Posts from Recently viewed movies. Auto-translated

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006) Basically, at the very beginning, the protagonist commits the forbidden act of suicide, but instead of ending up in the usual heaven or hell, he finds himself in a world similar to ours, but slightly worse. He gets a slightly crappier job, lives in a slightly crappier apartment, the people around him are unfriendly and unwelcoming, and everything is covered in a grayish filter. I think it's a brilliant idea – some kind of hell is too cliché, but here you can try to kill yourself again, but the thought stops you – what if it's even worse next time? And so on, endlessly? In this place, he meets a new friend who, as expected for this place, turns out to be Russian. Then he learns that his ex-girlfriend committed suicide shortly after him and decides to get in his new friend's car and go look for her. And in the end, we get a road movie. It's done quite well, it's easy to watch, and the film is less than an hour and a half long – it's perfectly aware of its value and doesn't try to be something more, and therefore respects the viewer's time. And at the same time, it's set in a rather unusual setting, which will directly affect the entire plot. It's a good, comfortable movie, not brilliant and not reaching for the stars, but honestly delivering on its promise. Midnight Cowboy (1969) The description on Kinopoisk is not entirely accurate; sometimes I think it's written by a neural network because certain parts of the film are chosen and presented as if they were the main plot points, although in reality, they are not that important. But most likely, the person who writes them just watches movies with their butt. The premise of the film is quite simple – a young man from Texas decides to move to New York to earn money as a gigolo. Surprisingly, the brilliant plan doesn't work out, and he quickly sinks to the bottom of the social hierarchy. And in my opinion, this is the essence of the film – watching him and his newfound acquaintance live in poverty is quite heartwarming, if you can call it that, not necessarily interesting, but the atmosphere is conveyed well. It's also easy to watch, except for a couple of moments in the first third of the film with some kind of crazy, disjointed editing; I started to get a little tense, but fortunately, it didn't repeat after a certain point. I mentioned the plot from Kinopoisk because it suggests constant gay scenes, and formally, there is one such scene here, but absolutely nothing *special* is shown, no male kisses, nothing; you still have to understand that in Hollywood in 1969, such a thing was simply impossible. So, again, if you're willing to watch a movie about two guys at the bottom of society, it's a decent film. Oh yeah, this film is also the source of a certain meme phrase; you probably haven't heard it (except for Ples), but see for yourself: about 3 million views. I'll add that on Kinopoisk, both films have an average rating of about 7.5, but I rated both films around a six, interpret that as you will.

The Pelican ("Nicostratos le pélican", 2011, France, Greece)

Usually, films about the relationship between a person and a pet focus on this pair overcoming difficulties that seem to come from an external world. Sometimes the antagonist is nature, sometimes other people, but we always have a rather narrow focus on just the two: the person and the animal. Perhaps that's why even the best, most highly-rated films in this genre seemed somewhat boring to me, often even mediocre.

This film is completely different. Yes, we have a boy and his pet, but they are just part of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture, even in its most minimalist form, includes three characters. And this is truly a very kind story, not overly complex, but all the more touching and profound.

In my opinion, "Nicostratos the Pelican" is not heavy or drawn-out; it's a rather pleasant way to spend an hour and a half.

The Courier (1986)

I liked it.
I've been meaning to watch it for a long time and kept putting it off for many years. Finally, when I sat down to watch it, I was a little worried that it wouldn't resonate with me. I thought that watching the wanderings of a young, lost, and lyrical hero might have been cool when I was 20, but at 30, it might seem alien. But in the end, it was the opposite. At 20, I probably wouldn't have understood anything, except that the main character is both cool and a loser (by the way, he was practicing three-layer post-irony back in 1986). But now, from the perspective of my 30 years, I understand what drives him and what he feels at any given moment. The same can be said about his love interest (to a lesser extent, of course, but at 20, I would have thought that she makes all her decisions randomly). I don't know if I would have felt sadness and melancholy at 20, but if I had, it probably would have overwhelmed me like a stone. Now, there's just a slight melancholic aftertaste.
As for the film as a whole, it's very well-made. Not a single scene drags or feels unnecessary, except for one near the end, which was probably meant to evoke some philosophical thoughts, but it doesn't matter. The film is 88 minutes long, and it shows everything it needs to show right away. In general, it doesn't waste time and moves from scene to scene, except maybe at the very beginning. There are many funny jokes and situations. I liked it.

