The fact that in Russia the genre of action and stunt films has been in depression for a long time (occasionally releasing good “Invincibles”, “Squads" and "Satisfactions"), a well-known and sad fact for me personally. Alas, to me, as a reviewer, this is especially clear - I reviewed it both during my life in general and during my period of work at Fight Films (where I tripled my zeal in terms of visual ratings) there are a lot of action films and, alas, the comparison of ours and not ours is not in favor of the former, not even in quantitative terms. Either our camera spoils a good idea, then there is little action in general (sometimes up to 20% in films called action films by the distributor), then on the contrary - a lot, but either the plot or the acting is lame, or the film ends mid-sentence or slides into an arthouse, or generally behaves like trash. And any successful attempts (Chronicle of Hell) or attempts at them (the trailer for "The Defenders", which already promises at least a high-budget production) are ridiculed by armchair troops (when nothing political happened in the news) or by aging losers straight from the USSR (who praise even the most unsuccessful films of that time and at the same time dissect new films frame by frame, so that any mossy blunder or incorrectly sewn SS officer's shoulder strap at 36 minutes 28 seconds of the running time, pass it off as an over-the-top movie and fill it with crap just for that), after which the directors give up trying to make an acceptable action movie.
But, despite the fact that I am a reviewer, at the same time, I am a little naive person - I still hope for the return of good action cinema to our country, if not the new “Elusive”, then at least “American Fight”. With this hope I will watch "Defenders" and "The Village", with this hope my comrades and I watched "Major Thunder".
The plot is this: robbers break into a bank and demand money, and police major Gromov, who happens to be there, tries to fight back, using his fighting ability and ingenuity. Happened? Happened. Let's stop reading right now and watch the short film. And then read on to decide whether you agree with what is below or not.
Positively:
- There is no (almost) jerky camera - yes, I note this first of all after a series of shitty films with flickering. Cameraman Arseny Kan, if you are reading this, I bow to you on the floor for your work, you are awesome, you know how and thank you for the long takes and beautiful shooting. I wish you strong hands in the future.
- A minimum of water - the action is constantly tense and the short time for a short film is spent wisely, there is a lot of action - 80%.
- All the features of action and comedy films from different years are also used wisely: there are references to both recent masterpieces and ancient cinema (up to the obligatory non... African American). Special thanks for the banter over the Carrier.
- The action is varied (and variety is the key to the viewer) - beautiful fights with long takes (Arseny, thanks again. Editor Bylygin - you too, a little less, but also. Who directed the fights - you're awesome), shootouts, destruction, chases and invention
- The trick with thinking through and variability of events is 5 (out of five, if that)
- They managed to squeeze in little things that were unfunny and instructive (that you shouldn’t rush at armed bandits without weapons in a room full of people)
- Actor play. Not a standard, but well done. I will note the main character, he was played well.
Negative... It’s hard to say, but it’s necessary: I still don’t fully understand - is this a parody with banter or is it still an abundance of borrowings? If it’s more the latter than the former, guys, you need to come up with something of your own. Another downside is that Thunder's power is somewhat unbalanced. Either he is ready (and can) intelligently scatter the bandits, or for some reason he defeats the passing commander with great difficulty. Yes, and the superhero is Russian, they could have adapted Russian songs (although these are too bad).
The bottom line:
We watched with friends. And at first they didn’t want to watch - the trailer didn’t appeal to everyone: some guy in a gop cap like a superhero and, most likely, there will be another pretentious daub. But after watching, the opinion was changed to excellent, plus, I wanted to re-watch those old cartoons “Puck, Puck!” I thank the team of this film for an excellent short film, but I recommend making a web series instead of a full-length film: a full-length film requires a long plot, which will probably be filled with “water” and unnecessary dialogues - and young directors in the CIS have so little experience... The series will allow you to push Major Gromov into 20-minute scrapes of varying severity.
Nice short film. And yes, cameraman, you’re great.
