I will never admit that Russian cinema is in a deep knockout! I’ll never agree that they don’t know how to shoot! “Love in the big city-3” – buried, and glory, O Lord!
The triquel of the audacious response to “Sex...”, like its predecessor – the sequel, atrimausya (Belarusian. – for a change) is unlike its predecessor. It turned out to be more fun, incredibly bright, bow to the legs of the editors - faster and shorter, and in general - an exemplary example of how we need and can shoot funny modern romcoms, exactly those - that at times. I mean, once I looked and once I forgot!
Why is it such a good movie and a good movie? Don't know! But, as I learned just 5 minutes ago, there is a full-fledged series on the third part - and it is 360 minutes, i.e. 6 hours instead of 1 hour and 19! The series, by the way, kick and shove, but the full meter is estimated higher! Perhaps because all the water from the series, all the excess, unnecessary and sucked out of the finger - evaporated, and in the movies stuffed only the most carbon monoxide!!
Do you mind?! I'm not!!! And, by the way, this is why...
.. Furious heels, nunnies and smears, by some miracle - already fathers, but funny guys Sauna, Theme and Ihorek again, already for the ninth time - flopped, but, this time, how big!!
If there is a film on the planet “Sorry, dear, I increased our children” – and it does exist, then its main problem somewhat affected this glorious / inglorious trinity.
.. Unable to cope with nothing but sleep, cans of beer and grinder, young, God forgive, fathers ... remain alone with their offspring, releasing all four faithful wives.
Promise love, promise the stars from the sky, humiliate and lay on the floor - Ooh! That's what they do! But what about fatherhood?! Will young parents be able to tame the unrestrained fervor of childhood in their continuations for a few days? . .
Will they succeed? . .
Will everyone be alive and well? . .
..mothers can sleep peacefully?!!
- Do not go to the fortune teller! No, of course!!
It is not enough that the fathers do not do anything! So also managed to provoke the familiar Valentine to another magical feat: children to MANIFICATION and BIGN!
..for evil, Valentine, you?! - No, of course not. Only with good intentions! As always...
. . . but it would be all, however, nothing . . . but the wife does not know . . it means! .
.. I mean...
.. which means it's time to get everything back to square one and, of course, not for easy.. HOW!.. to save your families from another imminent death!. to go to the other end of the world for the miraculous salvation of children! for the sake of LOVE!. to get another lesson of what you do not need to let go in this life, to work on mistakes and, having updated your family systems, to live like this.. so that there is no more Valentine with his lessons!!
..whether the lessons took power over Weisberg, Zelensky and Dodson-or a happy accident... But one of the most fun, kind and romantic modern comedies - here it is!! You are exactly at the right place!!
The restless struggle of fathers and children;
- The inimitable Philip;
Plan 1, Plan 2, Plan 3;
Everything for love and for the sake of love!
-Children are our everything!
Hard reality and the lessons of our lives!
-The second and something ... there ... already ... the chances of redemption ...
.. In short, comedies are not worth describing. To talk about love, in principle, you can, but to describe a comedy is better not worth it. Comedy should be seen, and it is better to know in person. What do you wish?
Absolutely relevant, juicy, really fun Our comedy for once - you just can't find it better!!
9 out of 10
Like Sharon Stone - better Sharon - you won't find it!
For the first time, I decided to review a film. And chose this one, because he most impressed me and made me think about us, men.
Before the new year 2014, I heard about this film in the media, as some actors gave interviews, for example, Vladimir Zelensky. And I really wanted to go to the movies and see the movie because I really liked the previous two. But for some reason, I couldn’t go to the premiere.
I watched this movie about six months after it premiered on TNT. From the first time, I didn’t really understand the meaning of the film, didn’t delve into the plot. And then, in 2015, I accidentally stumbled upon this film on some channel and watched it again.
And all of a sudden, when I saw the movie, I felt so ashamed of us guys. Who we've become! We can't even take responsibility for our own children when women aren't even home for a few days. Plus, we've also become weak. Women yell at us, even beat us (like Nastya Zadorozhaya’s heroine beats Sauna). In general, the whole film is built on a very tense relationship between husbands and wives, it goes to divorce.
