The author's biopic of Nikolai Lebedev turned out to be quite an audience and fascinating film for the evening. Good in both form and content. I looked from and to “not in the material”, but at the same time I looked with pleasure, despite the superficial knowledge of both sports and historical personalities. Isn’t that the key to success?
The film is about Valery Kharlamov, an outstanding Soviet hockey player, who, overcoming, achieved unprecedented heights in his field. Patience and hard work, as they say. Even if we abstract from the biographical side of the film, the picture is quite self-sufficient, just a film, just a hockey player, just the USSR national team, just a melodramatic storyline and just coolly shot sports scenes. Legend 17 works on all levels: for those who are passionate about hockey, and for those who just love movies and sports dramas. The script is rhythmic and does not stall during all two hours of its timing. The plot is fascinating and logically stitched with scenes in the process. Yes, another project denouncing the “scoop”, at the same time sponsored by the federal channel “Russia 1”, but this is already a “base”. I personally watch this with a smile.
The acting jobs are great. Kozlovsky shines and has not yet had time to bite the mass spectator, Menshikov is a typical abusive à la “Obsession” by Chazelle, Ivanov is a modest passion of the protagonist, Menshov (Kingdom of Heaven to him) is a clichéd “soviet” official, satire for the entire politicality of that time. The camera work and installation are excellent: everything is filmed brightly, juicy, dynamic and pleasing to the eye. Much better than everyone’s favorite “Youth” from STS. Sound design and post-production are normal, the lipsinc is out of the chat room, but this is a tradition for our cinema. In some places, sadness and sadness.
The domestic edition on BD is excellent: good transfer, high-quality sound in DTS.
“Legend #17” is a successful entertaining film and biopic, after watching which you become a little more visible and smarter than two hours ago. I always stomp for the fact that a movie based on real events is often not just a brand or a lure to go to the movies, but a good reason to get acquainted with a fresh work in order to be aware of people, time and places. Enjoy your visit.
Legend No. 17 (2012) is a biographical drama based on real events related to the life and career of the legendary hockey player Valery Kharlamov. Director Nikolai Lebedev offers the viewer to plunge into the world of Soviet hockey of the 1970s and get acquainted with the man who became a symbol of this era.
The film carefully recreates the spirit of the time in which the events took place, and carefully develops the characters of the characters. Dmitry Nagiyev, who played the role of Kharlamov, presented a convincing acting, and the reconstruction of historical hockey matches impresses with its realism.
However, despite the quality of the work of the actors and director, the film can seem too predictable and focused solely on the positive perception of the main character. The lack of a deeper characteristic elaboration of other figures and the relative one-sidedness of the plot leave some potential for development.
In general, Legend No. 17 adequately conveys the historical moment and brings tribute to Valery Kharlamov and Soviet hockey. This is a film that will be of interest to fans of sport and history, although some may expect a deeper characteristic elaboration and plot complexity.
The film caused me both positive and negative emotions, which I managed to deal with at once. But gradually came the realization that he was not good, not bad, but terrible. Sounds like a dynamic story. It seems that the creators managed to convey excitement, enthusiasm, anticipation of victory. It seems to make a sports drama about what you have to sacrifice to win. Why not enjoy such a movie? One can even close one’s eyes to a dose of self-glorification – in the way we previously could, let these little Canadians down. This is because we are the best in the world. But the film has a dark, motherfucker (not to say otherwise) side. Even while watching, I noticed an unobtrusive, but well-thought-out subtext: to succeed and even become great, you must endure and humiliate yourself. And why did Kharlamov become a great legend? Maybe he was talented, maybe he trained a lot, maybe it was family. No, because I let myself be treated like shit, and I believed that was the way to win. It’s not really about a champion or a human being. This is a film about a man and a boss. The creators tell us that the boss always knows better. And if you think that the authorities are cruel to you and make you suffer, you just do not understand why this is all. The boss beats you, does not hold you for a person, humiliates you - so it is necessary, everything is in order, everything goes according to plan. You'll jump on your boss' neck and thank him for everything. The film essentially instills a slavish psychology. There's no exaggeration. Why do you need to beat up athletes to convey to them the simple idea of what team they are now playing for? Have you ever tried to speak her mouth? Nothing complicated, and the athletes will understand. No, according to the logic of the creators, athletes can become the best if they are treated as serfs – they need to be explained by violence. There is no personality, no heroes, no overcoming, no growth, no will. There are serfs who have understood what the superiors want and that the superiors are leading them in the right way. Beautiful. And the public is happy to eat such propaganda and ask for supplements. The film was criticized from various angles, but almost no one paid attention to the propaganda of a slavish way of thinking. But maybe this subtext arose by accident. This happens in poorly written stories. No, the corresponding semantic line is quite clear. Similarly, why and why war should be a metaphor for aspirations. Why Do Hockey Gates Need to Be Protected as a Homeland? The significance of events is clearly incomparable. Why should we assume that on the ice is a battle, not a game. War is a bad metaphor for peaceful life, but Russian official cinema simply cannot offer anything else. I will not make any claims about rewriting the biography. This is common practice in biopics. If you like, it's a common disease. I don’t care about sports and I don’t like sports dramas. The worst part of the film is creating a positive image of slavery for a great purpose.
I don’t know who likes it, but I think Legend 17 is the best film in modern Russia and one of the best in general. Simple in its essence, the plot about the formation of hockey player Valery Borisovich Kharlamov from a novice player in great athletes is incredibly succinct and interesting.
The story is built logically and consistently, you want to worry about the characters. Moreover, many of the episodes shown in the film are applicable not only in sports, but also in life in one way or another. Therefore, you can put yourself in the place of the heroes and this enhances the effect of viewing. Naturally, the picture motivates and does not do it as banal as it is done in the current superhero, for example.
Success would have been impossible if not for the actors, namely: Danila Kozlovsky and Oleg Menshikov. The latter seems to have gotten so used to it that he would actually appoint a coach, he would train champions. Although unjustly forgotten about Vladimir Menshov, he came out of a convincing character-turner.
I was most impressed with the Canadian final. Exemplary performance of competitions, in the entertainment of which I saw no equal. There is nothing to add here.
About inauthenticities. Personally, I don’t mind rigging facts in cinema. In any picture made even strictly according to real events, there will necessarily be inaccuracies - cinema is cinema. Sometimes they are made for the sake of supporting dramaturgy, in other cases they are allowed for illiteracy; the second version of Legend No. 17 does not apply. Even if the inauthenticity is intentional, the main thing is that it is in moderation, does not insult or defame the person or event about which the picture is shot (“To Paris” or “Moving Up”: ideal examples of how not to do).
The meeting with his wife Valery happened much later, it is known. However, few films do without a love line, this is already a prerequisite - there is nothing you can do. But here it is well written, does not annoy and does not interfere with the main plot. In addition, Svetlana Ivanova played well.
As for the “super series”, then the Canadians are not as poorly shown as they actually were. At least the referees here do not act as pucks, and Canadian hockey players do not show middle fingers.
The film, in addition to emotions, gave me hope that the long-suffering Russian cinema is still alive and capable of producing a quality product.
10 out of 10
I know everything about hockey (well, not everything, of course, a little exaggerated). And passionately I love that our hockey, and not the current, in general, has long been Canadian.
Another epistemological interest is how the myth was created, on what it was really built in relation to Kharlamov.
Myth is such an obligatory mixture of the natural, the everyday, the accidental and the supernatural, the divine and the non-random, the fateful. That's approximately.
In the film from the accidental, which is given a strange such fateful meaning - it's the Spanish roots of Kharlamov (well, no one really about his Hispanicness at the time did not think!) and ... for some reason the authors insist on a small stature Kharlamov. It’s a strange thing to think about growth: everyone around him was a giant! Why is that?! A generation whose childhood fell on the war or a little later - what are the giants? Nothing so Kharlamov did not stand out from the point of view, especially his smallness. These Canadians were like a selection, they were specially grown for more than one generation, picked up by height, and the Anglo-Saxons - higher, more powerful. And we had such ugly in general then, hockey players, but virtuososos! A giant, except for Ragulin. Kharlamov is 173, three centimeters taller than Mikhailov, Starshinov was also 173 as Kharlamov, but no one called him small.
Very funny and ridiculous shot Danila Kozlovsky, who played Kharlamov and whose height is 1m 84cm. In the frame, he is not even up to the waist, but such a “bust” and below all (oh, well, Kharlamov was not below all!). And as soon as the general frame and from afar, our hero is above all!
So how can you put something in the legend (in the furnace)? Probably something like "little gold, but dear"? Well, suppose. Though stupid.
And Spanish roots? Oh, here they are completely beaten, from this the mythological construction and cinema metaphor are built: at the beginning of the film, the heartbreaking scene of the meeting of the boy Valera in Spain (?!) with live formidable, death-bearing bulls, and the main match according to the authors is the same bullfight where fearsome Canadian bullfighters were defeated by Kharlamov.
Oh, the movie! Flat metaphor. And unfaithful in fact! Then our hockey was a collective affair, not single toreaders. Kharlamov was a great hockey player, but among other great ones. Here, they struggle to find what made him “especially great.” And apart from hispanics and small stature - what else?
Although I liked actor Kozlovsky. He is, perhaps, the only one in this film looks organic, intelligent, not fussy, not puffy. Everyone else is something! This is something from such dense Soviet films: poses, bulging eyes - like bad amateur activity!
It's all so bad. I watched the Olympics and praised the president. The context is clear.
Yes, and of course, the film was showered with awards, that goes without saying.
The history of matches with Canadians is such a condensation, reducing all meetings - both the Canadian part of the meeting and the Moscow part - to one match. Well, it is quite acceptable technique, especially when it comes to myth.