Silver Skates (2020, Russia)
I didn't expect much from the movie, but it turned out to be a surprisingly beautiful film in the style of classic Disney (except without songs, but with dances). The characters are surprisingly charismatic, both the "heroes" and the "villains," although not everyone will agree that they can be classified that way. They skate and perform tricks beautifully, it's not filmed as chaotically as many of our directors tend to do, the synopsis seems a bit strange, but within the framework of a New Year's fairy tale, you can close your eyes to this convention and simply enjoy the drama...

Grom: The Hard Childhood (2022, Russia)
Well, I can't say that it's bad by superhero standards, especially since it's a bit of a parody, but the previous film in the series was more interesting, and this one is just average. The moral remains unclear, let's just say.

Siever, did you watch "Best in Hell"? From the creators of your favorite "Sunpeka." After my commander watched it, I have to run around with two machine guns on every mission.

Siver, have you watched "Best in Hell"? It's from the creators of your favorite "Sunstroke." After my commander watched it, I have to run around with two machine guns on every mission.

I haven't watched it. I had an experience with "Sunstroke," and it was quite interesting. I even managed to write, as I think, a pretty good review based on it. But generally, I watch such movies with a bored expression.

Uncut Gems (2019)

An unusual feeling.
I wrote about my impressions of "Khrustalyov, Machine!" relatively recently. In that review, I highlighted a point where the sound in the film creates a constant noise that feels like an attack on your psyche. The sound work here is also somewhat non-standard. First, in several moments, including one of the first scenes, completely inappropriate music plays. The closest analogy would be someone else's phrase "like a soundtrack from an 80s fantasy," even though we are being shown modern New York. But that' same only the beginning, because then, the character played by Adam Sandler begins to speak. And once he starts—he doesn't shut up for almost the entire movie. On top of this, there is quite loud music playing—combined, it also feels like an attack on the psyche. But while "Khrustalyov" ultimately resulted in delirium, the result here is different—constant tension. The film forces you to experience it on a physical level, thereby complementing the tension of the plot. Some critic wrote that the film feels like a "two-hour panic attack," and although I'm not sure such a strong comparison can be applied, at the same time, I wanted to describe it in roughly similar words myself. After it ends, you feel fatigue and a buzzing in your head. But unlike Khrustalyov, the final impression here is pleasant.
Plot-wise, the film tells of the life problems of a Jewish jeweler (ha-ha, get it, get it, the original title). The main part of them is quite banal—he owes money to dangerous guys. But besides that, there are many more, including himself, namely—absolutely reckless ludomania, which only exacerbates existing problems. And for the entire film, all 2 hours, it's a journey from one problem to another, from that one to a third, fourth, tenth. And like, objectively—it's clear that he himself is the source of almost all of them, yet the film doesn't portray him as a "positive" character (or a negative one), but when so many misfortunes fall upon a person, I personally can't help but perceive him as an underdog you start rooting for simply because everything is against him. I constantly wanted things to turn in his favor somehow; every small success was perceived as a victory, and all these emotions were only amplified by the physical sensation caused by the sound. In general, the emotional payoff is fully there, provided you aren't one of those people who ask "but why should I empathize with him? He wasn't shown to be a positive character, so there's no need to empathize 🤓".
If you haven't heard of the movie before, you probably noticed that ГГ is played by Sandler, the star of maximally stupid and pathetic comedies. But don't worry, film critics praised Sandler's performance in this movie, and for good reason. Here, the makeup artist's work was also very important; they changed his appearance as much as possible so that we wouldn't have associations with his usual roles—and this was an absolutely justified decision. In the end, I only remembered who played ГГ in about two scenes, when the camera lingered on his face for a very long time and Adam's familiar facial expressions could be traced through his acting. So in that regard, it's also quite cool.
Ultimately, I liked the movie, but the experience is unusual; I repeat, this is two hours and ten minutes of constant tension, both physically and emotionally—something you shouldn't repeat not just every time you watch a movie, but perhaps even every twentieth time. Moreover, it's not typical action-movie tension, but specifically when you are sitting on pins and needles; in English there is the word "anxious," that's the one. I don't even know how to properly summarize, basically, this is a film for those who are ready for some unusual entertainment, but the experience was positive.
I decided that the review would be incomplete if I didn't share a few more thoughts. But these thoughts could seriously ruin the feeling of watching the movie, so if you are even remotely considering doing so, do not open the spoiler:

Spoiler

I lied; actually, these aren't additional thoughts, I'm going to spoil the plot and the ending. It's not too late to change your mind!

No regrets now.