However, the end of the film is quite rosy. The children became children again, the heroes reconciled. But even in the happy ending, there's a spoonful of tar. Sauna said, “I wish my children would always be as small as they are now.” Saint Valentine says to him, “Hey, be careful with your wishes!” And then the heroine of Nastya Zadorozhaya, hearing this, says: "Yes, Sauna, be careful." And squeaking his head full of shit! And Sauna says, "Oh, it hits." So he does. That moment just killed me. It looks like a domostrel, just the opposite! In general, the heroine of Zadorozhaya reminds me of a feminist.
When I watched the movie, I came to the following conclusion. The film is categorically not recommended to watch men, especially “losers”, as it will further lower their self-esteem. But the film is perfect for emancipated women (for those who do not want to marry and generally have men in their lives), so from this film they once again make sure that men are useless. And it is also recommended to view feminists, so it will only “warm up” their movement and they will understand that you can do anything with men, as with toys: beat, beat, flag, and so on. The men are not going anywhere.
-
A lot of people would disagree with me. They'll say it's just a comedy. But I don't seem very funny. Comedy is a comedy, but I don’t think anyone would want the script from the movie to be repeated in real life. And we're moving towards that. Women are stronger and men are weaker. If this continues, the male sex is doomed to loneliness and gradual extinction.
-
I will not evaluate the film. I just don't know what to put.
“Let’s raise them like normal children, with a stick and a carrot, not like you, a carrot and a very sweet carrot!”
Good audience responses after the premiere in 2009 of the romantic comedy produced by the studio “Kvartal 95”, former KVNschchikov from the team “Zaporizhiye – Krivoy Rog – Transit”, led to the fact that in 2010 the second part was released, and in 2013 and the third, which also due to the amount of footage then transformed into an eight-part series, which was held in 2014. But, unfortunately, even despite the positive reviews, the audience's attention to the franchise "Love in the City" can be denoted by the expression "on fishlessness and cancer fish." Each individual film of the trilogy was inferior in comedy not only to comedies of the Soviet era, but also to modern template Hollywood romcoms. Only the fact that it was “kind of its own, native, domestic” kept “Love in the big city” afloat. Plus the acting ensemble, which stands out thanks to the primas of the current show business - Svetlana Khodchenkova and Vera Brezhneva, recognized sex symbols of the present time.
The director of the entire trilogy Marius Weisberg received additional film education in the United States, so the action of the first part took place in New York. The second was moved to Thailand. The action of the third, finally, takes place in Moscow and begins after the wives of the three main characters of the film with enthusiastic cheers quickly run on the plane, going to rest, leaving their children in the care of their fathers. And according to the tradition of “Love in the big city” with three hapless men who often behave like their young children, a miracle happens: someone Valentin Bedrosovich (" the big rhinestone of our stage Philip Kirkorov), kind of like St. Valentine, a real wizard, always sending the heroes of the film to test their feelings for strength. During a general binge, the three fathers laugh and say that it would be good for the children to become adults sooner. When they wake up in the morning, they realize that their wish has come true. Discouraged fathers try to hide it from their spouses, but they quickly bite their husbands and return to Moscow. To remove the spell will have to fly with Valentine to the United States, where he has to kiss his beloved – singer Angela Blake (cameo Sharon Stone).
As we see Marius Weisberg as a magnet pulls for the Ocean, and the studio “Kvartal 95” invites foreign stars for a lot of money in small episodes: here we have Sharon Stone, but in the previous film studio and Weisberg “Rzhevsky vs. Napoleon” (2012) appeared Jean-Claude Van Damme. But for many it became only a weak and convex PR-step, made with the desire to attract the audience, or foreign stars in post-Soviet cinema, or just to be surprised and show everyone, that’s what we are successful, famous and rich, that even Sharon Stone is filmed here. But this is nothing more than a bluff that leaves a mixed precipitation. But at least in “Love in the big city 3” reduced a fair touch of pathos, because before that we were offered to take the trio Alexei Chadov-Vladimir Zelensky-Villa Haapasalo as a kind of frivolous macho, which only a miracle could lead to the true path. But in the third film, they have already appeared in the images of hapless and sometimes stupid men who impress the viewer with this, and Zelensky and Haapasalo at least do not try to play what they are not given.