Although Kharlamov was injured in the Moscow match, when he was simply defeated by the Canadians. And he went on the field to cheer up in the last Moscow match of the series, in which we lost (6-5, it seems, in the last minute the Canadians scored).
The car accident in which Kharlamov was injured was in 1976. Kharlamov because of this injury did not take Tikhonov to the second series of matches with the Canadians. That was more trauma than just physical. But this story is not included in the film.
In general, the history of matches with Canadians is something that can be accepted in the film, in principle, there is an intrigue with the coach, the drama of Tarasov and Kharlamov as its reflection. That's not bad.
The match was shot in a clip style, a kind of ballet on ice. The tension of the match still was, managed somehow in a similar film through the cranberry to carry out.
At the end of the film, I wanted to see such a dear face of Kharlamov himself at least before the credits.
I'd probably cry. What an unfair fate! And children grew up without parents. . .
About Tarasov. Little in the film Roman Madianov - well, just a candidate for the role of Tarasov, in my opinion, was. He could have done it. The texture and the actor are great. But here Tarasov is Menshikov.
When you shoot a biographical drama, it is very important not to fall into glorification of the Soviet era, or on the contrary, into humiliation. And of course, do not forget that each hero should be carefully prescribed, trying not to depart from history. Otherwise, the public will not forget and will not forgive. Fortunately in Russia did not translate good directors, which can be proud — Nikolai Lebedev just one of them.
I can only imagine how much effort was put into this picture, because its production is truly amazing. Every aspect is amazing, but I will touch on this below.
To begin with, I will walk through the cast, Lebedev assembled a truly stellar team. Here you and Smirnitsky, and Menshov, and Madianov and many others. However, the film really has two stars, Menshikov and Kozlovsky. They had a very difficult task before them, they had to play not just a coach and a hockey player, they had to play real legends of Soviet sports - Tarasov and Kharlamov.
Of course, I did not doubt Menshikov’s talent, he can even decorate a bad film with his charisma, but there were doubts about Kozlovsky still whether he would not hit the pathos, as he loves in his last films, but Danila did not disappoint. That Tarasov performed by Menshikov, that Kharlamov performed by Kozlovsky turned out to be a miracle as good. In particular, I want to note the role of Menshikov, he gave his best, I felt the role of a coach and his dedication in him, it was especially pleasant to follow his character.
“Always get up. You are capable of the impossible.
The script is well written, the story is presented gradually, interspersed with Kharlamov’s personal relationships, training and matches. Training in the film is given a leading role and they are set so that they wanted to watch. I should give it to the operator. In sports dramas, the work of the operator is very important, everywhere you need to find the right angle so that the viewer sees literally every element of the tape, or in principle, he forgot how to blink - as happened to me in this film. “Legend N17” literally immerses in itself, its picture. Working with special effects at the highest level, sometimes you can not even say that you watch Russian cinema, the scope is truly Hollywood.
Separately, I want to mention the musical series of the film, Maestro Eduard Artemyev was responsible for it, whose work is known to everyone from the films of Mikhalkov and the great Tarkovsky. The music is pleasant, motivating, solemn, dramatic, perfectly emphasizes the mood of the tape and the viewer.
As a result, before us is a real masterpiece of modern Russian cinema. Legend N17 is good at everything, picture, actors, music and script work. It’s definitely going to be a classic in the future, but for now, it’s a movie that’s fun to go back and watch.
I don't see that often, but I remember watching this movie in the finale, the whole room got up and applauded. It is difficult to achieve such an effect from our demanding public, but Lebedev coped with this and deserved the highest appreciation from me.
“Man always seems that his strength is much less than he can at all!”
After watching Legend 17, I loved hockey. Of course, it is worth thanking the director Nikolai Lebedev for such a good job. This is probably the first Russian film that was shot in this genre.
A stunning sports drama with moments of biography about Valery Kharlamov. An outstanding hockey player, a man who, despite his injury, proved to everyone that hockey is just his life. It was played by my beloved Danila Kozlovsky, here for him you can also watch this film, which is based on this character. Before this picture, I had not heard much about this sport, but after watching it, I began to read biographies, study the details of the game, read about the outstanding coach Anatoly Tarasov, the father of Russian hockey, who was very well played by Oleg Menshikov. And Irina Smirnova, Kharlamov’s future wife, as she worried for him, in the film just show the story of their love from the very beginning. Of course, there were inconsistencies in the events, a little mixed details, but this did not prevent you from looking at the picture in one breath.
I really liked the work of the filming, when in great detail show the game, the same game on September 2, 1972. Montreal. The USSR hockey team plays with Canadian professionals from Canada. We were worried about how it would end, because at that time we didn’t know much about the history of Russian hockey.
The story of the great hockey player Valery Kharlamov in colors and colors, cut like an incorrectly assembled puzzle. .
Strangely, the story looks surprisingly good. Although the facts of the biography of the hockey player are mixed with each other, and some details, such as the match of the national team with Spartak, are completely hyperbolized, and even issued as a struggle for rules against arbitrariness. . .
Therefore, if mass success provided a good box office for the film, then reviews in the network among hockey fans were polar with a large share of outright rejection. Injustice is like crumbs in bed.
The main one is the focus on two (maximum three) characters, and even very controversial. There are no claims to Kharlamov, although Danila Kozlovsky is somewhat glamorous and softly opposed to Kharlamov’s courageous face and torso from life, but Tarasov raises questions for sure. Not only is Menshikov purely outwardly not very, to put it mildly, fits the data of Tarasov, although convincing in the game, so the image came out still unambiguous ... therefore contradictory ... Tarasov almost single-handedly creates the legend of the invincible Soviet hockey. It is hardly surprising that Chernyshov’s relatives (coach of the national team along with Tarasov) apparently did not consent to the use of his name, so Tarasov arranges an almost absolute solo, sometimes diluted by the second coach of CSKA Boris Kulagin.
What can we say about the people who only flashed on the screen, obscured by Tarasov and Kharlamov - Mikhailov, for example, the best scorer of the USSR championships, and many are considered the best player in the history of our hockey, the same Petrov, Ragulin, Maltsev, Zimin ... Beaver is shown condescendingly - like, let it be, although he is not a real coach, and so - the scenery ... However, the result of the whole series with the Canadians remained behind the brackets.
Against this background, even the match with Spartacus is not such a significant distortion of history. By the way, in the real match of CSKA with Spartak, everything looked like obvious arbitrariness and the whims of Tarasov. It seems that the filmmakers became victims of the self-promotion of Anatoly Vladimirovich, who was not modest, and partly his daughter. And it was too necessary to suck from the finger the image of the inner enemy - bureaucratic self-loving and capricious power.
A purely creative claim was the copying of Hollywood sports movies and, in particular, the American film about the victory in Lake Placid, the Miracle on Ice.
But how important are these claims?
Despite the fact that it is insulting both for the Soviet players who were not properly shown and for Chernyshov, and even the ideology about the absolutized role of the individual seems incorrect, the benefit of this film is more. . .
Let’s be frank that there are very few people who remember the main characters, and all these people are far over 50. And the younger generation of even hockey fans are not particularly aware of things - except that some names could hear. And why should we be charged with patriotism if not on past and, fortunately, not only military victories? It is no longer accepted to love the Motherland in recent years - the eternal state of perceived inferiority against the background of the imaginary and real achievements of the West and East makes many and, sadly, the most talented race for long dollars and euros to the left of Russia. My ambitions are determined by the same measurements. And yet Kharlamov and Tarasov have two components of motivation - to play and be the best in the world. Somewhere in the background looms and that very Motherland (protect the gates, as your children will protect, as the Motherland is protected). Perhaps this is the main drawback of Legend #17 - collectivism and collective work are not decisive here. But it is already looming - and that is good.
Finally, as heroes appear, albeit past, but living Russian people, and this was not so long ago that it is embarrassing. Not a single brother, Mother Russia is alive.
Well, the fact that Hollywood rules, so it's not scary - citation in general has become a feature of even the coolest movie (sorry me for tarantino stuffed up in such examples), and if anything, the genre of biopic actually appeared in the USSR, exactly from Alexander Nevsky and other commanders, so we can consider it purely our tradition. Yes, and sports movies we had, if not born. That is why Legend #17 looks like an improved effect (almost NHL from computer games) and a glamorous picture version of cinematic socialist realism - and a positive hero in the presence, and the role of labor in order, and even industrial personnel is almost from the height of Alexander Zarha. Taking into account the already released Motion Up, as well as Coach and Ice, this became a new trend of Russian mass cinema and the most successful and not without an idea, in something even national. Not everyone likes it, but Russian cinema needs it. And Nikolai Lebedev became almost the main mainstream director of the country.
The movie looks in one breath. It is amazing that you can talk about sports so interesting and exciting. I think it's a credit to the entire team that worked on the film.
Very good and in his place Danila Kozlovsky - hitting the image 100%! We don’t have enough actors on the screen to create the image of a hero who wants to imitate! The whole cast is great! Excellent work. Striving to create realistic images of our almost contemporaries, it turned out to be a very sincere game, a natural one. This is important in tapes that take as a basis historical events.
I understand that films claiming to be biographical, of course, can not be a simple retelling of events: something is embellished to please the picture, something is understated or changed. This is a work of art, so it always bears the imprint of the vision of the director, screenwriter, producers. .. Everyone who participates in the creation of cinema brings to it his thought, energy, understanding, imprint of the view of modernity. But for what I love films, in the advertising of which they write “biographical”, “based on real events”: if the film is made really well, it inevitably causes the interest of the viewer to the real story, and encourages further interest and read about the prototypes of the heroes of the screen, their lives and events of that time.
