Posts from Recently viewed movies. Auto-translated

but many people wrote about it) I read the comments!!1
not counting the oddities with time manipulation

The rest is quite predictable for a film of this genre, considering the previous films.

They simply wrote the tired actor out of the film; there’s no need to look for any special logic in such decisions.

but many people wrote about it) I read the comments!!1
not counting the oddities with time manipulation

The rest is quite predictable for a film of this genre, and considering the previous films.

By the way, thanks for reminding me!
5) Closer to the beginning of the film:
-- But what will happen if we take the Infinity Stones from the past? Won't our reality change completely?
-- No. "Back to the Future" is a lie; we'll take them from there, and everything will be fine with us; different timelines, so don't worry about it.
***
End of the film:
-- Oh, Captain America decided to go back in time and marry his girlfriend. Hello, Cap, you've aged! Hmm, what are you doing in this timeline? We had a conversation about this before... Oh, never mind, I'm sure there's a logical explanation for that!

Yesterday, I went to see the movie Rocketman (2019). It's a movie about Elton John. When I went to see it, I was sure of two things:
1) Biopics are a genre that's hard to mess up; I can't think of a bad movie in this category off the top of my head.
2) There will definitely be explicit gay scenes.
I was right about the first point, and that's it. I can't say that I particularly liked or was impressed by the movie. It was watchable, without being boring or repulsive, but nothing more. In principle, that's not bad, especially if you're going to the movies not for the movie itself, but for a social event.
I liked that the characters in the movie sing in the original language with Russian subtitles. Who knows, maybe my grandchildren (who will never exist) will live to see the day when new movies are shown with the original soundtrack. But even these small steps in that direction are pleasing.
After the movie, I read Elton John's biography on Wikipedia. In essence, many things in the movie are conveyed almost verbatim, but with some adjustments for a certain compression and haste - well, it's understandable, it's not easy to cover a person's life in a movie format.
And now about the second point. To my surprise, there were no gay scenes, not even kisses. Moreover, there was a short and explicit (a breast was shown) heterosexual scene. I was struck by this sudden directorial move, but when I was searching for the poster, I came across many articles of this kind:

The musical film "Rocketman" about Elton John, directed by Dexter Fletcher, was censored in Russian distribution. Scenes of intimacy between men were cut from both versions - the dubbed version and the one with subtitles - and episodes related to drug use were shortened. A slide from the end credits, which said that John had finally met his true love (there was a photo with his husband), was also removed.

That's the situation.
Oh yes, I almost forgot - Robb Stark also gives Elton a beating with a cane. That alone is worth seeing.
I also wrote this review for another well-known website with funny pictures, so this is not plagiarism - it's the distribution of my own work.

I wrote this review for another well-known website with funny pictures, so this isn't plagiarism – it's just sharing my own work.

So, are you a star on Pikabu?

Ralph Breaks the Internet
The overhyped scene with the Disney princesses is quite mediocre, but I actually liked the rest, surprisingly. I wasn't expecting much, as sequels to Disney films are usually much worse than the originals, but this one is different. The plot is decent, and there are plenty of funny moments.
7/10

The Dragon Prince
I forgot to write about this show from the creators of "Avatar." I've watched two seasons so far, and the series has really touched me. The characters are truly top-notch... Rayla is adorable, and it's especially interesting to watch her.
Minus: the seasons don't feel like full seasons; after two seasons, it feels like only one, and there aren't many episodes.
There are also some minor drawbacks, but I won't dwell on them, as they are insignificant compared to the series' strengths. And the biggest strength is the world – compared to "Avatar," it seems much more magical, diverse, and unspoiled by the "chosen one" trope.
I'm eagerly awaiting the continuation (and it would be great if the third season were longer).
9.5/10

godzilla 2
podpivasno 4/10

chernobyl
godno 9/10

not for the sake of the film itself, but for the sake of a social event.

They should be executed for that.