Preserved in the triquel and other main components of “Love in the city”. One of these is the musical accompaniment, where the compositions of the original soundtrack were inserted into any pause, and the famous pop hits, which were stuffed with edge, since almost any radio was staged almost once an hour. And, frankly, many of the songs did not get into the essence of the picture, but only carried the character of a cabaret, where the bigger and louder, the better. Completely inept was written the storyline when tired, or rather like tired of their careless husbands wives are going to file for divorce. It felt like you were missing something, something important, something that influenced this radical choice of girls. And no matter how talented Svetlana Khodchenkova tried, her behavior, as well as the behavior of her on-screen friends, to put it mildly, caused misunderstanding: irritable, angry and sometimes very arrogant. So it turned out that they did not need husbands, they would be free, because they are so stunning. Against their background, the men's three looked more profitable and pleasant. And against their general background, the pair Philip Kirkorov and Ekaterina Klimov were generally at the top.
Svetlana Khodchenkova today is considered one of the most talented and beautiful domestic actresses, she is even invited to Hollywood; Vera Brezhnev is considered the prima of the pop scene, recording successful tracks thanks to her current husband Konstantin Meladze; tries to keep up with them Nastya Zadorodskaya. But at the same time, it should be understood that thanks to such consumer goods as “Love in the big city”, they will not gain popularity. The third part is the same cardboard romcom, which once again demonstrated the incompetence of Marius Weisberg (would go back to the United States and ruin the movie there!). And the plaque of light mood quickly disappears after watching, and the characters are forgotten the next day. No, with such a movie, domestic cinema will not increase its level.
3 out of 10
In general, the film, from whichever side you look, from the position of a woman or a man, is very instructive, which may not quite fit the genre. He teaches the male half that you do not need to completely shift the care of raising children to your wives, because they risk starting them, and you also need to try to eradicate bad habits in yourself with the appearance of children so that your child does not take them from you.
And women’s, which, perhaps, do not need to give their husbands excessive independence and freedom, they, like children, need our moderate care, and then the matter risks getting out of control, as in this film. This is about the main message of the film. Operator, director and actor work at the height, the latter, probably also because by the 3rd part of the actors finally got used to the role of their heroes, that after checking, I want to find their pages in social networks to find out what they are now living, these crazy couples.
I was thinking about writing a review or not. And I've already said a lot. But, since the film left after watching the warmest feelings, still decided that one positive review should be more.
I love trilogy because when you go to a movie, you know what to expect. You will not get a cat in a bag and you will not regret the irretrievable time spent. Since I liked the movie “Love in the City” from the first part, I watched this one boldly. You can say that it was the most successful of all!
The plot: is similar to the previous two parts. There are three boys and girls and St. Valentine. It is he who is the culprit of periodically arising problems, solving which young people prove every time that love exists. I think the story is quite unorthodox and has good potential. That was enough for three parts.
Actors: Thank you to the filmmakers for that. Actors, like their characters, are very different, cute and charismatic. We see one problem and three different approaches to solving it. The actors did the tasks well. I would especially like to mention Vladimir Zelensky. Here's who has real talent: a great actor, producer, and writer at the same time! The presence of such famous personalities as Philip Kirkorov, Vera Brezhnev, Sharon Stone only added to the film highlights. Of course, it is clear that Sharon was taken solely for the sake of PR, her role is negligible and could be performed by anyone.
The film also attracts bright video next to , beautiful locations and a variety of pictures in general, which I was very pleased. Because I hate when they save on the quality of film or scenery, which, unfortunately, is so characteristic of Russian cinema for the most part.
The soundtrack: is fun, dynamic and perfectly complements everything that happens on the screen. I am glad that most of the music in the film is Russian. It was especially nice to hear the Beasts. I think their work is pretty good.
Humor: I love it when the jokes in the film are not vulgar or stupid, which is quite rare. For most of the film, I was genuinely smiling or laughing.
Morality: Oddly enough, but in this film there are quite a few clever thoughts that are worth paying attention to. For example, the fact that children need to be raised by their own example, you need to appreciate everything you have at the moment and live in the present. Because in the pursuit of a “bright future” you can miss many beautiful moments.