And time was real heroes in everything, just in sports it was very clear.
I always wonder what inspires people to overcome themselves. Not just a couple of days, but years? Go-da-mi! It can’t be personal, financial, it’s more than that. More interesting and important. Something that elevates the spirit above the routine. Cultivating a pure sense of duty and great responsibility. Not for yourself - for the team, for society, for the future.
Where are these global ideas now? What can motivate us to look wider in time and space? Who are our modern heroes?
A special merit - video series! I was impressed by the shooting of hockey itself - dynamically, brightly. Operator work, artists, editing - professionally done, talented, incendiary. The real flow of energy and emotion from the screen. The filmmakers clearly achieved the effect of immersion and involvement. I want to see the real game now.
Legend 17 leaves the most positive mood and makes you think about your life and role in society. It is important at all times to remind us that we are children of a great country. Children of people who knowingly sacrificed a lot not for themselves, not for their own good, but for the Fatherland! And not only in war, but in a quite calm and sufficiently well-fed measured time. To remind us that each of us is also responsible, now for the present history.
I recommend you look. Inspiring cinema.
Nikolai Lebedev’s 2013 feature film Legend No. 17 tells a story based on the life of the famous Soviet hockey player Valery Kharlamov. The problem with the viewer’s perception of this kind of film, which looks to the past and has a biographical origin, is that often authors, hiding behind the fact that their work is based on a real story, mute the critical perception of their picture (after all, the viewer may think that the logical error made by the screenwriter is no mistake, but a reliable fact from life). And, of course, such films in our country have a great potential for success, because they are based on our history. If we add to this the brilliant cast (Kozlovsky, Menshikov, Menshov, Shcherbakov) and the acting and production of Nikita Mikhalkov, then the output should be a successful project not only financially but also artistically. But to appreciate the film to its merits, without being biased, let’s turn to the drama of the film and understand how good it turned out in the end.
Before you turn directly to the plot and composition of the tape, it is important to identify its genre to understand the angle from which the authors look at the events taking place in the film and the viewer should look. "Legend No17" is a sports drama, with elements of the biography of real personalities - first of all, hockey player Valery Kharlamov and coach Anatoly Tarasov.
From the very beginning, when Kharlamov, as a child, saved a dog in Spain from rushing bulls, the viewer is shown the main features of Kharlamov – strong-willed character and ability to act in a dangerous situation. Such a beginning immediately forms a positive opinion about the hero and strengthens empathy. However, in my opinion, this move is not only very predictable, but also quite cliched, which, on the other hand, does not negate the functionality of this episode. The character of the coach is revealed gradually through relations with Kharlamov and with the entire team of hockey players. It does not matter what the players think about him or training, the result is important to him, so their relationship with the main character is very difficult at first. Their conflict, which is based on the fact that Tarasov does not add Kharlamov to the main team, and at first does not allow him to train at all, gradually develops into mutual respect, so the interaction of these two characters on the screen was pleasant and interesting to watch.
The whole film, in fact, is a series of obstacles and trials through which the main character passes on the way to victory in a climactic hockey match. The film consistently and slowly throughout the timekeeping speaks about the “invincible” Canadians, which, of course, in the end and must overcome our athletes together with the main character. The last match has a rather complex structure. The transition from loss to superiority, from a serious injury to Kharlamov and the fall of his belligerent attitude to the denial of pain, from defeat to victory and recognition, as well as the parallel editing of a match with a stage where Tarasov walks around the court and imitates a hockey match - all this complicates the spectrum of emotions that the viewer experiences while watching.
From a technical point of view, all games are performed at the proper level. The camera work is good most of the time, you can also notice interesting plans and angles outside the ice. But sometimes, in my opinion, hockey looks a little ragged due to excessive camera shaking and too fast change of frames, although it is clear that with the help of these techniques, the authors tried to create tension and give dynamics to the scenes.
Let us turn to the thoughts and messages that the viewer can find in this picture. On the one hand, the film can be said to propagate the ideas of individualism, presenting the hero Menshikov (Balashov), who opposes Tarasov’s “selfishness,” in a negative light. But, on the other hand, when it turns out that Balashov is the same (and in fact much worse) individualist, because he does so that the team lost to Spartak, only for the sake of revenge against Tarasov (on the basis of personal interests), it turns out that either the authors wrongly built this storyline, or there are no such ideas there. But what the film does have and promotes is the idea that when a person finds what he really loves, only then can he overcome any external circumstances (the struggle with the “system”) and even himself. This idea is the result of both Kharlamov’s professional history and his relationship with his girlfriend.
The love line in the film performs its function (enhancing empathy and diluting the plot) and does not take much time. But it is difficult to say anything else about it, because otherwise it is quite predictable and a little, in my opinion, fresh.
As a result, we can say for sure that the picture is able to attract the attention of the audience, elicit a response in their hearts and keep in suspense at the right moments. Due to the linear composition and simple structure of most scenes, a clear and memorable viewing experience is created. The story told by the plot of the film inspires and charges positive emotions. A good picture, which, perhaps due to the specifics of the genre, does not properly address complex and ambiguous topics, because perhaps they would look out of place there. And, despite some uncritical logical “holes” (like how a hockey player could forget a stick when he ran away from home, or why tell Balashov that Moscow is waiting for a draw, athletes who have already equalized the score and should be focused on winning), in my opinion, Legend No. 17 is a worthy representative of Russian cinema.
Real men play hockey! Legend number 17, which became number 1.
Half the country has seen this movie, maybe the whole country. I just watched it for the first time yesterday. Since I do not like modern Russian cinema, well, they do not know how to make a good movie here, they used to be able to, but now they do not. But, this is a film about sports, and I always love a movie about sports, in whatever country it was shot. Especially about hockey (this is my favorite sport, since childhood an ardent cheerleader).
And this biographical drama about the Soviet hockey player Valery Kharlamov. September 2, 1972 in Montreal, the hockey team of the USSR with a crushing score 7:3 defeated Canadian professionals from the NHL in the opening match of the epochal Super Series of the USSR - Canada. It was not just a game, it was a battle for his country, which turned the world idea of hockey. Valery Kharlamov, who scored two goals in that match, instantly soared to the top of fame. His dream came true - perseverance, sports talent and harsh lessons of the great coach Anatoly Tarasov made the number 17 a legend of world hockey.
The film certainly deserves attention, if only for the reason that tells about the legendary athlete of the USSR. The visual similarity with Kharlamov was achieved more or less, which already gives a bit of harmony "Legend 17". As befits the tape of this genre, the script is built on the exploits of the hockey player, on his attempts to become the best, on demonstrative painstaking work.
Kozlovsky played well, but it can not be said that he demonstrated something incredible. In principle, the character is sufficiently disclosed.
Oleg Menshikov is a chic role, the coach must be tough and even cruel. The brilliant Tarasov is one of those who knows how to make a person and does it at the risk of their own interests and career. These are the teachers who say thank you.
The film itself is quite dynamic, it is interesting to watch it. The legendary competition on the ice is filmed in detail and sound, undoubtedly evokes emotions, as befits a sports competition. The audience unwittingly becomes a fan, that's great. This means that the main goal of the film is achieved.
The film is worth watching. It's about willpower, and patriotism, and sports, and character. It’s always good to learn something new about your country if you haven’t. The film was awarded six awards "Golden Eagle" and received the highest ratings of film critics.
"Legend No. 17" - surprisingly organic and patriotically charged film, radically different from all presented in the Russian box office. The film is thoroughly imbued with the strength of the spirit of this male game, the incredible thirst for victory and patriotism. Separate scenes and twists of the plot of the film amaze and inspire feats. There were many obstacles on the life path of the great athlete, but they are nothing compared to the expectation of an imminent victory. After watching, I want to re-read the life story of Valery Kharlamov and all the athletes who brought the USSR fame as the best hockey players in the world. This match once again showed the importance of team spirit and playfulness.
The film turned out not only convincing, but also worthy of comparison with American sports films. This is the level that post-Soviet Russia is reaching, we can only consider. The film believes in every scene, from this point of view, the filmmakers coped with their creative task on five plus.
It seems that over the years, I watched a really nice and decent domestic film. What pays off is the simplicity of patriotism, which is absolutely unlike the pathosy Russophobic reception of current filmmakers.
The film is worth watching even those who do not like Russian cinema, and those who are ready to give this movie another chance. If you give it, not everything is so bad, and sometimes even good.
The wonderful play of Oleg Menshikov, so beloved by me, and so rarely noticed in the movies, filled the film with a special atmosphere, a new, clean and simple state of dignity and work, simple professional work. I recommend watching to increase the sense of beauty, and life-affirming hopes in the future!
The film shows the struggle of not one person with the system, but a whole team. Although the beginning is long, but it pays off more than at the end of the picture. After watching, I have a strong feeling that there are still people on the planet who with their great deeds can change the world for the better.
The film is about fighting, about everyone making their own choices. It's not just the world of wrestling. This is the world of struggle in this life, whether you are a hockey player or a dancer. Success, failure, betrayal and loyalty are all facets of adulthood. Great people with great actions and make great events. Super motivating film. The atmosphere is wonderful, the acting is great.
A great movie. The match with Canadians and the allegory with bullfighting are incredibly spectacular. At some point, I even forgot that this is a movie, so worried about ours. Amusing comments of individual sofa critics: in general, it is clear how many people, so many opinions. But do not forget that a feature film is different from a documentary chronicle. Therefore, the pathos of connoisseurs in the expert assessment of the biography looks somewhat ridiculous and ridiculous. It is impossible to make a true film about a person because no one will ever tell you what it was like, everyone has their own perspective and their own truth, and different people will have different memories about the same event. Many legends die when people become documentary. In the film, the main thing is that he left in the soul, whether he forced to live moments of grief or joy together with the characters, how realistic the emotions were, how vivid the actors were able to play their roles.
