Pahan, intellectual, dispute It is very good that ten people, including myself, have seen and appreciated this ridiculous short misunderstanding. The rest of the millions will lose nothing without reading this review. I want to talk about it.
There are such short films (in Russia, probably, only they are) that people shoot for themselves, for fun. I don't know anything about the opus "We Are Different" and it's hardly even been to the shortest film festival. Guys, that's something. In my opinion, even for the sake of fun or “purely scold” (which is almost the same thing) to shoot such a stupid thing. Perhaps someone on the crew will read this review and finally understand (or just try to understand) that you can grow up at any age. Not physically, of course. What prevented a certain Oleg Bolder from creating an adequate mini-picture with a normal script and not annoying actors? It interfered, so to speak softly, worldview. Not in a religious sense or any other, but in terms of perception, environment, acquaintances and friends. From this work, you can immediately guess that the director and the actors are failed “masters of their craft”, who have not particularly made their way anywhere, and now sit in their circle, sipping a beer, without shaving their beard, and so on, along an endless line of metaphors. These are such half-paid men, “knowing life”, with a claim to actual philosophy, with jokes, bathhouse, shop, Shiga, all things.
Okay. I'm dissatisfied with watching a bunch of short films. Heap. There are so many worthy works in this genre! So many ideas, so much life approach, interesting thoughts or hints on important topics for man and humanity. There are shorts that you just have to watch and you’ll get a lot more good out of there than most full-meter examples. Yes, the director probably did not set his goal to stand out or did not think at all about the need to convey something to someone in the work. Or rather, I thought, but the meaning of his message is banal. It's already in the title. We are different, we cannot agree with everyone, some do not understand human language. Excellent. I didn't even know that. No one knew. What a great message! In fact, it is a complete fiasco.
Who are the three dancers at the beginning and the end of the man? What do they represent? The answer is nothing, for fun. It's all for fun. They're like puppets before a puppet show. Bom-tili-bom, and the show started. Its essence is also ba-na-line: the intellectual is sitting on the bench. There is a book in the book, and there is a book in the book. To the intelligentsia sits a kind of man of “prison appearance”, who lives “by concepts”, starts a conversation for life. Word for word, the conversation of two opposite personalities runs into many “sharp corners” and ends with a banal outcome. Can I be honest now? Cases like this can be seen in any city park at least once a year. The short film has no value, absolutely no value. See, capture, show. Meaning? It was disgusting to watch. Absolutely predictable moves. True, the actors tried to squeeze the characters out of themselves, even it turned out, but it turned out at the level of "I am such a convict, and you are not such a convict, well, cool, we shrug", it was annoying. The feeling that was created for the Gopniks. Like, we have our own atmosphere here, the philosophy of the general circle. Such representatives, I do not know what to call, let there be “subcultures”, I never aroused the desire to be interested in their “atmosphere”. It's not a subject to show off. So what, two people talking in the park? What, you can't agree with everyone? Moral? Zero.
Absolutely no work is faceless, stupid and partly pathetic. I really want our movie to be good and great. And the short film, too. So that there were touching themes in the plots, that the directors raised interesting questions, came up with new script and staged moves, and the actors were not the same or simple pretenders. Not interesting. Don't do that.
1 out of 10