Result: If you like good, kind, with funny, not vulgar humor comedy, bright video series and cute actors, I recommend this film. To plunge into a warm, slightly naive atmosphere and recharge a positive mood you will definitely succeed. I am proud that Russian cinema can be no worse than foreign, and sometimes even better! Russian films still have more of our mentality and moments, little things that reflect our reality. Enjoy the viewing, everyone!
Working on a sequel is always difficult. Work a priori has something to compare with. In the case of the film ' Love in the City 3' I don't even want to compare. Falling in love with the first two parts, you wait for the continuation of the holiday on the screen, and you get a lump of filmed film.
There are no complaints about the first part of the film. Everything is designed in the traditional style for all three films. Interesting, funny. But the second part... There is an involuntary feeling of failure of installation. A huge amount of understatement and desire to quickly launch the final credits. This is perhaps the most upsetting thing. The director’s neglect of the viewer always leaves an unpleasant aftertaste.
'You have to hurry slowly' said one of my teachers. And this is exactly the case. Do not rush to see this picture, if you like the previous parts. It is always necessary to stop in time to preserve the brightness that is still in the soul.
The cast played at their level, and St. Valentine was very good. Sharon Stone? We could do without her. The appearance of her star in the picture did not justify itself.
Actors work 7 out of 10
... And our heroes are not against this at all, only here again they did not follow their wishes. This time they (though not seriously!) wished that their children would grow up at the same time, so that they did not have to mess with them as little, and, thanks to the same St. Valentine, who “needs most of all”, their desires materialized. The last two times Valentine taught them that you can not have sex without love, but without the desire to have children, but this time the situation is a little different. Now he taught them not for careless burning of life, but for careless desire. And when our beloved heroes “push to the wall” of the truth-loving saint, the road will lead them to the world-famous city, which is famous for the fact that it is “not for life, but for its burning”, as one of the heroines of the film put it. They are on their way to Las Vegas!
It is worth noting that the third part of the Russian youth comedy turned out to be the most spectacular in the trilogy - expensive night shooting in Las Vegas does not leave indifferent. We saw the same thing in the American comedy "Bachelor Party in Vegas," and that movie was more successful than the one I'm describing. No, I liked Love in the City 3, even very much, but the first part of this trilogy for me remains the best. The first part showed the perfect youth comedy, without stupidity and delirium, but only with killer jokes and touching stories. In the plot of "Love..." as many as three love lines, and all three are very similar to each other. In the first part, three typical Russian peasants were exposed by St. Valentine in the vice of debauchery, after which all three found their true love; in the second part, they did not want to have children until an indefinite time, because of which they were also put by the patron saint of lovers in a rigid framework, as a result of which all three children were conceived at the same time, and now five years have passed, all three couples are raising children, and face corresponding difficulties. And this is what pleased the triquel of the beloved story.
To be honest, I don’t know why some viewers think the second part is the best in the trilogy, and why my friend at Kinopoisk highly appreciates the first two parts and calls the third one disgusting. In my opinion, the second part was the weakest in the series, because it was not a comedy, but a youth melodrama. There were, as far as I remember, only two funny moments in the whole movie, and the rest was just beautiful and interesting. The first part made me laugh the whole first half of the film, and after the middle - to worry about the characters. The third part turned out to be weaker than the first, but definitely better than the second. Funny moments were enough, but this part spoiled delusional moments. I don’t know why, but some of the scenes seemed crazy. In my opinion, the idea of sending the heroes to Las Vegas to marry St. Valentine and remove his charms from the children turned out to be somewhat absurd. Hochma was mostly on scenes where women returned from vacation and saw their suddenly grown children.
In general, the comedy was a success, except for those little stupidities that reduce the evaluation of this part. It is strange that this film has such a small timekeeping, and this is despite the fact that the film was originally shot a multi-part series, and all 8 episodes were shown on TV, and only 1.18.38 were shown in the cinema. I've seen the movie version and I'm going to see the miniseries in a year. I like the movie and want to watch it again.