Aladdin (2019)
I hadn't watched any of the Disney animated movie remakes before, but I had heard opinions that they were bad. Combined with the fact that the blue Will Smith became a subject of ridicule even when the trailer was released, I expected that this movie would not be of the best quality either. However, I heard good reviews about it and decided to go to the cinema, and in the end I liked it.
I really like the original Disney animated movie from 1992, and this film looks quite on par with the original. Many moments have even been improved - for example, the beginning has been shortened without losing anything in essence, but gaining time, some logical inconsistencies that I noticed even as a child have been patched up, the logic of the characters' behavior has been slightly (an important word) improved - it's all very good, and overall it's nice that the real flaws were mainly changed. They also added a little of their own, which I treated neutrally - it doesn't interfere, but it wasn't necessary either. Surprisingly, the best song from the original, in my opinion - You had never had friend like me - was transferred to the screen in an absolutely decent way without losing quality. Will Smith is not annoying and looks appropriate, which, given that he plays himself in every film, is a credit to the director. I can also recall Iago, there is not much of him, but in some moments he is magnificent.
Among the drawbacks, I would note that not all moments were as successful as in the cartoon, but I can only remember one now - this is the song Prince Ali. In the cartoon, due to this very cartoonishness, it looked more impressive. The dubbing was also botched - if you are watching in the cinema, please pay attention to what sounds when Aladdin throws coins and the beggars pick them up - you can hear them saying "so generous" in English, and in the Russian version they are completely ignored. At the same time, the original audio track is much quieter and can only be heard if you listen carefully to this moment - I listened carefully because this is the second favorite song in this cartoon and I remembered it almost by heart.
Personally, the actors who played Aladdin and Jasmine seemed unremarkable to me, and this opinion did not change by the end of the film. But some other people say that they are fine. Russian-language problems - in the dubbing of the cartoon, Jafar had a cool voice of a classic villain, and here the voice is just as unremarkable as the above-mentioned actors.
A minus, due to the fact that the original was changed, there is a slight spoiler - at the end, Jafar turns not into a giant snake, but into a giant parrot, and this is as bad as it sounds.
A little autism with the analysis of the improved moments - if you watched the original cartoon, then you still know the plot, and these moments will not be full-fledged spoilers, but, in my opinion, it would be more interesting to observe all these changes myself, rather than read about them in my post.
Patching logical inconsistencies:
1) I didn't understand why Jafar pretended to be a prisoner of the dungeon, escaped from there together with Aladdin, and all in order to lead him to the idea of stealing the lamp. After all, he could just as well promise him freedom as a vizier. In the film, he does exactly that, and also gives Aladdin useful pieces of information, which relate to improving the logic of the characters' behavior.
2) Well, probably everyone was surprised by this - when at the end the Genie gains freedom and clearly retains his powers, but at the same time does not want to help Aladdin as a friend or at least out of simple gratitude. In the film, everything is simpler - if you gain freedom, you become a human and lose all your powers, which is consistent in logic, because Jafar, becoming a genie, becomes a slave of the lamp.
Improving the logic of the characters:
1) The Genie is not deceived as a 4-year-old child by the phrase "prove that you can! Ha-ha-ha, that wasn't a wish!", but is deceived with the help of quibbling and nitpicking, which is still slightly more plausible.
2) Jafar does not control the Sultan absolutely, as in the cartoon, it is clear that he sometimes hypnotizes him and, perhaps, sometimes gets what he wants, but the Sultan is not a brainless puppet as in the cartoon, and Jafar has reasons to want to take his place (well, besides vanity).
3) By the way, about vanity. Throughout the film, there is a thread that Jafar is terribly complexed by the fact that he is not the coolest, and during a conversation with Aladdin, he expresses his philosophy - either you are first, or you are nobody. Therefore, the bait at the end, when Aladdin says that the Genie is stronger than Jafar, looks more justified and is almost like a Chekhov's gun.

https://myanimelist.net/anime/820/Ginga_Eiyuu_Densetsu
One of the best titles I've watched:cool:
However, the plot development is quite slow, so it's not certain that you'll like it. On the other hand, there are only one and a half female characters, and their role in the plot is minimal, which should definitely be a plus!

Legend of the Galactic Heroes

Congratulate me, I finished this product of the love between "Star Wars" and "War and Peace." It took me almost half a year. I watched it for a long time, painfully, with long breaks; however, I never felt like dropping it.

