Posts from Recently viewed movies. Auto-translated

I don't remember seeing any unattractive people in the movie.

What about the red-haired, buck-toothed character?

Interesting, I didn't know about this subtext, and that's why I simply didn't like the movie from the very beginning. Some bugs, some pew-pew sounds, what is this even about, why is it even here... Some kind of propaganda for militarism.
But yes, now it makes sense.

Some kind of pew-pew, what is this even about, why is this even...

When you watch a battle shonen.

Mythological shonen.

Some kind of bugs, some kind of pew-pew sounds, what is this even about, why is this even here...

Same here. And there were also some hot girls.

I actually enjoyed it, and it reminded me of the game Dark Colony, which I used to play a lot as a kid.

Mom's elite gathered, and they didn't like the "pew-pew" sound.

have been watching arthouse films since childhood.

Personally, I didn't write anything negative about "pew-pew."

Mom's elite gathered, and they don't like "pew-pew" anymore.

They like "pew-pew," but they want profound statements while reloading the machine gun. And with the other hand, they sip tea, pinky extended.

Inherent Vice (2014)

Complete garbage. They say it's enjoyable when you're high, but I can't judge for myself.

I'm logging into my personal thread to share my impressions of "Mad Max" movies, and I also want to bring up an old review:

I watched all the "Mad Max" movies.
The first one is a pretty good classic movie with a classic plot. The idea of the film is quite simple, but it's well-made. It's worth watching, 7/10.
The second film is more like a real action movie. And the image of the main character has changed accordingly. Mel Gibson gets tougher, Mel Gibson drives cool cars, and Mel Gibson runs over villains who all look like terrible a-holes. Perhaps the director wanted to show that all a-holes are villains. Well, that's a good point of view, okay. Compared to the first part, this film has less plot but more action. But it turned out pretty good. 9/10.
The third film. Awful. The beginning is still somewhat decent, but it's still awful. Don't watch it. 1/10
The fourth. I watched this film in a movie theater, like a civilized person. Maybe that's why it seemed better to me than it is. The plot in the film is almost non-existent. Mel Gibson is completely absent. But there are: 1) The main villain with gray hair, plastic cubes on his stomach, and a funny talking mask. He also wears a skirt. Can you imagine how much dominance and charisma this character exudes? 2) Lots and lots of explosions, cool cars, shootouts, trash, and fun. A dream for a twelve-year-old pimply virgin. I'm not twelve anymore, but even I liked it. 3) Crazy music from Two Steps From Hell (or so it seemed to me). 4) An atmosphere of unrestrained fun and the traditional happy ending for all "Max" movies.
You won't see anything like this anywhere else. It's an absolutely crazy movie, albeit not very meaningful, but very beautiful and spectacular. Watch it, and if you don't like it, then you don't like it. 8/10.

It's wonderfully written, simply perfect. These aren't the kinds of posts we deserve, but they're the posts we get. I reread it and realized it might seem sarcastic, but it's not. It's a really good review, and I almost completely agree with it. Now, about me:

The week started very badly. First, I tried to watch Good Morning, Vietnam (1987) – I was swayed by the synopsis and Robin Williams. It was supposed to be a comedy with dramatic elements, but the comedic part didn't work out very well – I don't know, maybe the jokes were poorly translated into Russian (that's quite possible), or maybe they were just bad on their own – but almost none of them were funny, and the events in the film are boring and uninteresting. It's a very tedious film, and I dropped it 40 minutes before the end, then I read the plot on Wikipedia – and realized that I didn't miss anything.
Then I watched Spy Game (2001). The poster immediately set a pretty low expectation, but my expectations can always go even lower. The beginning turned out to be super exciting, something in the style of "Bourne," but with Brad Pitt and a little cheaper. Then, as often happens, the level of tension decreased, which was expected, and I took it normally. However, this level didn't increase afterward, at least in my opinion. As I understand it, the film aims to realistically show the work of intelligence agencies, and in general, I believe what is shown – I don't think it's 100% true, but I think it conveys the essence of the work quite well. However, this is where the problem of the film lies – any job is boring, even the job of a secret agent, so a realistic depiction of the work of spies looks somewhat boring. Overall, the film is a bit tedious, but you can watch it to the end. And you'll have to watch it for a long time – it's two hours long. I think this is a perfect example of a 5/10 film that you can watch and don't feel negative emotions about, but why watch it when there are things in life that will bring you much more pleasure?
And I came to this thread to write about the first film of the week that I really enjoyed. It turned out to be an unexpected title, namely The Devil Wears Prada (2006). I personally love Anne Hathaway, both as an actress and as an attractive woman, so that alone ensured me a pleasant viewing experience. However, the film is beautifully shot, with a good pace, an excellent soundtrack, and no dragging scenes – it's only an hour and forty minutes long, so there's nothing лишнее (superfluous) in it, every scene is an important detail of the narrative and plot. There were also some good jokes and well-portrayed characters. There's only one problem – the friends and boyfriend of the main character. We should see that the heroine is changing and distancing herself from her friends, that her career is ruining her personal life and changing her as a person for the worse. However, the friends and boyfriend were portrayed as some kind of toxic jerks, you know, that image of a whiny girlfriend or a child that the main character usually spoils, and then they whine in a nasty voice, "You didn't come to my baseball game, so you don't love me!!!!!". The friends and boyfriend of the heroine are exactly that image, and it's not a pity to lose them, honestly. However, I think that one idea is shown correctly in the film: a career is such a thing that you can be sincerely devoted to your work, love it, spend as much effort on it as you want, but if someone upstairs decides something, you will be instantly sent to hell, and no loyalty and years of service will help you, capitalism, ho! By the way, returning to the heroine's boyfriend – the only thing I agree with him on is that all the fashionable clothes look ugly, and the simple clothes of the heroine look very good.
It's interesting, I remember when I was in school and this film came out, it was being trumpeted everywhere, and I thought it was a women's film (because the central characters are women) and although many people said that it was good overall, I didn't quite believe it. But no, the film is really good, and most importantly, it's easy to watch. After the previous two films, it feels like a window has been opened. A good film.