Author: uranium
Especially for Fight-Films.Info
In many ways, a secondary, but very useful short film was released. Thanks for the action and parody. Well, I hope there will be a full-length film.
Danil Chupakhin,
Already in the process, I talked with Arseny Kan.
uranium,
Well, good. We had an interview with him. With this Kahn.
Danil Chupakhin,
Not yet, another interview is being prepared. Moreover, here we have strong critics of his work, I don’t know whether he will agree, because he read this article.
uranium,
Fuck the critics. The material will be interesting. This is the main thing.
Danil Chupakhin,
Danil said it right!
And I’ll add, what do the critics have to do with it? If people do something good, they will accept objective criticism. Especially when there is an incentive to do something worthwhile, like Jacobus or the same guys with their new job PLAN B. This is the bar, I understand. Here, criticize, don’t criticize, but the result is visible, who was sick, tried and worked. You can't hide the truth.
And the material is unlikely to be interesting. Because the creators have absolutely nothing to say. It's like drinking. If there was something, they would have said it in their short film. But apart from show-offs and the desire for parody and money, there is nothing to say.
I usually show my friends and acquaintances some of my work. There's no boner for this one at all. But even my 17-year-old niece watched Jacobus’ film and said - Cool!
And there is no need to be afraid of critics. Enough to do. And then no one will have any complaints. Just a thumbs up!
In my opinion, the short film was a success. Made with an emphasis on the West, but pleasant to watch. Perhaps if this were a full-length film, there would be a lot of boring dialogue and unnecessary pathos, but within 20 minutes it doesn’t get boring. Personally, I had a pleasant experience.
Can someone explain to me WHAT TO LOOK AT HERE? And where is the fucking operator here? Lazy is an understatement. What I saw was what I filmed. And somehow.
And most importantly - the moral of the film, as well as the goal - for what? I’m not used to counting other people’s money, but I have a question: Where are the 60 lyam rubles? In the ruins of the pool?
In short, it's fucked up, not a movie. It's a pity for my time and those who watched it.
PS Just don’t compare with Andreasyan and others.... For me it’s better than this.
Small + a couple of things in the choreography were not bad in concept.
Thank you for attention!
Jaidev,
Dmitry, no offense, the lazy one is you. Of your films, I have only seen “Squishy”, and I have been waiting for the promised “Inquiry” for many months. The guys from Berdsk filmed “Village” during this time and showed it, for example.
The camera work here is good in any case, the main plus is that there is no flickering (I wanted to say FUCKING flickering) and arthouse angles, the movements are all readable and everything that happens is clear and catchable to me.
Moral of the movie? Carry out the operation in one person so that people do not get hurt and that unnecessary heroism only makes things worse. The point of the film is that we have learned to be visual and to rid the timing of “water.”
uranium,
You can make a hundred films and show them, the question is different - the goal?
Personally, I pursue one goal, others another. Because we are all different. Therefore, my FIRST QUESTION was - WHAT TO LOOK AT? Read more carefully.
The cinematography here is crap in the action. Although the VERY BEGINNING of the film is certainly excellent! I don’t know who read it, personally my eyes hurt from this drunken chatter. Please do not confuse this with normal camera movement. I have a feeling that people don’t watch movies at all, but they think that they are doing something unique.
And most importantly - call yourself a milk mushroom, get into the basket. Why do a hundred film nerds have the right to express their subjective opinion, but a person who understands cinema and makes it does not?
PS Advice to the creators: (I’m sure they will look here)
Watch more movies and create YOUR own. So that you can be distinguished by your HARD WORK and PERSONAL OPINION, which unfortunately has now fallen below the plinth in Russian cinema.
And in fact, in the world too. Of all the filmmakers, Tim Burton is the only one you can touch. Yes Trantinku. Although the second one is already on its last legs.
