Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Watched the movie The Fool (2014). A good movie. There's not much to say about it. The scene at the beginning, where the protagonist walks through the city to the music of Viktor Tsoi, perfectly fits the Doom memes))))Wistrit
The Fool. Another film that, as it seemed to me, garnered no less attention than the previous one. There was even some division of the masses into two camps, about ten people each: some said that "Leviathan, The Fool, it's all garbage," while 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 is about two hours long (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? Midway through the film, I had a thought that a very popular theme in Russia, at least during that period, was the oppression of the people by the authorities, and the portrayal of the people themselves. In one, they are oppressed; in this one, they are brutally exploited, 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 indifference. 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 such a thing 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 can you say? Who knows. The story in "The Fool" is more clear, more specific, perhaps more understandable? Because in "Leviathan," everything is fluid, it drags on like Turbo chewing gum (like if you collected Turbo wrappers), and nothing concrete really happens; perception depends on your imagination or whatever is responsible for that? Who cares, let's drink vodka. About "The Fool." Many good questions are raised in the film, many diverse images, and so on. Not that these questions reveal any meanings of life, the universe, flights into deep space, and the principles of how nuclear lasers work (Russians like nuclear weapons, haha, Ivan, yes, yes), which Russia will someday install on its invincible "Apocalypse" tank (ahhh...), 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 was also amused by 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're watching the movie "The Fool."
Wistrit is so intellectual that I don't understand what he's talking about...Sky
Excellent, I really liked it. Atmospheric, the ending is good, it's the way it should be, nothing лишнего.
A much more high-quality and informative review, in my humble opinion.
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
Gran Torino This is the first time I've watched a Clint Eastwood movie. Throughout the film, I expected some kind of action movie with shootouts, but I was surprised. The humor is simple, but at the same time subtle. The drama is quite dramatic. The narrative is rather melancholic. A good movie. 8/10
Vistrit is so intellectual that I don't even understand what he's talking about...
It should be read in the voice of Jake B. Cameron.
I don't remember if I wrote anything about this movie in this thread at the time (I won't go through it), but I didn't like it. The message is simple and has been overused in all aspects of life, and the actors overact and wring their hands like in plays based on literature. It seemed to me like a special technique that didn't appeal to me at the time of viewing, but to my surprise, I later encountered the prevailing opinion that it was done without any ulterior motive. Perhaps the only interpretation that at least evoked some amusing feeling in me is that the protagonist is an allusion to Jesus (although I doubt that the author actually thought about it). Otherwise, it's very derivative, and I wasted my time on it.
New York, New York ("New York, New York", 1977, USA) The first part of the film was quite amusing, with this story of winning a woman's heart using the most outrageous methods. And then (somewhere around a third of the way through the film?) it turned into some kind of banal family drama, there was almost no humor left, my relatives, with whom I was watching the film, wandered off somewhere, so I didn't continue watching, it was boring. I didn't finish watching it, so I won't rate it.
Stalker (1979, Tarkovsky) First, it seemed to me that the film doesn't capture the book as well as, for example, Solaris by the same Tarkovsky. I imagined the hero quite differently; the crossing of the Zone's border, although in the spirit of "action," looks rather strange: I believe that one could easily come up with half a dozen, or even ten, reasons and moments why the plan wouldn't work in real life. There are many other such things. However, I also saw a good reinterpretation and further development of some moments, and, to be fair, the main character, in the spirit of Prince Myshkin, looks even more authentic than in the book. I watched it at a speed of 1.25. It could have been even faster, but then the characters mumble their phrases too quickly, which spoils the impression. However, if you want such a slow and thoughtful contemplation... Although, no, the film is still too slow. I have no idea how to rate this. Tarkovsky/10, but that's a good rating.
127 Hours (2010) Unfortunately, Deadpool spoiled the climax of this movie for me, but never mind. At the beginning, the protagonist is shown as cheerful, energetic, and successful with girls, which helped me activate "Nebka mode" and not only fail to sympathize with the protagonist but also actively enjoy his misfortunes. As for the person whose story this is based on, I don't know how to feel about him; whatever. Overall, the movie didn't seem particularly interesting to me. If it weren't for the schadenfreude over the protagonist's suffering, I probably would have fallen asleep. It's clear that they stretched the runtime as much as they could, with so many filler moments that it's just awful. Resident Evil: Vendetta (2017) The animated movie seemed extremely hilarious to me. This GRAPHICS, this ACTION, these DRAMATIC MOMENTS – no joke, you have to see it. I haven't seen such absurdity combined with clichés and deus ex machina in a long time. Unfortunately, this work also has a problem: all the above-mentioned merits are only present at the beginning and end; everything else is just dull dialogues about absolutely nothing. In fact, there are one or two action scenes in it that don't look funny but are quite well done, but they are not the main merit of this animated movie.
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
I didn't realize this was a parody until halfway through the video.