2014, USA-Germany. A very unhinged film, executed in the most paradoxical manner that I love so much. A comedic "spy" action movie, and at the same time — a success story. It grabs you from the first minutes and doesn't let go; there's not much to say here.
Vabank (1981, Vabank). Yes, your eyes aren't deceiving you — this is Poland. An amazing find, Polska strong.
For some reason, I got a recommendation for this film with the words "Similar to The Grand Budapest Hotel." No, actually. Not similar. This one is done in a more classical manner, but — it's also a comedy, and also a crime one. If you like old French comedies, then this is something as close to them as possible, so I can recommend it in that case.

"The Secret of Kells" (Brendan et le Secret de Kells, 2009 France-Ireland-Belgium)
This is just... Wow. I wrote down the director's name, Tomm Moore. I'll be watching a lot more of his work, I reckon.
This animated film makes you fall in love with it from the very first frames, telling from an unusual angle about an unusual craft — the creation of book illuminations in Christian monasteries. But not only about that, of course... A tale based on a real historical period, place, and even a real book turned out emphatically stylized and fairy-tale invented, yet so harmonious that I watched it breathlessly. It tears apart the familiar Disney templates we all know — not only through its plot structure, but also because there isn't a single evil, or even slightly bad, or at least caricatured character (except for faceless evil itself). Everyone has clear and quite respectable motivation.
The art seems simplistic, but I came to love it too, and only later realized what it reminded me of:

Yes, these are book engravings

In particular, from that very book, like here.

All in all, this is one of those cases where a solid 10 comes without any complaints or doubts.
Tout en haut du monde (2015, France-Denmark-Belgium-USA)
For some reason, I thought the director was the same here, but I checked — no, it's someone else. The art here is already too off-putting in its simplicity, of course, but overall I liked this animated film too. It's atmospheric — first it conveys the atmosphere of Russian aristocracy well (though how would I know, heh, but it looks historically plausible), and then — the spirit of travel. I love the north, what can I say. And that era of Arctic exploration clearly deserves representation in culture.
I especially appreciated the sound designer's work. Where the animation couldn't carry things visually, it perfectly conveyed what was happening through sounds (this is probably the first time I've seriously paid attention to audio).
The plot is relatively banal; I've seen plenty like it.
Overall Good/10

I noted the director's name, Tomm Moore. I think I'll be watching more of his work.

He doesn't have a lot of films. Off the top of my head, I can also recall Song of the Sea, and Wolfwalkers came out this year. They're good animated films, visually very stylish and interesting, and the plots are decent. For some reason, they subtly remind me of Miyazaki. And overall, I have the same impression after watching his films and these animated movies – stylish, good, heartwarming, but still not quite my thing; I prefer something else.

School Shooter (Hello Herman, 2012)

As often happens, diligent translators have rendered the film's title in a way that immediately conveys the subject matter to the viewer, allowing them to decide whether or not to watch it. Therefore, I won't dwell on the plot; instead, I'll share my general thoughts. On Western websites, the film has abysmal ratings, and it flopped at the box office – earning only $8,000 against a budget of $1.5 million, which is comparable to "The Room." Is the film really that bad? Actually, yes, it's not particularly good, but I believe the low ratings stem from something else. Initially, it seems like the film will push a certain agenda (not *the* agenda, although that too, but simply a specific idea), suggesting that all these mass shootings are caused by the internet, video games, racism, and so on. However, in reality, the film doesn't focus on any single factor; instead, it lists all possible causes in sequence and shows how their combination, this "perfect storm" (sorry for the English loanwords today), creates the mixture that ultimately leads to tragedy. At the same time, the film doesn't excuse the perpetrator, but it does show empathy towards him. The film was directed by a woman who said, "I'm a mother myself, and I wanted to show that this is a complex problem that cannot be explained by just one or two causes, that in the complex modern world, there are many reasons that lead to tragedies." Personally, I picked up on this message while watching the film, and the fact that the film was made by a mother explains the lack of desire to push any particular agenda and the desire to portray the tragedy.
In summary, I think this is precisely why the film failed so badly in the United States, but it has a decent rating on Kinopoisk and mostly positive reviews from viewers. Unfortunately, I can't say that this means the film is a must-watch. First, the director doesn't have much experience, and that lack of talent is evident in the overall direction, editing, storytelling, and so on. Second, most viewers are unlikely to be interested in watching the film, given its low quality due to the first point, as well as the lack of any interesting themes. In principle, the film might appeal to parents, but there are probably few of them among the readers.