Uran. This is for you personally between the lines:
Perhaps let's not get personal? If you don't see something, there's a good reason for it. Relax. (I recently gave a copy to someone, now we’ll sort it out in court)
Good cinematography is GREAT MASTERS, WONDERS, ARMOR OF GOD, FUSE, EQUILIBRUM, DRIVE... but not this above-mentioned garbage.
And the installation here is very ordinary. Because there’s nothing special to mount there.
With respect to your personality...Shadrin.
Jaidev,
Now I.
What to look for? For the improved action, for the guys’ ability to show that we can now also film fights, for the fights themselves, for the ideas, for the brightness of the picture and for the film itself, which does not take much time and, by the way, is free - that is, you except 30 minutes of your time, didn't waste anything.
The camera work here is good, not just in comparison with other Russian and CIS cinema, where there is flickering, shitty camera angles, arthouse editing. I repeat once again - I was able to read most of the movements in the process and even discern what was happening in the environment. for me this is enough to call the operator’s work at least good, 4 out of 5.
You have the right to express your opinion and this is even necessary, since you are related to the world of cinema and understand - but this is what distinguishes you from the “nerds from film search”: you, as a director who declared that he knows how to save Russian action films, could provide evidence of how to do this.
Also, when I vouch (that is, I say - everyone should watch it right now) for a film in my reviews, I am personally responsible for this and with my local reputation, because when they present things that deny what I said, this is also a personal presentation me too, because I can get angry and get personal, for which I apologize. for example, I apologize to Belba for snapping at him in the review of The Defenders.
Yes. the filmmakers saw this article. And you are completely wrong about the garbage.
Somehow I wasn't impressed at all. But this is my personal opinion - a person who, in principle, does not perceive domestic cinema (with an attempt to reach Hollywood standards). And in general, I think that the action movie is not our genre. When our people try to film something like this, the result is anything but what was originally intended. The feeling I had after watching it was about the same as I felt from the film “D-Day” with Parechenkov. There is only one question in my head - Why??? I didn't like the excessive comedy. Some actors underact, others overact. And when the main character is a typical Russian man, hitting from a turntable and shooting with both hands... Well, it’s really impossible to take it seriously. A reasonable solution in this situation would be, say, to transfer the entire action to some fictional universe in order to justify the “Westernness” of everything that happens on the screen. In this case, everything will look more adequate. And this turns out to be too cartoonish. And even more hardcore music during the battle scenes. That would be a good start then. And so... it just looks like another (unsuccessful) attempt by our filmmakers to make a cool action movie “like theirs.” Of course, I didn’t want to criticize him. Still, people tried. But... weak, in my opinion. Even for a short film.
Black Dragon,
Weak? What then is a normal example? They probably just made a parody. No one (except Bazhenov) is persecuting the Indians for making parodies - even before Jamval, everyone praised “I’m Next to You” - although the essence is the same. Although yes, “they’re ours, but ours don’t know how.” The viewer criticizes everything, without giving any chance to ordinary guys - but continues to go to the Defenders, despite warnings and hundreds of reviews on the Internet.
uranium,
Well, why does he criticize... Of course, we need to continue. Find your style through trial and error. Moreover, if there is creative potential (and it is clear that there is). Still, they start somewhere. It's just a matter of taste. This is my personal opinion and does not claim to be true.
Black Dragon,
We should give these guys a chance sometimes without turning into super picky YouTube shit critics.
By the way, I talked to cameraman Arseny, they are working on a feature film, the team will be the same.
uranium, I hope they will announce the release of the full film here? I took a look on occasion, although I won’t specifically monitor it.
Wave,
It's still early.
uranium,
Then we wish the guys good luck.
Due to the link to the screenshot, the comment was not displayed. In general, as for me, there are not so many specific references in the film. Most are clichés, not references.
And recaptcha is atrocious to me. For this comment, I needed to solve two tasks. Last time it cost one thing. And sometimes there are a dozen or a half, counting those that I immediately refuse and press update.