We are all more or less professional at something. Someone rock climbing was engaged, someone hockey, football, figure skating, auto racing and so on, etc. And we all see schools of films where we are pros, but we watch them, noticing the shoals, but paying tribute to art. And if the film is shot interestingly, the actors played their roles perfectly, the cameraman worked wonderfully and all the participants in the filming process did not cheat, then we perceive this film. So I want to say that if there is an opportunity to abstract from historical data, just watch this film, just enjoy the process.
9 out of 10
And yet, where did the three pucks in our gates come from?
Come up with a non-trivial and at the same time harmonious literary turnover with the word ' Legend' and I will see how you do not succeed!
Let my review get lost among three and a half hundred other rave reviews. Someone has already noticed that this film cannot be blamed for the inconsistency of historical accuracy. I will take the extreme: he can not be blamed for anything.
Whatever was flying into it!
With my own ears I heard the review of one viewer after going to the cinema (attention, then a serious spoiler!): 'Everything is predictable: it was immediately clear that ours will beat the Canadians in the end! I didn’t know it was true, but I guessed it right away!' Here it is time to quote even not Krylov about the nightingale and the donkey, then Pushkin is already in use: ' God forbid me to go mad, it is better staff and mad!'
Well? Compare this film with the notorious Hollywood 'Miracle on Ice'! Or is it customary to compare 'Moving up'? Come on! 'Legend No. 17' The haters with 'Miracle on Ice' were also put on the same board. Like Marshak, 'There will be flies - there would be honey!' (By the way, also from the legend about a drop of honey). )
Have you scored a goal yet? Oh, yeah! Speculation, pathos, state order, propaganda ... And what about the crown: ' But we lost that super series!!!'
Are you serious? No, really, really?
Turn on the movie from the opening credits. Or just look at the poster again. What's it called? Do you even know that word? What is the difference between a documentary, and even a feature historical film from LEGENDS?
A beautiful heroic epic tale of the past, which is passed down from generation to generation. No historical evidence, no document in any way diminishes the value of the legend. The spectator making the above claims actually proposes to throw away the stories about Odyssey, about the Argonauts and about Alexander the Great. Again, I'm not comparing scales, but genres. But I am ready to sign: the film about Kharlamov is just such a modern LEGENDA. Yes, the record is broken. But it all happened!
And Kharlamov's injury, and the persecution of Tarasov, and with the national team problem, and Canadians without helmets.
The free interpretation of historical events in the name of the word beauty is actually the formula of the epic. So this film is a Soviet epic. Our epic. Our story. Our legend.
10 out of 10
Yes, all seventeen out of ten.
P.S.: Being a little younger, I was a bit critical of the film myself. I missed a note of tragedy because Valery Kharlamov is a tragic figure. But now I can see why I changed my mind as I got older.
As is common in modern Russian cinema, Legend No. 17 is also a hysterical film. It's all over the place, for every small reason. In particular, the mother of the main character is hysterical, constantly shouting “VALERA!”!! Valera!!! This cry rang in my ears after watching the movie.
Among other things, Kharlamov’s mother was shown to be exceedingly narcissistic, because only this can explain the ineradicable desire to be aware of all the affairs of her already adult son, and even rush to solve his problems instead of him.
The film claims to be historic, but it is largely not confirmed; a huge number of stretches and inconsistencies: either this did not happen at all, or it was, but not then, or it was, but not with that. Any lie in such a case for the perception of the picture by our viewer is only harmful, because we are not pindos, with pleasure eating all sorts of unfiltered film shit. The truth about our achievements in hockey is so obvious and convex that it was enough to show only the truth, it would be enough! In addition, it is strange that only this episode from all his stellar path was chosen to “legend” the image of Kharlamov. But even more strangely, in this pitch Kharlamov is represented by the only star who actually made that game, like, thank you to the others for not interfering. Ah, how this contradicts the real Kharlamov - exclusively a team player!
History concentrates all attention only on Kharlamov, as if victory was built only on his personal skill. The role of other members of the team is completely canceled. Impression from this was aggravated by the final "joke" Kharlamov, in which he encouraged his friend Gusev, that, according to the testimony of opponents, victory depended on the latter. The second significant person is coach Tarasov. His wise training methods, his wise philosophical reflections on life are a vomiting cinematic pathos.
As for the methods of training – if an athlete does not train at all, and only sits on the bench all day long, he will not be able to gain skills, strengthen his strength, and expect anything from him – obviously madness. That’s not how Coach Tarasov is in this movie. He forcibly and, most importantly, it is unclear why, literally rotted Kharlamov, not allowing him to go out on the ice at all. According to the film, it lasted for months. But here Kino-Kharlamov still comes out on the ice, and immediately works miracles and grabs the stars from the sky! But Kharlamov’s words from real life: “No matter how talented you are, only training, persistent, persistent training, where the willpower and patience of an athlete, his character, ability to cope with all obstacles and surprises, allow us to count on success are fully tested.” But in the film, it is the opposite, the less training (Kharlamov), the better the result. Oh, coach!!!
Unfortunately, the names of the other players in the film remain completely unknown. But for the world of sports in general and for the world of hockey in particular, these are great names, not to name which for more than 2 hours is simply criminal in relation to the real story! And there was always only one surname – Kharlamov, occasionally Gusev, and even less often in the form of a bundle – Mikhailov-Petrov-Kharlamov. Of these hockey players in the film, only Gusev had his own face and a small role, the rest were faceless names, and they were not shown in the movies. Isn't that a bad thing about Soviet hockey?
From the film it seems that before the shown match the USSR did not play against Canada. But that's definitely not true.
The film did not do without a powerful anti-Soviet color, mainly in the role of the “overseer from the Central Committee” performed by Menshov. In fact, the idea of a representative from the Central Committee of the CPSU at the hockey team is an idioty of a cosmic scale. According to his duties, the curator was, rather, a KGB officer, specially assigned to the coach Tarasov to control the methods of his struggle for the purity of hockey, and where the “purity” went against the “general line of the party”, to twist the tap of Tarasov’s zeal. The role of the nomenclature in the shown history is the face of state power, petty, mean, insidious. Very clumsy and unskillfully pulled on the film this torn condom anti-Soviet, senseless and merciless.
Absolutely idiotic episodes - hanging on cables and gum during the game. There were many others, but these are the most. When people with teenage consciousness take on a script, it turns out this. Have you moved into a new apartment? – Doused the walls and ceiling with champagne! You should live here, let everything be sprinkled with sticky sulk!
Ira’s girlfriend in the film for some reason stressed old for her role; was it really difficult to find a younger actress, because she is a student!
Conclusion. Hand on heart, I wouldn’t call this film as patriotic as many people think. The system of education of sports personnel, which gave high results at the international level, is shown. Judging by the film, the system worked flawlessly, and this was ensured, on the one hand, by the presence of quality coaching staff, on the other hand, by close state control over their work. State control performed by the character of Menshov, “representative of the Central Committee of the Party” (!!!), was shown grotesquely clumsy, aimed no longer at the result, but at pleasing the whims of the first persons; undercover intrigues, meanness, bribery, blackmail, stupidity and lysoobservance are the components of state control in this film. This is the prototype of the state, it is how it provides and accompanies the process of sports training. Therefore, Soviet coaches in such a presentation are brilliant free artists, nuggets who fell with their talents from nowhere, and at the same time they are dissidents, secret fighters against the regime, who truly care for the Fatherland, despite the fact that it spoils their lives and prevents them from working as they should. Well, since the result in the shown story is positive, it seems that it will be achieved WITH GOVERNMENT CAUTION (Hurrah!). We're allowed to draw! A similar vomit was repeated in "Moving Up" - the ears of the same photographer are visible. Approximately, as in liberal hysterics about the Victory in the Second World War, which was achieved in spite of Stalin and his bloody satraps. The state is in itself, the world of sports is in itself, and in addition, they are opposed to each other. What is patriotic, I refuse to understand. Rather, in this part, the film feels sharply anti-Soviet, and therefore anti-patriotic. However, you close your eyes to this when you are shown the crushing victory of the enemy in the face of the “invincible” Canadians; pleasant emotions obscure your mind, but if you turn it on and analyze it, it smells rotten.
A film for the undemanding viewer. It was much worse than I could have done. Script problem. The rating is unreasonably high, and a place in the Top 250 is inappropriate.
Apparently, everything that the authors of this “creation” knew about Soviet hockey at the beginning of the 70s of the last century, they, filled with a sense of immeasurable patriotism, piled into one big pile, confusing all the facts and inventing in addition everything that only came into their minds.
Soviet hockey in the 70s was certainly the pride of the country as a whole, and most of its citizens. The names of the best Soviet hockey players were well known. More than ten years in world hockey, no one is able to thoroughly compete with the national team of the USSR. Where are they? And here they are – there in Canada, but not the ones we regularly beat at the World Championships, and others – the real Masters! That’s what you need to check yourself for! And indeed, held in August-September 1972, the Super Series at that time was the pinnacle of world hockey, and one Great Hockey player single-handedly became the hero of the second period of the first match of this series. Here's a ready-made legend for anything! In this case, someone decided – what for the movie!
But everything is good in moderation, and it is in this film and there is no: hence the idiotic image of the KGB-shooter, and the great Bobrov, deduced by such a “smearing”, seriously reasoning with “simple” hockey players about whether the horse’s head was real or not in the film they just watched, and Tarasov’s flint, alone fighting with the system and undergoing its revenge, and it is not worth talking about the stupidities that describe the events in Chebarkul (Alexander Gusev immediately pointed out to the authors... And as the apotheosis of all this nonsense - growling Canadian hockey players (yes, this is not an exaggeration - they somehow roar in the film).