If I hadn't read this comment beforehand, I probably wouldn't have understood it either.
Taras Bulba (2009)
I don't remember the book very well, so I'm having trouble evaluating the film in comparison to it. The film itself is watchable, except for the battle scenes, which are terrible and pathetic. But I want to express my opinion more strongly about the plot of the book. Even in school, this book evoked many contradictory feelings in me. Usually, I clearly understood that the antagonist of the book was bad, and the protagonist was good, but here I couldn't relate these things. Judge for yourself - I was raised, like many others, on Hollywood films, where tolerance and love were the main values, especially love - the hero who pursued love always was rewarded, without exception. Here, the main positive hero, Taras Bulba, organizes pogroms against the Jews. He does spare one of them, but even that he does only because that one knew his brother, and it's clear from his words and thoughts that he despises and hates him, and the author expresses approval of these thoughts. Andrey, who sincerely loves and saves his beloved from starvation, is shown to us as a negative character and dies. I've been thinking for a long time that it would be good to reread the book to perhaps look at the characters differently this time, but it turned out that I watched the film. And what can I say? This is a rare, perhaps even exceptional, case where my opinion from school hasn't changed at all. The only thing that has changed is that in school, I timidly thought, "Well, maybe I don't understand something, and Taras is really right... he is the main character, and the teacher says that he is acting correctly..." The second brother - I forgot his name, it seems like Ostap - says that it was always difficult and boring for him to study when his father harassed him - he goes out with him one on one - a typical straightforward, brainless, but brave guy - and he is the main positive hero, not a traitor. Andrey, on the other hand, is restrained, educated, romantically in love - a traitor. When Taras stands over his corpse, he still argues, "Yes, you have a more aristocratic appearance. You were never one of us." Well, you understand, right? If you're a stupid thug, you're a good guy and a patriot; if you're educated and handsome, you're a traitor and a fifth column. Also, some of my doubts about the righteousness of Andrey have disappeared, as I have lost my patriotic feelings and realized that dying for lines on a map is not very smart; it is much better to live for a beautiful girl who reciprocates your feelings. As a result, thanks to Andrey's actions, his descendants will live in Europe, while Taras, through his actions, both directly and indirectly, killed both of his sons. Seriously, I'm writing all this, and it seems to me that Gogol's intention was misunderstood, and he annoyed everyone, because how can you exchange life for death? Although, okay, unfortunately, there are many such people, and I'm not talking about depression and loss of meaning in life, but specifically about the desire to die for the interests of others, which are masked by the words "fatherland" and "faith." Okay, I'm rambling too much and doing it incoherently, so I'll give a simple summary. Andrey
Who said that my homeland is Ukraine? Who gave it to me as my homeland? Homeland is what our soul seeks, what is dearest to it. My homeland is you!... and I will sell, give away, and destroy everything for such a homeland!
Seriously, it seems that the person who wrote these words understood what he was talking about. Or maybe Gogol simply didn't chicken out and depicted the conflict in an ambiguous way.
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
I had similar thoughts when reading the book – in the sense that Taras is a truly despicable character. Although he can't be called completely negative, despite his strange beliefs, disgusting statements, and actions, his Cossack activities, the fact that he fights for his homeland during this difficult time, somehow, even if not completely, compensates for his flaws. Andrei is perceived in the opposite way. He is not loyal; he wavers, and he became a traitor not just ideologically, but actively, by joining the enemy's army. If he had simply helped his Polish girl, saved her from hunger, or done whatever else he was doing – that wouldn't be shameful; on the contrary, it would be completely right and worthy. But because of his momentary feelings and moods, he directly goes to war against those who love him, albeit in a very peculiar and specific way... This is a vile act. In short, both are despicable. You can only sympathize with the unfortunate people who suffer from this war but do not participate in it.
Interesting, if in an alternative universe where HeroesWorld players born a century earlier participated in WWII, how many of them would turn out to be vile traitors?
the fact that he is fighting for his homeland in this difficult time at least somewhat, if not fully, compensates for his problems.
He fights because he loves to fight. The Cossack Ataman made peace with everyone, but Taras found life boring that way, so he called on everyone to go smash the Poles and Jews, for the Orthodox faith.
Added after 1 minute :))))))
I wonder if in an alternate universe where HeroesWorld members born a century earlier participated in WWII, how many of them would have turned out to be vile traitors?
It depends on whether we grew up in that era or if you mean transporting us as we are now. Because I am fully aware of my conformity and susceptibility to propaganda, so if I had grown up in those years, I would with high probability have been an incredibly fanatical communist.
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
I wonder, if in an alternate universe where HeroesWorld players born a century earlier participated in WWII, how many of them would have turned out to be despicable traitors?
As they are, and without the possibility of avoiding military actions, but with the option to defect (i.e., betray, not be born there) to the camp of any representative of the factions involved in this conflict, at will.
Siverfale
Небо