Wave,
This is the problem with Thunder - are they references, clichés, parody or stupid borrowing?
uranium, I wouldn't say it's a big problem. They may be clichés, but they are used quite creatively. Personally, the only things I didn’t like were “in great shape” and the very weak fight in the fountain. Well, probably, “Sorry for not knocking.” Borrowing and borrowing, but they did it in a cool way.
.
Ps What does the first bandit say to Thunder halfway to the vault? I don't understand something.
.
And for the third time he went for the captcha. And I passed it!
Wave,
But who knows, it needs to be reconsidered. I'm currently swollen from watching The Defenders, which I just reviewed. Will be here soon.
Heh! I myself would never have searched for and downloaded this short film. But here is such a laudatory review... I looked at it and was delighted!
(no, this is not a masterpiece, but I just watched it with pleasure. The stunt fights, however, are not as enthusiastic as Uranus. But they are also inventive and original, and I liked them in themselves.)
Ps It seemed to me that the fight with the statue’s hand is a reference to Dzhekichan’s “Around the World”, to Schwarzenegger’s hand: “I want my arm back!”?
Wave,
EVERYTHING there is based on references - both to the Soviet classics (Major Circuit), to the movies of the 90s and to modern crafts.
uranium, I didn't understand many of the references. This one just seems quite veiled to me.
.
Ssssss, if this recaptcha constantly fucks with my brains, requiring me to do something fifteen times with muddy little pictures, I’ll stop commenting here altogether!
Wave,
References? Let's do the math. Major Circuit (title, cap), fights (The Matrix and so on), Nolan's Batman and Heat (robbery, masks), something from John Woo (long passages), a couple of Jackie Chan films (fights with objects), Transporter and Drive with Gosling or whoever he is, Red Heat, the cartoon “Shaibu Shaibu”, clichéd chases and water fights, an African American as an obligatory character, the girl’s doll was designated by someone as a reference to something.
This is just a guess.
Regarding the recaptcha - I don’t know why they entered it, it doesn’t bother me at all, but it seems like there were no attacks on the site. And yes, come on without swearing.
What I didn’t like the most was that they moved away from the original: in the comics, Thunder was older and behaved more seriously, he didn’t invent cool phrases for himself for all occasions, and no one oohed and ahhed for him so openly (“he was in in great shape", "it was Thunder"). He was a cool detective, but I don’t remember such mistakes in comics. + despite all the comics, there wasn’t this inappropriate “Americanness” like: the Ministry of Internal Affairs badge like from Red Heat, the funeral like in American action movies, bluish Audi police officers with police officers in an incomprehensible uniform and with fashionable haircuts.
Why they came up with all this... it’s unclear. As for everything else... good luck to the creators!!!
Celpaso,
I haven’t read the comics (I’ll have to do that).
What can you say about the action?
uranium,
By the way, your idea for a web series is a smart one. But the creators are unlikely to agree to this, because... There are costs, but the returns...are few. Although I heard that Thunder is the first part of four, i.e. In the near future, short films about Fury, Inok and Besoboi may be released. And if Fury (our answer to Natasha Rostova from the Avengers, only in red) can still be filmed in a similar style, then with Inok, who constantly travels through time, and Besoboi, who fights demons aka Blade with vampires, it will be more difficult.
uranium,
Beautiful (by the way, Thunder in the original is a master of martial arts and is also good with his legs), like the whole film, but in my opinion, too clip-like (this applies to the imaginary fights in the bank, but I didn’t really like the fight in the fountain, because . turned out to be too slow and not technical). It seems to me that if you shoot a full-length film, then the dynamics should be done much slower (and at the same time not bring it to what was in the battle in the fountain).
It is clear that money, time, effort have been spent, work and brain activity are visible. We worked with the characters, there is dynamics, the locations are excellent.
The work is clearly above average, with ambition, polished, bright. So, we must continue.
But I've already seen it all. Conscious or unconscious clichés lead to a double perception: yes, it is familiar and smiles, but it also devalues when it is nothing of its own. This is all for the virgin viewing experience.