But, having shown the ability to catch up, spend money and, for example, to shoot the “hockey part” of the film in the real Montreal “Forum”, which now does not exist – that would be interesting. But, alas. Although, alas, instead we showed naked actress Ivanova.
Who wants a movie like this about hockey? Ah?
4 out of 10
Despite all the “efforts” of the authors, this is Our Hockey and this is Kharlamov.
Everything is good in this film, except the main one - the image of the two main characters, Kharlamov and Tarasov. This is the eternal problem of our corrupt era: real men and real women are being played by actors who are not. The same problem, of course, with directors: small-swimming, too selfish or just spoiled people can not create high works.
Young people, of course, eat this fairy tale, according to the Russian proverb: “He who has not seen a new one, is glad to be worn.” But to the people of my generation who watched the matches of Tarasov and Kharlamov live, it is obvious that the performers are not the ones.
Menshikov convincingly played only one side of Tarasov - his toughness. But where is everything else? If everything was so, then any Gestapo could be a great hockey coach.
As for Kharlamov, he was a man, and it was obvious. And Kozlovsky is a boy, a spoiled boy of our era, and cannot hide it. Where did the fighting character come from? According to the film - out of nowhere, it was Tarasov who brought him up with his Gestapo methods. But that's certainly not true. It doesn't happen. Unfortunately, the theme of the formation of the personality, the theme of the childhood of the hero in the film is limited by the Spanish flavor. The wrapper is beautiful, but the inside is empty.
Hockey is very popular in our country. Since the Soviet Union, we have been considered a hockey power, everyone talked about the “red machine” that snatchs victories one by one.
Everyone at least once heard these names: Tretiak, Fetisov, Mikhailov, Petrov and, of course, Kharlamov. This person knows even a child.
Do not think that this film is not for you, if you are not interested in hockey, sports. The picture tells about the formation of an athlete, everything is present here - friendship, love, relations with parents, mentors, struggle with oneself, with the system.
Nikolai Lebedev’s biographical film Legend No. 17, released in 2013, gave hope for the revival of modern Russian cinema. The script, directorial and camera work merge into a single whole, all this is seasoned with strong musical compositions by Eduard Artemyev. No wonder the picture is the winner of six Golden Eagle awards.
Our generation was not destined to see those legendary matches. This film gives an opportunity to go back in time, to go along with the hero from games in children's teams to the match of a lifetime, to feel the atmosphere of that time and that power.
The cast is perfect. Everyone is so used to the role of their characters that sometimes you forget that you are watching a feature film.
Danila Kozlovsky is very organic in the role of ardent, young, purposeful Valery Kharlamov. Relatives of the hockey player even noticed some resemblance. The aspiring hockey star goes to his goal, seeing no obstacles, overcoming himself and pain. He's not used to giving up. His number is 17. Hockey is his life.
Oleg Menshikov, like no other, shows us the Great (with a capital letter) Coach Anatoly Tarasov. Fair, with his view on the training process. He does his job as he sees fit. Does not pay attention to gossip behind his back, leads the team to victory. He's raising real men. “I need iron men, stronger than Canadians.”
Protect the gate! Protect your whole body! How to protect your children! How to defend the Motherland! – these strong comparisons of the coach help players to feel the game in every sense. They say, “A coward doesn’t play hockey.”
The Tarasov method of education is tough, but effective, the guys learn from their mistakes, which helps them in the future to understand the game more, to unite and become one whole. The national team of the Soviet Union!
He seems to everyone cruel, insensitive, merciless, but deep down he loves the guys with all his heart – “I never realized that you are my whole life!”
Tarasov played a significant role in the life of Kharlamov, and all hockey in general.
During the match of the super series with the Canadians, the filmmakers very accurately compared with the Spanish bullfight, which begins the narrative of the film. Cruel, merciless bulls fight not for life, but for death. One goal is victory! This was the legendary match that drew the whole world to the screens. With the exception of one person - Tarasov ...
What can be more expensive for a coach than the achievement of the goal of his pupils? And what could be more valuable to the team than the well-deserved words of praise from the mentor: “Guys, I’m proud of you!” You are the best team in the world!
Perhaps after watching the film, the boys will be inspired by what they saw and run to the hockey sections. They will achieve results, imitating their “new-old” idol Valera Kharlamov.
A large-scale picture about a man-winner, released in cinemas simultaneously with the painting by Pavel Parkhomenko “Gagarin”. The first in space attracted special attention of the public and won the hearts of many viewers who came to listen to the story of the great Soviet hockey player. The picture was not only a great motivator, it strengthened the people’s consciousness and the idea of the need to go forward, to work “in a team”.
The director of the picture Nikolai Lebedev proved himself as an expert in his field, having managed to skillfully intertwine the fates of the main and secondary characters, connect them with the twists and turns of the plot, drawing an important semantic line through the entire film.
Any viewer is able to notice their interest in the hero of the picture after the first minutes of viewing. What's this about? Why do we criticize many of the works of Russian directors, but indisputably speak of Legend 17 with respect?
It’s all about building a script and developing characters.
Each director has his own formula, his own recipe for creating the perfect movie. Genius festival films do not always catch the viewer, often the problem is unprepared for the pace of the narrative. Nikolai Lebedev’s work, on the contrary, preserves important moments of tension for the average viewer, and unexpected turns, thereby immersing him headlong into what is happening on the screen.
The story is easy to tell, because the whole film was divided into phrases containing the event. A series of ups and downs, which began with a certain defeat for the hero (at the very beginning of the film, an illusory trip to the game in Japan turns into a humiliating reference to Chebarkul), affects the soul of the viewer, contributes to his empathy for the character. Then the plot develops according to the same scheme: effort, perseverance - takeoff, an unexpected event - defeat.
The first hour of the film causes only positive emotions, there is no sense of understatement and illogicality. As soon as the phrase with hockey and all the problems associated with the period of formation of the hero ends, the love line begins. These romantic moments are inserted so skillfully that it is impossible to understand, or the director so subtly felt those moments when the viewer wants to know what is happening on the love front of the beloved hero, or Nikolai Lebedev masterfully plays directorial techniques and controls the desires of the viewer, leading them all two hours through history as blind puppies.
However, the infinity of twists and turns towards the middle of the film begins to tire a little. The structure of the film is so obvious, dramatic events occur from time to time that the viewer may have a sense of predictability of the picture, and therefore a state of emotional exhaustion and fatigue.
But do not particularly look for disadvantages in this, in general, the picture is inspiring and catchy. First of all, thanks to his main character - Valery Kharlamov. The inner feelings of the hero are not ignored. In fact, they are devoted to most of the film, for which I want to thank the creators of the picture. Secondary heroes also find themselves in the place, there are almost no meaningless and do not affect the plot characters. Some develop the story, some reveal the main character. All appropriate. It is also important that with each minor character, the main character has a conflict, whether it is a mother who tries to help her son without his knowledge, or a coach who first appears as a heartless tyrant trying to humiliate the hero, or Balashov from the Central Committee of the Party, pushing Kharlamov to betray.
All the lines converged at one point, all the conflict nodes are waiting for their solution, so the final game “not for life, but for death” is perceived as the apotheosis of all life, all experiences. The long-awaited denouement, accompanied by the music of the great composer Eduard Artemyev, who has long loved us, touches the hearts, and makes the soul tremble in catharsis.
Legend number 17 is mass cinema. It's easy to perceive. However, the delicacy and love with which the film was made, the patriotic and moral thoughts that were invested in it, cannot leave indifferent neither the layman nor the sophisticated viewer.
8 out of 10
“Whether you can or can’t, it’s up to you to decide.”
I'll tell you right away - it's a masterpiece! I love movies with a powerful story and strong characters, but this one just exceeded my expectations! I haven’t felt that much emotion in a long time. Before watching Legends N17, I wasn’t a hockey fan, so I couldn’t even imagine that it would make my heart beat so much throughout most of the movie that I’d want to watch it many more times.
Absolutely stunning scenario, impeccably drawn main characters, a complete feeling of immersion in the atmosphere of that time. Many people criticize the film for inconsistencies with real events, some historical vulgarities - I will tell you as a person who does not know before the film in such details about the famous hockey players, the genius coach and that match with the Canadians - it does not matter at all, the film fulfilled its function - to tell about the events of those years and make the soul shimmer with the whole palette of emotions during these 2.5 hours. You take pride in your past, in the fact that only Russians can possess such traits, they become invincible and formidable rivals if they know what they want to achieve. The incredible will to win, to live, the unwillingness to bend under anyone, the ability to fight not only with the enemy, but also with our weaknesses, with external circumstances and to achieve as a result, our character traits, our skills and capabilities, which we often forget.
The main characters. Despite the fact that the film was meant for Valery Kharlamov, it turned out, in my opinion, about their legendary coach and his team, an important part of which was the same Kharlamov. Anatoly Tarasov holds all the power and invincibility of the team, every scene with the participation of Oleg Menshikov is amazing - he managed to reveal the hero from different sides, to show that only a tough leader, devoted to his work with all his heart, can make any team an invincible opponent. The closer to the final, the clearer it becomes that Tarasov prepared them for any difficulties, both physical and moral - all this helped the team to perform with such a result in a fight with the strongest opponent, when the chances were unequal, when everyone around in the stands is strangers and is rooting not for you, when circumstances try to break you and your faith in yourself and in victory. With another coach, it would have been different, obviously, and Danila Kozlovsky demonstrates this beautifully, showing how grateful his hero is to the coach, whom he initially hated for his toughness and invincible perfectionism.