Unfortunately, the world of big domestic cinema continues to experience its brightest hour, and most projects for a wide range of viewers, slip into the pit of self-copying and lack of fresh ideas. The third part of the adventures of Artem, Igor and Sauna clearly follows this trend, offering criminally few interesting and original moments, even compared to the previous parts. It is not even that for the third time, though with cosmetic changes, one concept is used. The problem of the film is its complete predictability, up to individual phrases and emotions of the characters.
This time, the three men agreed that their school-age children are the cause of many age-related inconveniences, which they, of course, emotionally told St. Valentine. There are practically no funny scenes here - at best, an insecure smile will run over your face a dozen times. Nevertheless, by general impressions, the picture is a short unobtrusive narrative in a modern manner. No semantic load and, as I said above, the film is focused on the mass audience. Another stretch positive can be considered the return of all the main characters from the first two parts of the franchise – another, I like to believe, the last page in the book of their adventures. But such a widespread participation of Sharon Stone causes only bewilderment.
At the end, I tend to restrained, but still positive assessment with the hope that the third film was the final chord in this topic. An hour and a half pass almost uselessly, but, in any case, quickly and without frank regrets.
6 out of 10
The eternal rhetorical question among fans of Russian cinema: can Russian comedy be really funny and not stupid? - I'll answer. To such comedies I count "Love in the City 1, 2, 3."
Speaking about the last part of this trilogy, I will say that the long wait for this film has fully justified itself. This time, three comrades, Artem, Igor and Sauna, face the challenges of raising children. As usual, everything follows a gradation: the appearance of difficulties, the formation of a problem, the appearance of Kirkorov as the ruler of fate and a happy resolution. All this happens with humor, at the same time, not vulgar humor “below the belt”, but with normal funny adequate and really funny jokes.
Movies starring men are always more fun and natural than if they were women. That's somehow more smoothly and without the playfulness of men it turns out. No wonder in psychology it is established that male friendship - for centuries, female friendship - before the appearance of rivalry, which will immediately cause envy. Artem, Sauna and Igor just demonstrate a beautiful example of comradely unity. Yes, they are not perfect, and somewhere they act unwisely, but they still always find themselves together in any alterations. So in the third part "Love in the big city" their friendship brought as far as America.
Roles of bosom friends are performed by Chadov, Zelensky and Haapasalo. Each of them is good in their own way. It seems to me that in the whole trilogy they have become so accustomed to their characters that you begin to think that in real life they behave exactly the same way. And how then unusual to see the same Chadov in the role, for example, Ilya Kovalchuk from “Champions”. In general, the cast is chosen flawlessly: three young people are so different at first glance that nothing seems to unite them. Oh, no! I can't believe it! And this "maybe" is perfectly demonstrated on the screen. It is not quite clear, however, why was it involved in the shooting of Sharon Stone... well, she was not at all right, in my opinion.
As a result, "Love in the City 3" is a good Russian comedy, for which there is no shame. Thank you to the creators of this picture that in our country you can still see such a film, for which I would not have to blush, but I would like to review a couple of times in the company of like-minded friends.
Love in the Big City is one of the most commercially successful Russian film projects. However, the tradition of releasing one part annually was broken by the creators. As a result, only three years later the third part of this film series was released.
Although they say that the sequels are worse than the original, I really liked the film "Love in the City-3". For me, it definitely turned out better than the second part, and even surpassed the first one in some ways. Even after watching the first movie, you can immediately watch the third, bypassing the second. Probably, the thing is that by the third film forever left jokes “below the belt” in order to attract even the smallest audience. And not by chance, because the main theme of this picture is saving children.
In the first film, the characters fought for their love, in the second - for the right to become fathers. In the third part, they are the fathers of six-year-old children, whom they can not follow. After a third chance encounter with St. Valentine, fathers see their six-year-old children transform into adults the next morning. But now their wives come to their aid.
It would seem that the plot is sucked out of the finger. But, fortunately, the third film does not repeat the storylines (as it was with “Love in the City-2”).
The main characters were as always in their repertoire. Chadov again looked like a daring guy, Zelensky — an intelligent humorist, Haapasalo — an impulsive bearded man, twisting Russian words.