As I already said, the entire movie is watched with tension and anxiety. ГГ starts out in deep trouble; suddenly he achieves some success, which quickly turns into even deeper trouble. He makes poor decisions—sometimes just because, sometimes due to ludomania—then it seems that things will finally work out, a pattern forms, and then another crash happens. Finally, after a series of such mishaps, he actually manages to get 170 thousand dollars. 100 thousand will be needed to pay the gangsters, but besides them, there are plenty of other debts. But in any case, the hero finds himself in a slightly better position than he was at the beginning of the movie. And right then he delights us with another twist—he pumps himself up with a motivational speech intended for someone else, as a result of which, with fire in his eyes, he bets absolutely all the money he received on a sports match. While making, of course, a very specific and dangerous bet. For yet another time in the film, you shake at how everything has once again gone to hell, and this time by the fault of the main character himself. The gangsters come to his shop for the money; there is no money. ГГ locks them up and says "look, look, I'm about to win it back, there's a match tonight, just watch, this time it will definitely work." Evening comes, the match starts. ГГ jumps and spins, screams, says "now look, it's almost happening, oh no he missed, nothing-nothing, he'll make up for it." The bandits have faces like Bratishka from Green Elephant. By this point, the viewer has already seen a dozen times how a seeming win turns into a loss, so while hope still flickers, deep down you understand that everything will end badly; there can be no win. And then, the end of the match—it turns out that ГГ won. The prize is one million and one hundred thousand dollars. The hero's girlfriend calls him and repeats ten times that she loves him; exhilarated by triumph, he tells her that he loves her madly too. Finally, he lets the gangsters out—he has what it takes to pay them off, even if they ask for insane interest. The hero is at the peak of happiness, and at that moment a gangster shoots through his skull, causing instant death. The gangster doesn't care about the hero's winnings; he gets a fixed cut from the boss, and the moral satisfaction of revenge for such treatment is more important to him. Not to mention that he can loot the shop and put some cash in his own pocket. End.
At first, such an ending shocks with its absolute suddenness (unfortunately, it was spoiled for me ) and the sharp change in tone of the final scene. But it is logical in the context of the whole film—the bigger the victory that seemed to be looming for the hero, the bigger the problems he actually received. And it's logical that at the moment of his highest triumph, he catches the biggest problem (couldn't think of a better synonym). And in some sense, it is even perfect for his character—he died as happy as was possible. Not only would anyone be glad to receive such a huge sum of money and bathe in the adoration of their girlfriend, but here you also have to imagine the absolutely pure high of a ludomaniac who received the strongest dose possible for his addiction. This was truly the highest point in the hero's life, after which everything would only get worse and worse—with his ludomania and tendency toward poor decisions, he would almost certainly blow all the money, most likely without even enjoying it much. An association also came to mind with a typical Hollywood happy ending, where we aren't shown the gray same-old days of the characters that follow; no, we are shown their victory and then the credits. That is exactly how ГГ's life ended—instant credits after victory, maximum dopamine rush, and no more distracting details. In general, the ending easily adds a couple of points to the movie, but I decided that writing even the most general phrases about it in the main review would be like spoiling it by 90%, so this is how it is.

"Why should I sympathize with him? He wasn't presented as a positive character, so there's no need to sympathize. 🤓"

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never come across such an opinion. I have encountered hate towards characters with flaws, even if the idea is that these are flaws. But that's a bit different, as I understand it.

I guess I'm just lucky, but I've never come across such an opinion. I have encountered hate towards characters with flaws, even if the idea is that these are flaws. But that's a bit different, as I understand it.

I just rewatched the CinemaSins video about this movie because I became interested in the movie itself when I watched their videos. The narrator is practically overflowing with negativity on this topic. However, he also perceives the main character as a negative character, which is a bit of an exaggeration. He's just an ordinary guy with some flaws.

Just finished watching the CinemaSins video about this movie because I became interested in the film itself while watching their previous videos, and the narrator is practically overflowing with negativity about it.

So, a typical CinemaSins video.

True, he also portrays the main character as a negative figure, which is a bit of an exaggeration.

Ah, that's familiar, although it's a slightly different situation. It can be justified, considering that complex/ambiguous characters need to be written well. And sometimes, even purely positive characters can't be written properly. However, the opposite situation with unwarranted criticism is just as common. Or when some viewers idealize a character too much, while others do the opposite.

I've updated the post about the movie; I'll keep you updated if anyone needs it.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (2022)

A traditional comedy from the studio, without any major revelations. Just watch an action movie, laugh, recognize references to various other fairy tales, and listen to Banderas' voice one more time (of course, watch it in English, otherwise it doesn't make sense...).
Kosh and other cartoon lovers will enjoy it, and I also liked it. But I wouldn't recommend dropping everything just to watch it. I watched it myself because the number of frames with the cat and the local Death on the internet was overwhelming. Well, you understand, you can't just ignore the source of the meme...