There is an imbalance of aesthetics: eccentricity, deliberate overacting, but there is unnecessary cruelty, savory blows to the face of everyone, from women to men, tears from the eyes from an electric shock to the neck. It seems fun, but it's not fun at all. There are a lot of hypertrophied, under-joker robbers who go too far with this very hypertrophy. They themselves didn’t decide what they wanted to film, or they knew, but not everything worked out. There was not enough harmony. Maybe I wanted to show that we can all play and shoot.
The brutality of Grom’s acting is a little annoying, he does so aggressively with his mouth, it’s a mess, he needs to treat himself easier somehow, and humor doesn’t save him from Grom, because, again, there is some kind of imbalance, not always perceptible.
Of all the options calculated in his head, the main character chose the most moronic one; the remaining bandit simply by a miracle of the script pen did not shoot all the hostages.
But okay, I’ll also say the FAQ as the main sofa loser)
Ravenside,
Solidarity almost everywhere.
Now about the Soviet losers, so that there are no questions. There are Soviet people, normal ones, and there are those who are called scoops, who constantly and everywhere praise Soviet cinema, and ridicule and slander modern cinema (whatever it may be). My appeal was precisely to them. Therefore, I apologize to those who misunderstood. I’m just tired of reading too pretentious comments on various films that have not yet been released, with opinions not supported by anything other than “but with advice it’s still better / but that general doesn’t have enough stars in his pursuit, that’s why it’s shit”
It was shot just perfectly, I didn’t know that Russian cinema could be so exciting, even though it’s a short film, it surpasses all the latest and most recent full-length Russian action films, the advantages of the film are dynamism, well-choreographed action scenes, an unexpected super parody of the carrier, humor, the main male character, Anna Terevkina, there are practically no downsides, only a few naive moments.
Dave,
There is still a little - too much borrowing. Well, the boss could have been tougher.
Yes g...oh this, well, let me be an old loser from the USSR.
This is some kind of clip, with attempts at humor, unsuccessful ones, fast forwarding in fights and blurred slowdown. There is no need for so much senseless waving and movement,
It would be better if it were a calm conversational style so that the characters could open up + clearly staged fights in 5-6 hits, then it would be interesting, there would be no need for a lot of movements for the sake of movements. You can take the series Fighter as an example where short skirmishes are these moments.
Cop12,
You can't please anyone - this is shit, then that's shit. The Fighter has a good first half with good fights, but the rest is a boring thief with a completely lost ending. There are also good fights, good stunts, and everyone’s favorite long takes. shootouts, action at 80% WITHOUT FLASHING. Apparently they've seen enough of Nolan, there's not enough noir.
uranium,
and who is to blame for filming one g...o?
The only normal Russians are Fan and Fighter. For the rest, what flashes is some fights from the film, but not the film as a whole.
Cop12,
A fighter is only good in fights, and only in the first half. There are many good Russian action films: St. John's Wort and Invincible by Rostotsky, Fan (even in the second there are enough fights), Satisfaction, Chronicle of Hell, Druzhina, Knight's Romance, Strike of Lotus-3, Monk, Brother and Brother-2, Flint and Invincible by Epifantsev, Criminal Quartet, Special forces, Chek, Saboteur. Among the very Soviet ones are the films of Samvel Gasparov (The Sixth, Bread-Gold-Revolver, Hatred), The Elusive Avengers, Don’t be afraid, I’m with you. I just named this offhand in the morning, and even then the most sensible examples. And how many average or disposable action films (which cannot be called bad, but not for everyone) are more difficult to count.
This is not an action movie, not our genre. Apart from the black shit, we have problems almost everywhere.
+ Sword
In terms of music, this is a “disease” of all genres of entertaining Russian cinema. Regarding the many borrowings, it seems that this is not a parody, but a conscious choice of the creators - to make a Hollywood product and sell it at a higher price.
Merey,
May be. What can you say about the rest of the film?