It was much more interesting for me to watch the performers of the “children” of the main characters. For example, Alexander Petrov, who played the adult son of Artem and Katya, struck with an external resemblance to his “father”. As if Konstantin Khabensky and Ilya Stebunov are not relatives, but are similar. Both performers of the son of Igor and Nastya – Dima, although they did not resemble their “parents” externally, but they were similar to each other. Well, the performers of the daughters of “Sauna” and Alice, unfortunately, I could not appreciate as actresses – too little screen time was allocated for them. But the girls are remembered for their beauty.
I was very surprised how the image of St. Valentine (still played by Philip Kirkorov) was revealed. I do not want to say that Kirkorov made an unforgettable impression for me as an actor (coupled with Ekaterina Klimova, he was clearly inferior to her in acting). But now Valentine is not an episodic character, but quite a bright supporting character. In addition, Kirkorov added a part of himself to the role of Angel - hence Valentine's jokes "I do not beat women", "Timati do not listen." He laughed at himself (and not every star would dare to do that).
The only person who disappointed me was Sharon Stone. Unfortunately, there was a feeling that it was superfluous. It is clear that the budget allowed the creators of the picture to invite a foreign star to shoot. But there had to be a result - and I didn't see that.
Finally, I want to add that the other day on the TV channel “Russia” showed the 8-episode TV version “Love in the big city-3”. There are many examples in cinema, when the television version is better than theatrical. She, as a rule, more fully reveals the characters, answers incomprehensible questions of the viewer, etc. Especially if you consider that the theaters played a one-and-a-half-hour version, what can you see in the 8 episodes? So, this is the case where I liked the movie version much more than the TV version. Too many delusional situations involving the release of children by their parents have been invented. If it wasn’t for the movie, and if there was a continuation of those two parts only on the TV screen, then I would say that the third part is the most terrible. But I won’t say, because I liked the movie version, which left only the most important. Although adult children of the main characters in it was not as much as in the series.
Anyway, I hope Love in the City 3 is the final installment of this romantic franchise. Of course not a masterpiece, but you can see it.
The end of 2013 fed Russian cinema with multiple sequels of domestic film products. Here you and the continuation of the famous “Tree Tree”, painted “Ivan Tsarevich and the Grey Wolf”. Quite unexpectedly, in the same period, the third film “Love in the Big City III” is released. I was very surprised when I saw the first trailers of this film, because the story of “Love” of the main characters is over, and there is nothing to shoot. Ah, no! Love, as they say, lives forever. And that's what the whole tape is about. I took up the third movie with concern, the first two films were surprisingly liked and even impressed in some way, but I will not run ahead.
The plot is simple: three heroes send three heroines on vacation, rest, and themselves remain with young children. Naturally, as in the prequels, they get drunk in a bar, relax in a bowling club and as usual, St. Valentine flies to them. On a drunken head, one of the woe-dads proclaims that he wants the children to grow up. The hero of Kirkorov smiles in the morning, three fathers find already grown children. As a result, they need to find Valentine, reconcile with their wives (who did offend them and promised to file for divorce), in general, it is necessary to arrange an idyll around the world. And they succeed, the whole plot will not reveal, the film is still worth watching.
Acting game: Chadov, Zelinsky, Haapasalo, Khodchenkova, Brezhnev, Zadorodskaya and irresistible Kirkorov. I am glad that the actors remained the same, why then I doubted that someone did not, but would refuse the role. Play well, play lively, fit perfectly. From Zelinsky is delighted, I like his hero very much and the actor himself skillfully copes with the role, funny, beautiful and so on, and the rest are also on top!
In general, “Love in the Big City III” is a good picture, a high-quality canvas, is generally perceived well. There is a vulgarity, but there is no oversight in it, that is, they are not so vulgar. By the way, there is a feeling that the film is created from pieces that are dullly knit together, because the events unfold so rapidly that you do not have time to understand what is here, running heroes on floors or a duel in Texas ... The duration of the film is short, only about an hour with a little, but to understand all the details, you need to watch the television version of the film, which lasts about two to three hours. “Love in the Big City III” is an excellent conclusion to the entire trilogy, of course, weaker than its predecessors, but it looks still bright.