Tarasov admires throughout the film - he is uncompromising in achieving his goals, lives his business and sincerely loves his team, in fact, as the father of his children. He does not allow himself to be pressured, does not allow injustice, does not bend under anyone and does not fear anything. That is why he is so respected not only by the team, but also by all his opponents. The scene of leaving the match makes you admire him, his firmness, because he perfectly understood the consequences, but did not depart from his principles. This man goes to the end in everything, he was not afraid to go out alone against all - against the authorities, against the angry crowd. The world holds on to such people, for sure. And with all this inner strength, it is perfectly shown that he has a good heart, he loves his guys, he supports Kharlamov when he is ready to break after an accident, he wins him a place in the national team for a trip to Canada, although he will not go there himself. How amazing it is to show a real man, a real man - bravo to writers, regardless of plausibility and historical notes.
I would give you a higher rating if that was possible. The movie is fantastic! I recommend to everyone who has not yet looked and doubts - it is not about hockey, it is about the real Russian character, love for their work and desire for a dream.
10 out of 10
I didn't like the movie. I’ll give you a positive review and explain why.
I love hockey, I played it myself, I read a lot about the history of hockey, I follow the tournaments. I’m going to make the most of this movie.
The confrontation between the national teams of the USSR (Russia) and Canada is a classic of world hockey, the meetings of these teams have always been and are of a principled nature, often it does not matter how the tournament develops in the future, the main thing is to beat your main rival!
The film tells about the formation of Valery Kharlamov, one of the most outstanding hockey players in history. His records for the number of goals thrown and the number of points in one Olympiad could only be repeated (9 + 7). Along with Vladislav Tretyak, he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, although they have never played in the NHL, and it is almost impossible to get there if a hockey player has not played in the NHL. But Kharlamov’s achievements and awards can be listed for a very long time, so let’s move on to the film.
Cons.
1. The biggest drawback of the film is the terrible scenes of hockey matches! They are poorly delivered, the camera is constantly concentrating on the face of the protagonist, there are catastrophically few general plans! Of course, I understand that it is impossible to fit several matches in a 2-hour film, but to show a couple of close-ups only the face of the main character, and the next shot to say that the match is over ... well, this is not serious. In the 90s, 3 American films about the founding of the NHL club Anaheim Ducks were released, so there, with a timekeeping of a little more than an hour and a half, matches were shown much better and better than in Legend No. 17. The clumsy movements of the camera, almost constant close-ups of the main character's face, and when they showed a general plan, it was clear that extras in hockey almost do not know how to play (in fact, so many close-ups), all this personally caused me a negative.
2. Valery Kharlamov (Danila Kozlovsky) - are you serious? I wonder if the filmmakers even know what Kharlamov looked like? Kozlovsky is 185 centimeters tall, Kharlamov was only 173! And it immediately caught my eye! Kharalamov was not so tall and heavy, he took his filigree technique, was a very smart and fast hockey player, saw the court perfectly. Kozlovsiky also looked clumsy, what he was doing for 4 months is not clear, could not at least take a double?
3. Anatoly Tarasov (Oleg Menshikov), here the main claim is that the role of Tarasov for the USSR national team was greatly overstated. During this period he was not the head coach, he was only the second coach (coach) of the national team, the head coach was Arkady Ivanovich Chernyshev, who led the USSR national team to 4 gold medals. It is worth noting that under Tarasov as head coach, the USSR national team has never won either the World Cup or the OI. Why the filmmakers bypassed Chernyshev, I do not understand.
What are the advantages of the movie? Yes, only one obvious plus ... is that somehow honored the memory of one of the most outstanding hockey players in the history of world hockey! Yes, they did it pretty badly, but at least they remembered such a great player!
5 out of 10
Free interpretation of the rise of the legendary hockey player
“Legend N17” is a free look at the brilliant and, unfortunately, sadly short life of the outstanding Soviet hockey player Kharlamov V. B. The film covers the period from the first successes of the young hockey player to his participation in the legendary match against Canadian stars, the first in the USSR super series – Canada (1972). The film demonstrates courage, resilience and will to win. The plot is certainly exciting, at the height of both the cast and the picture are very pleasant, but the film is not a biography of Kharlamov, but rather based on his life and some consider it an inexcusable fiasco of filmmakers. I don’t think that the story of Valery Borisovich was so vilified to put an end to the film because of this. Well, this is still a feature film and, you will agree, a dry narrative about Kharlamov’s life could possibly turn out to be dull for most viewers and unsightly, and they spent a lot of money on the cinema, which need to somehow recapture. Personally, I deviations from the biography of a real athlete and other shortcomings did not particularly prevent me from enjoying watching an exciting action.
In addition to twitching the real facts of the athlete’s biography, I can not help but add a couple of drops of tar to a barrel of honey from a boring template love story with a snotty floral and stair romance and the order of the bored sweet Kozlovsky, without which almost every second Russian modern box office film does not do, although in the role he looks quite himself. And, perhaps, the most unpleasant thing that the medica became not so sweet is the demonstration of hockey matches. Shooting matches is very twitchy, confused and annoying. It is very difficult to understand what is happening on the field, except when someone is knocked down or when the puck is in goal. By the way, I should have warned before the session about the dangers for epilepsy, because even I have a little head spinning. However, the rest of the visual quality is at a height, especially pleasing to the eye is a pleasant warm color correction.
I do not know how truthfully shown the methods of training CSKA Tarasov, but his movie image strongly reminded me of the sadist conductor from “Whiplash”, several times during the viewing represented Menshikov, who played the role of coach, evil screaming Simmons. Overall, the character turned out to be emotional. But the scene with him in the yard during the game with the Canadians seemed strange to me. What the director wanted to show, maybe the coach’s sadness from indifference or maybe it was a mystical ritual that helped the Soviet team, is unclear.
Despite the inauthenticity of the narrative, I consider this film useful, it popularizes hockey, and sports in principle, and motivates, of course, and also introduces the younger generation and not only the young to the real heroes of our country. Those who are really interested in the biography of the great hockey player can easily find it on the Internet, and the film can just push to this. It is a pity that they did not pay attention to other outstanding hockey players of the national team, such as Tretiak, for example. I understand the film about Kharlamov, but the name of the legendary goalkeeper was not even mentioned, like.
Setting aside the biography of the real Kharlamov, we can say that the film is very useful, but still not enough to show off in the top 250 best films of the site.
Hungry Russian producers decided to concoct an epic script based on the long-ground events of sports history. An incompetent parody of the past and profanation. Solid stamps and mainstream tricks used to squeeze the audience's tears out of both eyes. False, sterile heroes, primitive accompaniment of sound text. Any scripted pirouettes are foreseen in this work ahead of time and without errors.
The love line was borrowed from TV showrunners - the very geniuses that make the hearts of impressionable grandmothers beat in time with the new series of favorite soap operas. There is nothing to stutter about a reliable review of the material - the history of Soviet hockey directly comes to life on the big screen incarnation. Kharlamov in this project is a face, obviously, an outsider, because at a cursory mention in the credits his presence in the picture came to an end. It is at such moments that you understand all the lively relevance of the aphorism of the famous film director, who once joked that he was not afraid to die, but it was scary that Pattinson would play him after his death.
To consolidate the necessary spectator emotions, the script includes motives of friendship, honor and overcoming oneself. In the background - standard lubricated romance. For proforma, an episode of intima is inserted to the place. In the climax of the heroes expect insurmountable spiritual obstacles, the final strong-willed leap forward, panibrate hugs, someone’s murder with a champagne cork in the face. Yay, comrades! This is our homeland! Grab me everywhere!
Everywhere you throw a stone, there are caricatures. The greatest perplexity is caused by the undisguised absurdity of the antagonists. One refuses to score a lot because he doesn’t want to go with the team to the top division. Another puts forward a national demand from Moscow to lose to an opponent with a decent score. Conflicts with a girl are squeezed out of nothing, without any reason, without logic, without clear explanations. Typical serial thinking. What level of neglect should the audience have, so that all this pretended splendor it is still not tired of bribing?
As is usually the case in bad biopics, age-related character changes are shown conditionally. It's so conventional that you don't seem to see it at all. To understand how much the hero of the scene screen years, it is possible only by hints and reactions from people around. Without any claims to makeup, the characters pass for ten, and some so almost all thirty years, without experiencing in their appearance and behavior any changes characteristic of aging.
The design in the picture is ordinary and the status of a bloated bag of money does not justify. The introductory shots at the resort and at all evoked in memory associations with the “Showdown in Manila” – this clumsy and bombastic cut in the style of action drama looks so clumsy. And then the monotonous shooting of ice battles about Alexander Nevsky and overseas tafgays in armor, which are heated only by uplifting melodies behind the scenes and inspired applause and exclamations from somewhere from the dubbing studio. If instead of a film with Danila Kozlovsky, read, for example, the notorious encyclopedic sites, then you can feel the atmosphere of the 72nd year much more deeply. Even in a dry enumeration of facts and details, the heart is buried more than in this hackneyed Russian melodrama about the impersonal “legend” and its factory stamp.
Costumes and scenery of the seventies, musical developments of the ageless Eduard Artemyev, scant background illustrations from props and special effects - more, perhaps, in all this grandiose domestic project, there is nothing to note with a good look. Kozlovsky’s bulldog, even with an awkwardly ruffled hairstyle, is unlike a talented Soviet hockey player.
A movie for kids. You are no longer surprised by the rampant enthusiastic reviews from mentally gifted people, their authoritative remarks about raising Russian cinema from its knees and the names of reviews that were purposefully hammered into their heads throughout the product.