Cheburashka

As a standalone film, it's probably better than the average output of the Russian film industry, although even so, in my opinion, it's nothing particularly outstanding. It has a relatively pleasant atmosphere of a southern resort town, and a relatively understandable story about the conflict between good and evil, with arrogant and wealthy individuals as the antagonists (although, in this particular implementation of the conflict, there is no logic to be found). There's also some kind of family drama, although it's difficult to grasp its essence without a drink. And, perhaps, the scene with the oranges can be added here; it's probably the best thing in the film, but it was extremely fleeting.
That's where the positives end, and the negatives begin: Gennady is awful, Cheburashka is even more awful, and Shapoklyak is just mega-awful. To turn an ordinary, slightly charismatic crocodile into an embittered dinosaur? To turn a modest and cute mascot into something that is, at the very least, a gremlin? Although, judging by this Cheburashka's gluttony and ability to spread primordial chaos around him, he could very well be a champion of Slaanesh or something similar. And finally, the most disappointing thing is Shapoklyak – from a pure-blooded trickster, an heir (or perhaps even the progenitor) of the Joker, who causes mischief in the city out of pure love for art, this Shapoklyak has become just an ordinary, repulsive moneybag who cares about nothing but her own profit. If the other characters have been changed for unknown reasons, then Shapoklyak has been deliberately spoiled in an attempt to bring the conflict in line with modern, standardized realities, disregarding the contradictions with the original source.
Perhaps the creators should have kept it simple and filmed the story in Soviet settings, which many people actually enjoy, but even then, I'm afraid that operating within their paradigm would have made it difficult not to spoil something.

In summary, 6/10, if it weren't for the original source. Well, yes, there is something in the atmosphere, and as a family film, it's not that bad. Silly and naive, but not bad.
4/10 in reality, because enough is enough with ruining the immortal classic.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Yesterday, I went to the ballet with my mother, even though I don't really understand this genre – people just dance, and it's supposed to be very interesting. I have a similar attitude towards Westerns. Let's look at the similarities: a simplistic plot that exists just for the sake of it, monotonous musical themes that repeat many times (especially during the era of Morricone's dominance), and most importantly, the hope that the audience cares more about the standard elements of the genre than about originality and uniqueness. Apart from that, I'm generally indifferent to the Wild West setting, cowboys, and other related things. So, the genre just isn't for me.
And today, while watching this particular film, my impressions were very similar to those I had after the ballet, especially since the first 15 minutes of the film have almost no action and the characters barely speak. And even after an hour or an hour and a half, my impressions hadn't changed much – I could appreciate the competent work of the individuals involved in the process, but I didn't feel any overall enjoyment. However, in the second half/third of the film, I finally started to get into it. The protagonist barely speaks throughout the film; he comes from nowhere, and we don't even know his name. We only know that he wants to find and, presumably, kill someone named Frank, who is clearly portrayed as a villain. While a larger plot unfolds around him, with various characters trying to make money or simply save their own skins, the protagonist continues to silently pursue his goal. The film moves at a slow pace, and the protagonist doesn't rush either – he often knows that the right people will come to him, and he just waits. You start to understand, or rather feel, that the protagonist has wanted to kill Frank for a very, very long time, and that during this time, he has learned patience. At the same time, we are not told, or even hinted at, what his motive might be. And this only intensifies the feeling of something grand, creating an understanding that the protagonist is willing to do anything to achieve his goal, that it is the meaning of his life – and we don't even know why. And when it finally becomes clear that this moment is approaching, that it is near, you feel, in a sense, on the same level as the hero – he has been waiting for years to take revenge, and you have been waiting for more than two hours to see him do it. And Morricone's music suddenly strikes the right chords, and you feel the importance of this moment. In general, the climax and the moment itself are emotionally well-executed. The high rating is well-deserved, as long as you don't fall asleep during the first half.

Harsh Times

Brief plot summary: young Christian Bale doesn't want to go to work and does crazy things.
Well, you could also add the banal message about how a discharged soldier is bored in civilian life. There's nothing more to add; I didn't see any depth in the movie.
The only thing I can praise is that I didn't feel the urge to drop it out of boredom; otherwise, there's not much to watch. After finishing, I checked the director, and it turned out to be the same guy who made Training Day – I immediately understood everything because, although this thought didn't take a verbal form during the viewing, I felt many similarities. It's a bit better than Training Day, which I barely managed to finish back then.

5-6/10