7 out of 10
Accidentally saw the trailer of the film “Love in the City 3”, liked, immediately watched the film. What can I say? The film exceeded all my expectations, a real kind and witty comedy, a lot of jokes, a fun atmosphere, in general there is everything to have a good time!
Philip Kirkorov surprised and pleased, it was nice to see him on the screen, perfectly got used to his role.
I do not understand the claims to Vera Brezhneva - here she looked good and natural. The three main characters to this part already seem to be related and play very naturally. No matter what they say about Alexei Chadov, but here he is a good, kind of motherfucker. Haapasalo-Sauna is sparkling, Zelensky the dentist is resourceful. I liked Ekaterina Klimova in the role of a guide - I would also fall in love with this one if I were a man.
In my opinion, this part of the trilogy is the most successful and humorous. The theme with grown-up children played very funny, especially liked the episode with the hero Chadov and his drunken son, then I just fell! Well, the moment where an adult Dima runs to a frantic mother is also fun!
In general, I recommend the viewing, but I shoot one ball for raging wives, too they turned on their husbands when they screwed up with children.
Good day, everyone. I watched Love in the City 3. So I want to leave you with my brief review. So, let’s go without lengthy introductions and explanations.
In general, the third film of the series, came out quite “edible”. I expected the worst. Moreover, against the background of the latest “comedies” of our production, this project, at least, is not sick. And this, for our modern comedies, is an indicator, friends. Let's go through the movie in more detail. The plot is simple, stupid and a little fabulous. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. To watch, in general, it is possible for the whole family. Humor below the waist, I didn't notice. Unfortunately, it was too smooth, it didn't work out. If the first half of the film is positive and uplifting, the second half seemed boring. It seems that the ideological source of writers, gradually, began to dry up. Everything that happens on the screen is predictable. The main characters, for the third time, become victims of their desires. Only, this time, their children are involved in the story. I can’t say that the idea is so original. But let's be fair, friends. Everything is furnished, in general, good and fun. I don’t think it’s necessary to write a lot about acting. Up to level. No worse, but no better. Husbands, all the same heels and boobs. Wives, once again, can give them a kick, thereby smoothing the situation. And where, no family quarrels. Only, here, these quarrels looked, as — uncertain and unconvincing. It's unclear why Sharon Stone was woven here. No bonuses, the actress did not make the film. She didn't even remember. Kirkorov has nothing to do in the movies. Igor Zhizhikin, even his two minutes of screen time, could not work normally. I can’t say anything special about music. “Districts and neighborhoods” are already pretty boring. You will not hear anything new here.
In general, this is a naive, predictable and funny movie that you can watch once. More than that, and it's foolish to count. Simple comedy. Recently, perhaps, one of the few normal ones that were shot in Russia. At leisure, you can check it out. I hope this is the last film in the series. It's time to finish this story. As they say, the main thing is to stop in time. As I wrote, the source of ideas has dried up. Leave these characters alone and start writing new stories with new characters. I'm done. Enjoy your visit.
Watched the picture at the premiere at the cinema “October”.
What do we do? (c)
The first picture gave the heroes the second halves, the second birth of children, and the third told the fathers how to behave with children.
The duo of directors continued to pick out ideas from old, long-became classics, American comedies. All the directorial potential is developed on the search for colorful characters and places for filming. Otherwise, their work is a movement on the spot, nothing new or radically different viewer will not find, the authors are trying to leave on the already worked out material, which themselves have used several times.
The writers continue the story, the feeling is that the creators had a plot, which they have divided so far only into 3 parts, so the project lacks movement, drive and innovation, and humor is so simple that it is predictable.
The musical series is the calling card of the project, with such love and attention, they do not fit into anything else.
The picture is full of advertising, so even Bekmambetov and the guys from Enjoy Movies do not enter our country.
“LvBG3” could be a perfect ending to the long-running franchise, but as you know, while the cow gives milk to kill it is pathetic. Therefore, far-sighted producers made as many as 2 versions of the picture - full-length and television. Despite the fact that the film was generally watchable, it was spoiled by a long, American finale, understatement and general confusion of what is happening and also due to the fact that much was left for TV.