so a small plus in the piggy bank.
3. Technical side of the question. Yes, the sound director for some scenes you have to wheel, but the camera work is good. The footage is pleasant and juicy, some views of Vladivostok are really chic.
Cons:
1. In this paragraph I would like to write down the appeal:
Dear Danila Kozlovsky, you are not the worst Russian actor. Your roles in Legend 17, Spiritless, the comedy Friday and your own movie Coach are good and prove that you can and can, but please, from the bottom of your heart, never try to play Gopnik again. It may be the director’s and the writers’ fault, and you’re just the performer, but it was so awful that I wanted to gouge out my eyes. There's some twitchy, imbecile, anxious schizophrenic, autism junkie out there. And no, that's not realism. Even the most savage oppressors do not behave like this.
2. Terrible acting. Kozlovsky plays normally, but his character causes only disgust, the second walks with one face the whole film, which does not allow him to empathize. In the end, we don’t care about the characters, don’t care what happens to them, don’t care about the ending, don’t care about everything. The only one who does not care about it is Vovan’s mother, but this is not enough to make the film at least awe in the soul.
3. There is also a lack of atmosphere. The cameraman tried to play with plans, music played in the background, but none of it worked. The film absolutely lacks action. All the important moments happen behind the scenes. The experiences of the characters are revealed mainly through dialogue, not emotions on the face and actions. You don’t care about that anymore.
By and large, the genre of the film, its positioning, remains incomprehensible to the end. If it's an action movie, where's the action? If drama, where is suspense and emotion? If it’s about the realists, where’s the realism? If the art house with allegories and references, where are the allegories and references? If social advertising is for two hours, why is there no alternative to a criminal lifestyle, and where it is shown, it has the opposite meaning? So it turns out that this is a spherical dull kinzo in a vacuum that does not go even under popcorn.
And yet, coming back to the topic of the Ministry of Culture, still, in my opinion, this is exactly the project that this state body should be engaged in, because there is a feeling that the creators did not saw money, but at least tried to create something good and high-quality, delivering the right message. And even if a particular film turned out to be frankly weak, another project can shoot.
I leave this review neutral, and the film itself put a three with a huge minus. On the verge of failure, but there is still something good.
5 out of 10
Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio said, We are not thinking machines that can also feel. We are sentient machines that can also think. First of all, we remember not events, but the emotions that they caused us.
So what are the emotions that arise in the viewer immediately after watching the film “On the District”?
Admiration! Admiration for the amazing very successful debut of screenwriter and director Olga Zueva.
The story that Olga wants to tell the viewer in her film “On the District” at first glance is very simple: two boys try to get everything from life at once, using the method of force, intimidation. It seems that they do not know the limits of what is allowed, morality is completely absent. But this is just the first impression.
Two friends with common values and interests at the beginning of the film, in the middle, differ in views, begin to assess differently what they make money, how they spend time. The hero of Ilya Malanin Vova understands this a little earlier, tries to influence his friend Kishu performed by Kozlovsky, to prevent the beating of the girl - a step that will drop Andrei Kishu to the bottom. Unfortunately, Vova fails to stop Andrey, and Kisya will go his own way of realizing the harmfulness of the chosen path. It will pass through the fall, the torment of conscience.
In the film “On the District” a very successful selection of actors, good directorial work, clear, logical, catchy script.
The role of a positive, if you can say so, hero went to Ilya Malanin. The hero of Ilya has a more subtle mental organization. Able to sympathize, love, can be faithful and loyal. Here the dialogues of Vova and Sophia, Vova and mother play an important role. The mother-son dialogue is very simple on the one hand, and on the other hand it is very real and sincere. There are few of them, but each is very important. From these mother-son conversations, we can understand why Vova is so different from Kishu.
The role of the negative Kisi is brilliantly played by Danila Kozlovsky. We have never seen anything like this before this film. Danila Kozlovsky talentedly creates a completely new, atypical character for a boy from the street, setting his own laws. The hero of Kozlovsky for a long time remains only negative: he beats a girl, escapes and betrays a friend when he is involved in a showdown with the police and drug dealers. But by the end of the film, it changes. We are witnessing the rebirth of Kisi. He's ashamed of beating up a girl, and on the day she's discharged from the hospital, he comes to see that she's okay. Having betrayed a friend at first, Kisya gives him a chance for a new life.