Brazenly! Loud! Patriotic!
I live in Elektrostal, and I myself remember how they shot this film - how they removed all the advertising from our palace, put a sign ' CSKA', brought LAZ 695E. And because of all this for me as a resident of this city, watching the film is a little funny – they are trying to pass off our palace for CSKA, especially at that time at the club it was just like that. But why then remove the inner part in the Wings of the Soviets? The other thing that made me laugh was that in the credits it was signed as DS Youth, when we always had DS Crystal. Otherwise, if you do not pay attention to such trifles, everything will be fine. Just again, I live there, and therefore I do not see there Moscow CSKA, well, no way.
Surprisingly, the creators did not try to bring the entire modern hockey infrastructure to an authentic appearance - and from this we see colored chairs in the MSA Luzhniki, a ceiling of squares in the locker room. Well, at least the seats could be made with the help of a computer wooden. Especially in those years, the ISA was an open platform. It was the DS Luzhniki who would have filmed there. It's not at all clear. Car equipment also looks unconvincing - for filming it was all taken from the Museum of Mosgortrans. And in the movie, we see it all licked, as if just from the factory. Well, she can't look like that, working around the clock. Ikarus 55 killed in Montreal. How can Icarus be in Montreal?
The atmosphere of those years is not felt at all. In the sixties and seventies, the picture was different, could have artificially brought it to that appearance. For example, if you watch Operation Y and Legend, then in the first case you believe that the action in Soviet Moscow of the sixties. But in the Legend you see just modernity, which they tried to disguise as the sixties, but failed.
However! Despite so many visual jambs, there are no questions about the content part! The story is really interesting, and it probably saves the whole thing. You want to watch the movie, even if you are already bombarded with all sorts of inaccuracies. The games are very well staged, during the games you do not watch a movie, but believe that this is a real hockey, and during the game in Canada you even cheer for ' our & #39; even if you know that in the end the USSR will win anyway. The team game is very well shown and as the Canadian coach said - ' it's war!' The only thing that you don't really believe in the Canadian team - well, it's not hockey players, but just gopniks with sticks. And it's done a very good job of plotting.
Heroes do not cause dislike, not even Balashov. Kharlamov is good, because even the relatives of the real Kharlamov noted the external similarity of Kozlovsky with him. Goose is a very funny character, and it is very cool that he and his friend Valery were in all clubs, from the Star to the USSR national team. At first you hate Tarasov, but in the process his motives become clear, and you forget about the hostility to him that was at first. Balashov is shown as a scoundrel, but it is understandable - he, using his official position, dreams of revenge on Tarasov for the fact that he expelled his son from CSKA. If your son is incompetent, no coach can help. Who didn’t like it very much – Ira (flamed because Valery just said that he thinks he doesn’t need anything but hockey). Well, a fool, no understanding, can it not be simpler?) and this Spaniard, I do not remember the full name (he climbs where not necessary, exposing himself as a fool and embarrassing himself and Kharlamov).
The result is that the film is really good. It is modern, the atmosphere of antiquity does not convey. But he's good. Just good.
I am far from wanting to revisit our recent past for the test of its greatness and whether our opponents had more fear or respect.
And I also don’t want to check the authenticity and chronicle of the facts described in the film with the reality of the time (although after watching I re-read the entire history of hockey confrontations with Canadian professionals, noting some inconsistencies).
"Legend N17" I tend to consider, exclusively, as a separate story of a talented guy that stubbornly climbs to the top, overcoming pain and dribbling around rivals - without reference to the historical context.
The used quote that success is 1% of talent and 99% of hard work could easily become the slogan of Nikolai Lebedev’s 2012 report. All two hours of screen time, cinematic Valery Kharlamov goes through a series of ups and downs from a naive ambitious boy to a high-class professional hockey player, who is hunted by the NHL.
A clear goal with readiness to shed sweat and blood for her is competently complemented by a refrain about the need for a mentor that his stuffed hand will grind the diamond of your talent, promptly lowering you to the ground and not allowing you to soar earlier than set. I think it was the absence of such “Tarasov” near that ruined the career of many athletes who from the status of “young and promising” boulder slid into oblivion and oblivion.
In addition to the semantic load, intriguing intersperses of the main characters in historical sports events (a la “Forrest Gump”) and beautiful general plans of filled sports arenas, plus the creators for a successful casting. Danila Kozlovsky is good up to the appearance of the prototype. Oleg “Fandorin” Menshikov did not outplay J.K. Simmons from “Obsession” (and maybe even became his forerunner, given that the film by Damien Chazelle came out a year later). Each actor is in his place: bureaucrat Menshov, the father of the Shcherbakov family in an alcoholic T-shirt, Madianov in the role of a slightly stupid hero (this time without authority).
A separate cross "Legend" deserves for the fact that the love line runs through the plot dotted, without drowning the main idea of the film in pink love secrets. Yes, the lyrics are there, but somewhere out there, outside the locker room and the ice rink.
The overall plan was slightly spoiled by cartoon “Canadian professionals”, which, more like fascists from Soviet war films than representatives of a country claiming to be the ancestor of hockey. Their disheveled hair and insane burning eyes do not betray in them the inhabitants of the northern outskirts of the American continent.
"Legend N17" achieves the main thing - acts as a motivator to action and motivates you to get up from the sofa after watching for an easy run. And after the session, you are guaranteed to want to study in more detail the history of hockey relations between the USSR team and Canadian professionals.
- Anatoly, you will agree, not the most important match for the national team. .
- There are no unimportant matches.
This is probably one of the most sane products of Russian cinema in the last eight years that I have seen. Such sports films are not new to me, but this one turned out to be the best of them. At least for me.
The film tells about one of the matches of the USSR national hockey team, which later became legendary. The events preceding the match are also shown, and what a difficult price the victory of Soviet hockey players over Canada in 1972 was given.
I was pleased with the fact that the film, although simple in its content, has a rather deep meaning and serious subtext. And it looks pretty easy.
The story itself is fascinating from the beginning. Almost from the first frames, without long introductions, the film captivates the viewer and does not let go until the very end. Smoothly the main storyline rocks, gradually increasing the expectation of viewers of something exciting. And the viewer gets it. Along the way, side stories are weaved into the main narrative, which only stir up interest.
I would like to talk about actors, but should I? So it is clear that the film gathered all the color of Russian cinema, and such a composition can not screw up. So I’ll just give the film a ten and say it’s the best sports film of the last decade.
10 out of 10
After the underrated film "Wolves", which many consider a bad film. But I’m one of those people who thinks this movie is not bad, so I think it’s underrated. After the series "Apostle", which was so bad. And yes, I’m not going to review this series. After another arthouse "Phonogram of Passion", which I, like the movie "The Exile", also did not see. Nikolai Lebedev decided to make a film about the great hockey player Valery Kharlamov, who later became the best Lebedev film. His name is “Legend No. 17.”
First, let me tell you a little about the TV movie Valery Kharlamov. Additional time”. I won’t compare it to Legend 17 because it’s not a remake of it. Both films are about the same person. But Valery Kharlamov. "Extra Time" tries to tell the whole story of Kharlamov. Legend No. 17 tells about the rise of Kharlamov’s career, which is pumped at the first match of the 1972 Super Series. So I'm not going to compare them. Yeah, because I'm lazy. But the second reason is unofficial.
I'll start with the minuses. It was hard to find them in Legend 17. Because this picture is too good for me. For me, there are no downsides to this picture. But I worked hard and barely found them, and they're all microscopic. The biggest of them is the display of a naked female body at the back (in the middle) and a naked female breast (in 19-20 minutes) in a 6+-rated film. I’d understand if the movie was 16+, but if it was 12+ (because I’m used to that in 12+). But it's 6+! There should not be a naked female body. Although these moments were glimpsed, and do not attract much attention (for I noticed this from 3 views). But all these are flowers, compared to the bed scene in Lebedev's next film "The Crew" with the same 6+ rating. So it's forgivable "Legend No. 17." Next, the minuses will be even smaller. Sometimes there are times when the camera work looks bad. Sometimes, the editing looks strange, because there is an understatement in some scenes, and we are already shown others. The claim is that when viewed 2-5 months after the last viewing of the film seems a little boring. However, if you do not watch it longer, this effect disappears. And yes, in moments like this, the film is not as boring as The Crew (2016). But all these disadvantages can be forgiven, because this is a small thing.
Let’s talk about why we love this movie. First of all, for the magnificent acting of Danila Kozlovsky and Oleg Menshikov. And therefore for the charismatic characters Kharlamov and Tarasov. Kharlamov turned out to be the guy who always takes the bull by the horns and tries to reach heights. The prologue in Spain shows us how he learned the lesson that difficulties must be fought. And all this was perfectly shown by Kozlovsky. He plays better here than in the Crew. Tarasov here is a stern, strict and wise coach who knows that life is harsh, and therefore prepares Kharlamov for its turns. He wants to turn his players into a team that works as one mechanism. But most of all, he tries Kharlamov to temper him like steel. And this is understandable, because the film is about Kharlamov. And the relationship Kharlamov and Tarasov on the screen resembles the relationship of a strict father and son, whom he brings up. And this is better shown than the relationship between Zinchenko and his son and the relationship between Zinchenko and Gushchin in the Crew. Yes, someone will say that in reality Kharlamov and Tarasov were not like that. But I'm one of those people who doesn't criticize feature films for discrepancy with reality. Films are a story, and a story should be interesting. Legend 17 is an interesting movie. Because the emotional connection here is strong, and you empathize with the character especially when Kharlamov is injured and when the final match happens. And the film keeps the viewer in suspense, which is why this picture is interesting to watch. There is a beautiful satire of the sports bureaucrat in the face of Balashov. It's a good joke. Hockey matches are well played here. And the more significant the match, the cooler it is set. There is a wonderful moral here that you need to fight obstacles and realize your dream. This has been said in many films. However, it cannot be said that it is well shown here. And there are beautifully staged shots, which is breathtaking how beautiful they are from an artistic point of view. Yes, Lebedev himself is doing a cameo, which amused me. And for all that, we love Legend 17.