+ Detailed and not too stupid presentation of the material, the atmosphere is well maintained, all the plot twists are shown from different sides with a claim to objectivity - they say, this is how it was, these people did this and that, think about them as you wish; however, after some episodes, it seemed to me that the sympathies and antipathies of the authors are quite clearly traced. All the factions are well-made aesthetically, I really liked the space battles, they are simply delightful. It was interesting to follow the plot, the emotional moments are well presented, the characters of the main cast are clearly defined. The main message of the work is clearly understood, directly expressed at the very beginning of the first opening - humans always remain humans, even a million years later, not much will change. Overall, it's an interesting format, a kind of documentary about the future.
- Tediousness, tediousness, and a lot more conversations. The downside of objectivity and documentary style is the detailed analysis of each event by all the factions, they spend half an episode discussing every little thing, and then a narrator starts and summarizes (seriously, at some point I started waiting for the appearance of the narrator at the end, who was the history teacher all this time, giving a lecture with video materials); the fact that all this is in a language that I hardly understand, and I have to listen to a set of sounds, and there is nothing else to look at except the subtitles, doesn't add to the excitement!!! Sometimes the events are simply lost behind the walls of dialogue; at the same time, the characters speak as if from a textbook, the speech is lifeless, unemotional - it is clear that the dialogue is just a way for them to convey information to the viewer. And then the authors remember that they need to give the characters a little more personality, and the characters finally start speaking like real people - it's a pity it doesn't last long.
Also, I want to talk about the Empire, which aesthetically got stuck somewhere in the late 19th century. It's not that this is wrong, and it looks interesting in general, but I would like something more futuristic.
And again, the downside of the main message - if you transfer the events to the same 19th century, then one giant NOTHING will change. I love space fantasy, including, because it offers things that we will not be able to see in life; here - well... Except that a spherical fortress in a vacuum is beautiful. I compare it to Asimov's "Foundation," which, clinging to history as its main theme, covered hundreds and thousands of years in its immortal work, gave scope and epic scale, which is too small for the framework of a planet, and at the same time showed us really different environments with different living conditions. Or my favorite space opera, "Babylon 5," where over a similar period of time, history was also made and the map of the world was redrawn, but this was spiced up with a lot of aliens with interesting cultures, physiology, and customs, as well as conspiracies, telepaths, intrigues, spy games, CHOSEN ONES (although I personally don't like this), cute slice-of-life stories and side plots with local flavor, Chekhov's guns, Chekhov himself, and many other goodies. Here, unfortunately, this is not observed, and the space fantasy format is more of a pleasant addition than an important element.
And one more downside of presenting events from all sides is the small number of PLOT TWISTS, intrigues, and cunning schemes; almost all moves are well thought out and calculated in advance.
= 7/10, I'll add a point for the creators' efforts - it's clear that they put their soul into it and thought a lot. I perfectly understand why Revny liked it, and I probably even know who he was rooting for, but it didn't appeal to me. I never particularly liked history as a science, and politics even less, in space fantasy I am attracted to those aspects that are almost absent in the series. A very good, well-made series, which, unfortunately, is quite boring for the mass audience.

the blue Will Smith became the subject of ridicule even when the trailer was released

I don't understand, by the way, why. If it weren't for the blue Will Smith, I wouldn't even have thought about watching this Aladdin, but now I will try to.
Regarding Disney's adaptations, I tried to start watching "Beauty and the Beast," but I can't. I have the feeling that they didn't change anything, they left the same dialogues and the same songs (so many songs), but without that beautiful graphics and animation, it just doesn't look good.
"The Jungle Book" - I saw it briefly, somewhere near the beginning, well, it seems watchable. It's unclear why the animals are African, and the boy is Indian (and tigers and wolves are more typical of India). I didn't finish watching it, of course.

The best adaptation of Mowgli is the Soviet cartoon. Even the fact that Bagheera is portrayed as a female character doesn't ruin it. The atmosphere and aesthetics are excellent, and it stays true to the book (even though not everything was adapted). Sometimes I just nitpick Disney, but they really messed up "The Jungle Book" in a particularly awful way.

I would say that we did an excellent job of adapting "The Jungle Book" for the screen, while Disney created a fun, musical fairy tale based on the same story – and in that regard, their work is fine.

Yes, I can't help but agree with that interpretation. But they could have created a separate setting instead of messing with the existing one. And yes, I heard a lot about the blue Will Smith even before the movie came out; everyone was making fun of it. But as for me... I haven't watched it and won't judge, but I don't understand the outrage; it's far from the worst option.

But they could have created a separate setting instead of making fun of the existing one.

Well, they also created a setting based on the existing one.

Out of all the Disney animated series from that era, this one seems to be the worst.