The film is interesting to people of all generations, but, first of all, it seems to me, it is focused on young people: cool modern music, favorite rap, all this against the background of finding yourself and your place in the city, country, world. The whole film is the maturation of the soul of the heroes, which, of course, is important and should be seen by young people, because in Kis and Vov many people can recognize themselves. The heroes of the film, speaking the same language as some of the current boys, may help the guys to better understand in life without moralizing, a clear example. The film "On the District" is a drama of human relations against the background of posturing. It makes you think about when the game ends and life itself begins, forcing you to choose, make decisions, take responsibility for your actions and loved ones.
Throughout the film, we watch the boy become a man. It is absolutely necessary to watch the film.
>
It's scary when these pictures come out. We are clearly given to understand, not on purpose, that ' boy' slang is cheap, but ' boys' from the district they will check out, they will give a crab, they will knock a fist, they will light a cigarette impulsively, they will choose a piece of eyebrow, as a daring boy should, and they will say that a film was made about them. I mean, well, think about it. Olga Zuyeva apparently believes that their majority and they are proud of their manners, sports, Mashka from the third entrance.
I don’t want to say that I hate such so-called “right guys” & #39; I rather feel indignation when they try to sell me a film about them that is not shiny with a script, full of cliches and pretentious characters. Danna, why did you get into this? Danila Kozlovsky in recent years deserved respect and for good reason was proclaimed one of the best domestic actors. But he doesn’t seem to be very selective about projects. But, Olga, his beloved, you can play, thought Danila. He's good in this movie. He's alone, by the way.
The film is about two real boys who know life and live by concepts. One is Kisa and the other is Wovan. They're the best friends in the world. But their paths diverge when a certain Shamil makes an offer, which only one of them refuses. And the other (Kise) , in fact, does not care how and what to earn. And then everything 'boy' nature Kisy collapses and it turns out that he can even break into a girl, and Vovan, the boy is correct, because it is not fitting to raise a hand on a woman. Dilemma: to break or not to break? That's the whole dramaturgy of the picture. And, well, let's say we scooped up the idea, but why a number of clichés in the form of rap reading, drugs, some cheap and lousy showdowns, fights, etc.? Is it true that Olga Zuyeva sees the boys from the district? It's offensive, don't you guys?
'Food-values' are definitely worth raising, aren't they, Olga? Why doesn’t Olga want to present this uncivilized script? In trying to give some social context, Olga causes dislike for ' the right guys'. In trying to communicate with ' the right guys' in their language, Olga causes a storm of indignation from the ordinary viewer, who, you know, tired of clicking seeds at his entrance ' the right guys' Through the word: 'Huh, bro!' or 'Yow' and similar words, which are designed to denote what is 'right boys', all the same, poverty of thought. I don't want to identify myself with the Gopniks. I am able to understand many pictures, but I have no desire to identify with these 'correct' only in my imagination.
From the middle of the film, the plot sags and finally sinks to the bottom, and the motivation of the characters is not convincing and causes doubts. 'Beast' rap battles look wretched, and recitative is not inspiring, or rather, not ' rocks' as they say. The Western ghetto was not covered. By the way, if there is a continuation, I am waiting for a confrontation between two cities, where they will frame, who is more authoritative. Well, if no one understood, then in the US in the 90s there was a confrontation between the two coasts, which led to no small casualties. I wouldn’t be surprised if Zuyeva wanted to do something like that, since she was so drawn into 'boy' wilds.
The message is simple. Show the younger generation what is good and what is bad. It's about hard choices, about how easy it is to make decisions when your future is probably at stake. A major life or a clear conscience? There is something in it, but the case is presented ridiculously and clumsy. Scenario bottom! And, I refuse to accept such a cultureless layer of society, this propaganda & #39; concepts & #39; and boyish slang. Zuyeva is trying to cover it up with drama that doesn't work.
Let me tell you how annoying these pseudo-criminal showdowns are. Do we have fighting in every yard, like in hot spots? Bodies lie on top of corpses, trunks on trunks? Are the young men ready to show themselves? No, it's all exaggerated for entertainment. They got it from the West, but they can shoot beautifully about such things, and as you can see, the criminal component of this film is not good for anything.
This morning was a waste of money. I don't recommend going to the movies. Take a look at your home if you like these pictures. It is sponsored by ' Ministry of Culture', which smacks of double standards. Domestic cinema has set foot on the illusory path of self-improvement, but, in fact, hopeless degradation. Elementary psychology says that when a person embarks on a path of degradation, he never admits that he is degraded. Self-deception, denial and parasitism as the fundamental principles of a fading culture.
I don't understand, does the Ministry of Culture want to eradicate this way of life or promote it?
I hope Movie Search will forgive me for some slang expressions, but the film is appropriate.
P.S
Vladivostok is a beautiful city. Thanks to the cameraman, now I want to visit him.