“Legend No. 17” is the best Lebedev film that he created. And I agree with that thesis. And this movie made people believe Lebedev. And his success was cemented by the film “Crew”. Yes, I think the Crew is boring and overrated, but it turned out to be good. In other words, "Legend #17" is his ceiling. But he also lit the star of this director again. And let it burn weakly, but it should not go out. So we hope for the best. We are waiting for the next Lebedev movie.
P.S. Igor Petrenko was his favorite last 10 years. Danila Kozlovsky is his favorite on this 10th anniversary. What will happen in the next 10 years?
When the film is declared as a drama, sport and biography, then critics and hockey lovers are right out of the way for negative reviews. And for me, a good biographical film is the one after watching which I want to learn more about the hero. In the age of the Internet, it has become simple. And that's exactly what this movie is. After watching, I wanted to watch that legendary match, and at the same time get acquainted with the entire series of confrontations between the USSR and Canada. Indeed, the Canadians played without helmets, really chewed gum, attacked the goalkeeper and started a fight, even that gesture of the Canadian to the throat was real. I saw how Kharlamov was beaten after the defeat, watched the legendary goal, which became almost the best goal in world hockey, watched the game of our team in honor of Kharlamov’s memory. In general, the interest in those events sparked the film.
The film is artistically interesting. And of course there is fiction, and who doesn’t? Almost all biopics sin fiction, which increases the desire to find out whether it really was? So the story of the bull in general is indicative, I did not know that Kharlamov lived in Spain as a child. In general, the film is not only about the first match with Canada, but in general about the confrontation between the two strongest teams in the world. Of course, the match was shown not at night, but the next day. Is that so important for the movie? But how to show the joy and unity of the Soviet people. Excellent idea - Tarasov in the yard learns and understands who scored a goal by shouting from neighboring houses. The whole country is awake. In terms of patriotism, the film is very good and very necessary for modern boys.
Yes, in that series the USSR lost, but after all, Kharlamov broke his ankle in the 6th match, which of course affected the next 2 games.
The film is titled Legend N17, so it’s safe to assume that some of the events that actually took place are set in the same timeline. Perhaps, if there is a director who wants to make a film about the confrontation between the two teams, then the images of all athletes will be shown there. But then the film itself will have a different title, for example, “Red Machine”.
8 out of 10
It is always nice to look at the work of real professionals who are burning with their work and respecting what they do. Unfortunately, this can only be said about the players of the national team and their great coach. The story of Kharlamov is so strong in itself that it is difficult to spoil. And in a duet with patriotic feelings of all residents of the post-Soviet space, he plays in general on 'Hurrah!'
But the director's work is weak, to put it mildly. There are a lot of moments in the film that could be strong, but the director somehow shyly smeared them. The first training of the national team, the scene in the morgue, the return to training, the relationship with the girl ... all this is filmed on the principle ' well, you yourself realized that he was good ' But how ugly Canadians chew gum, how stomping skates like wild bulls on the run, chewed from the heart. . .
My score for the story is 10, and the film is no more than 2. Just the fact that the actors are good and the picture is cool.
Valery Kharlamov is the leading hockey player of the USSR, recognized by the whole world.
I’m not a hockey fan and I don’t know anything about it. Before the film, I only knew the fact that the USSR divided Canada. And did not go into the biography of the great hockey player, so could not know all the nuances.
I consider this film as a symbol of the fight for my dream, for my country, for my team, and in the principle of fighting myself. The film is good, if only because it causes respect for the main character, his character, and finally the Russian spirit, unshakeable, steadfast, unbending.
Yes, of course, some people might think that a nice tightrope conversation between the towers is too much. But this is just a metaphor to show the essence of the film: perseverance, fearlessness, strength of character and love for their work. That's a bit of an exaggeration.
Maybe I am, by nature, too impressionable, and do not pay much attention to certain shortcomings. But I judge movies by emotion. And “Legend N17” caused tears, delight and applause throughout the hall.
9 out of 10
I had an incredibly strange reason to watch this film – just the other day I watched a good psychological thriller of the Russian production in 1999 “Fan”. Seeing that it was directed by Nikolai Lebedev, who, as I knew, directed Legend N17 and The Crew, I decided to watch them. Of course, I knew that almost everyone was delighted with these two films, but I did not even imagine how much emotion I would get.
This film, like many sports dramas (one of my favorite genres), has enormous motivational value. But that’s just the surface in this movie. Here most of all I got the moment of the attitude of coach Tarasov to training, hockey ... to Kharlamov. So many, like, movies on this topic reviewed, but for some reason I never fully understood what professional athletes have to go through to become the best to win. Or rather, my head understood everything, but this film made me feel the pain almost physically. Such incredible energy comes from the movie! She lights up, burns the whole movie, and even after the film she does not let you go.
The whole film I had the same feeling: Tarasov was associated with fate, which tests Kharlamov, that is, tests you for strength, tests all the limits of your capabilities, everyone, from the first to the last, tortures, breaks, mocks, laughs at you, tramples when and how he wants, humiliates your dignity, puts in nothing ... But why does fate do this to you? To give the best . If you stand, every time you rise from your knees, go forward in spite of everything, be it pain, disappointment, broken spirit, the reward will be according to your faith. If you fall, start whining, turn off the path, betray your goals, then... you understand. The hardships of life fall only to those who are born for something great, who can receive a huge gift from fate. But then only the person himself can choose his actions, to achieve this great or not, to allow fate to give a gift or refuse. This film gave me a lot in terms of realizing these simple truths, as if to put a puzzle in my head, so it is of great value to me.
And of course, adrenaline, experiences, a lot of sharp moments, a lot of heartbreaking moments, a lot of cruel and unfair moments associated with the system that our parents, grandparents, if not us, have experienced, make this film a worthy sports drama, and a well-deserved pride of Russians, and some very close and understandable to all residents of the former USSR.
Regarding the actors I can say the following: Menshikov - above all praise, it is impossible to dream about the best game, Kozlovsky - very worthy, but definitely inferior to his on-screen coach. And better than Menshikov can only be tandem Menshikov and Kozlovsky. Nikolai Lebedev more and more charms me with his films — on the queue is already "Crew".
I’m looking in the mirror, my nose is still red. I experienced amazingly vivid emotions when watching and overestimated something important. I do not recommend skipping this movie. For those of you who haven’t seen it yet, look!
9 out of 10
Perhaps the main drawback of this film is that the authors chose a hero with a rather ambiguous profession. What is professional sports in any country? The usual show, like gladiatorial fights for the Roman plebs (even the poster here is copied from the American film of the same name). It has nothing to do with physical education and a healthy lifestyle. A typical fan eats beer in front of the TV and does not engage in any sports. Moreover, the athletes themselves have even more health problems, some end their careers in fact disabled. Therefore, when all sorts of Pele, Zidane or Maradona are mentioned with the prefix “great”, “genius”, etc., I could never understand what their greatness and genius were. Has the show been watched by millions of people? A rather dubious contribution to history. In the Roman amphitheaters, an even greater percentage of the population raged (pardon, sick), but the names of most of the then idols have not been preserved. Unlike Roman scientists, writers, lawyers. By the way, football/hockey fans are often compared to sectarians, one English club even offers the service of burying deceased fans on the grounds of the stadium.
As for the film, I thought it would start with the hero coming into the hockey section and the rest of his life. However, it all begins with a delusional episode with bulls, then transferred to adulthood, and ends for some reason with the first match with the Canadians. Apparently, the authors simply did not want to understand how they work in the DUSH. In general, throughout the viewing there is a sense of absurdity. Adult men weave some intrigue, torture themselves clearly not useful for health training. Including another delusion in the form of an episode on the cooling towers of the power plant. A person in his right mind would clearly not have thought of this, not to mention the fact that outsiders are not allowed to enter a strategic facility. What's all this for? For the sake of a fun game where you have to chase the puck. It’s okay for kids, but is it a decent adult activity to make a movie about? It was said here that there are many historical inconsistencies in the film: the scandal came out in a completely different match, the coach of the national team was removed for other reasons, etc. I can't say anything about that. I am familiar with history well, but not with the history of all kinds of shows.
The final action, of course, is a super series with Canadian professionals (and do our amateurs work at the factory during the day?). For some reason in the film it is presented as a world-wide event. Unlike football, hockey is only known in six countries. Most countries have never heard of such a sport, even in the United States, baseball and American football are much more popular. The final spectacle here is a stamping of Hollywood films. Well, this is when another superhero in the final battle fights with the forces of evil to save the planet, or even the universe as a whole. Movements, gestures, and especially glitches with visions from the past – all this we have seen many times during battles with aliens or some otherworldly monsters.
It is difficult for a normal person to understand why sports competitions are sometimes presented as a kind of “battle for the country” or something similar. If blacks from African countries jump higher and run faster than others at the Olympics, how much will they help their countries in terms of economy, defense and other things? Obviously not. At the same time, many countries that have much more weight in the world do not shine with success at sports shows (they do not need it).
As a result, we have not the best film about a difficult and harmful to health, but objectively completely useless profession. The only plus is that there is no such homoerotic spectacle as in similar American films, where naked men are constantly shown (so they especially like to make films about boxers). For this