Recently viewed movies.

Watched a bunch of domestic films, our own, solid, uhhh, productions. State Councilor. I didn't watch the previous, or maybe not the previous, film "Turkish Gambit," but I read the book. Therefore, I had many questions about what was happening on the screen. Fandorin, who is disheartened after the events of "Azazel," doesn't seem too eager to talk and, in general, doesn't really possess the characteristics of a parkour fighter here; he's flirting with girls, dodging bullets no worse than Mr. Anderson, making leaps of faith, in general, he's having fun. I wouldn't be surprised if he periodically said, "I'm Batman" to dramatic music. It all starts with a scene, the absurdity of which made me think once again about the imperfection of cinema (or perhaps of our entire existence in general), which is sometimes unable to describe even the simplest actions in a way that doesn't look silly. Okay, let's say everything is fine, and something just wasn't shown, relying on the mental abilities of the audience, but when I saw Mikhalkov, I thought again, was something like this really in the book? The guy under the influence of butirat laughs, jokes, laughs again, twirls a hat on a cane, laughs again, dances, laughs. And this is not about some fool from a fair, but about one of the highest-ranking officials of the state police, militia, guard, army, whatever. I already suspected something was wrong during the opening credits when I saw the name of Mikhalkov, who has not been very well-known lately. And everything is somehow... strange, as if I watched it, as if I didn't turn it off, as if I could devote two hours to it (if I have nothing else to do). But everything is somehow stupid, at the level of Russian translations of anything, except perhaps "what the hell are you doing, you bastard" is missing. I don't understand why Mikhalkov continues to act in this way; he looks out of place and silly. Although, if the character in the book behaved EXACTLY LIKE THAT (which I highly doubt, and I don't even know if such a book exists, I'm drawing conclusions from previous films), then... I don't even know, he still looks somehow unconvincing. I haven't watched many of Mikhalkov's films, but in "When I Am Just Among My Own," he was quite appropriate. And he doesn't dance and doesn't laugh like crazy. Let it be 6 out of 10. I wouldn't recommend it. Leviathan. A film that has been the subject of much discussion, many reviews from popular bloggers, both positive and negative. I wasn't very interested in this film, especially since I glanced at funny reviews from popular mommy bloggers, I knew roughly what was what. I didn't expect anything special. I liked the film, I watched it with interest, and it lasts for 2+ hours, which is quite a high indicator of interest for me, who sometimes reluctantly watches even shorter works. It's hard to say what it's about, what the meaning is, and what other indicators make people value the time they wasted. But I would recommend watching it (if, of course, it has attracted your attention at least a little) and evaluating it yourself. I give it 8 out of 10. Oh my god. The Fool. Another film that, as it seemed to me, has garnered no less attention than the previous one. There was even some kind of division of the masses into two fronts, about ten people each: some said that "Leviathan is great, The Fool is garbage," others had the opposite opinion. I don't know what they're talking about; I liked both films. I expected EVEN LESS from this film than from Leviathan, but in the end, I wasn't disappointed either. The film lasts about two hours (here, I was distracted by work and eating, but that's not the point), and I watched it with pleasure. What is it essentially about? In the middle of the film, I had a thought that the theme of the oppression of the people by the authorities, and the depiction of the people themselves, was very popular in Russia, at least during this period. In the first one, they oppress, in this one, they crush with bloody rakes, cultivating bloody dollar trees like aliens from Lovecraft (mom, I watched War of the Worlds, he wrote it, right?). Well, what can you do, this is our country - dirt, death, drunkenness, theft, and disregard. Many, perhaps, sitting in warm new buildings somewhere in Moscow, will let out a skeptical chuckle at the images shown in the film, not believing that something like this is possible in 2015, when the country has already been ruled for ten years by a cyborg with a powerful artificial intelligence and nuclear grenade launchers built into its shoulders. Well, what, who knows. The story in "The Fool" is more clear, more specific, more understandable, perhaps? Because in "Leviathan," everything is fluid, it stretches like Turbo chewing gum (like if you collected Turbo wrappers), and nothing concrete really happens, and the perception depends on your imagination or whatever is responsible for this? Who cares, let's drink vodka. About "The Fool." Many good questions are raised in the film, many different images, and so on. Not that these questions reveal any meanings of life, the universe, flights into deep space, and the principles of nuclear lasers (Russians like nuclear weapons, haha, Ivan, yes, yes), which Russia will someday install on its invincible "Apocalypse" tank (ohhh...), but they simply remind everyone who watched the film. Although, many probably didn't even think about half of these things. On the other hand, the film does show some points of view regarding answers to some of these questions. Oh yes, I also laughed at the scene at the beginning of the film, where a man obsessively hammered nails into a perfectly intact board of a bench, at least it seemed to me that it was intact. You can feel that you are watching the film "The Fool." 9 out of 10. Legend No. 17 Three ominous letters "T" in the opening credits and the inscription "Nikita Mikhalkov Studio" caused some hopelessness and apathy. I was already ready to imagine Mikhalkov in the role of a coach, laughing wildly with all his toothy mouth, twirling a hockey stick in each hand like a double-bladed lightsaber, dancing a hopak on the ice. But, fortunately, Nikita didn't want to. Well, I'm already ready to give it as many pluses as I can just for that. 10 out of 10, 20 out of 10, 1488 out of 10, thank you for being alive, thank you for being there... in another place. Seriously, it's a good film about hockey, dynamic, interesting, it's easy to watch. And I don't like hockey. But I watched the film about hockey with pleasure. And not just a film, but a film that lasts 2+ hours. What happened to the film industry? Earlier, 90-100 minutes was the norm for a movie, and now it's 120+. People overcome, strive for victory, all is well, sports, universal support. Nothing extraordinary, revolutionary, fantastic, fashionable, just a good film, I would recommend it. Just for the fact that Nikita didn't star in it, it's worth watching. Oh my god, thank you, Nikita, from the bottom of my heart, I hope that in the future you will not star in films many more times, oh my god, thank you, dear, good, great. 7 out of 10.