Dog year of wide rental

Yesterday, with a sense of nostalgia, I revised the “Lord of the Rings. Two towers ”in a pirate translation and poor quality. If in the near future I manage to dig up the first Harry Potter somewhere, I will reconsider it. After all, it is necessary to keep faith in good cinema, in wide rental, and also that one thing happens in another. A good movie, that is, at a wide box office, and wide rental - in a good movie.

So I would not have thought of such global film-sets, but you need to summarize the results of the year, and there is nothing to summarize, as usual. No, that is, if you ask people what films they remember in the past year, you can get a lot of diverse answers. (Although most of these answers from the wide rental somehow falls: from the “guide” Alexander Shapiro to the “death of the worker” Mikhael Glovogger and even the “Grbavitsa” of Yasmila Zhbanich). People willingly call everything - the “perfumer” of Tom pump -cloud, “saw III” Darren Linna Bowman, “human child” Alfonso Koaron. There are even lovers of the Labyrinth Faun and Casino Royal. But what about the unity of the remembered? How can films that immediately come to mind, you just have to hint about the unfortunate results of the film? How are these very results, after all?

Wide rental and wide, to combine minds and tastes. And this year he evokes a sense of tragic hopelessness-with the reservations "Well, I liked it ...". In addition to the new catastrophically beautiful Bond in the “casino of the piano”, perhaps there is no film that would be said “Naturally, I watched it.” Because everything else is good if it is held in the honest genre of comedy without rolling into a farce. Starting from the advertising campaigns of film companies, sorry for the pun.

The capital is sealed with posters promising the Volkodava from January 1 and informing that there will be Zhara in January; Rather, that “Zhara” will be in January, and not from December 28, along with the “night in the museum” and the same “wolfhound”. On TV, Zhar is promised again in January, but posters hang on the boulevards, according to the assurances of which it will be possible to see it from December 29th. One gets the impression that neither distributors nor the audience actually does not matter at all when all this wonderful movie will be released on the screens.

The year, the first film of which was a controversial, but bright “daytime patrol”, and the last was the comedy “wolfhound”, tells us something unpleasant about the Russian fantastic blockbuster and about Russian cinema in general. On the one hand, it is good that the “Volkodava” premiere on New Year's Eve, following the example of Channel One, did not make the Central Partnership at the Central Partnership. They say how you celebrate the New Year, so you will spend it; Even if it is better to remain in the past year. On the other hand, three loud premieres on one unfortunate New Year's Day, when every second potential viewer stands in many hours of traffic jams in the last attempt to scalling more gifts that are not bubbled with each first potential audience, is even decadence and apathy. Say, what's the difference when they will not be released and roll all this, they will not watch anyway.

And they don’t look, because how much can you watch comedic processing of films that have been loved over the past years, released in this dog year. Instead of the dynamic at least “9 company”, the same composition in “Zhara” plays a cross between “midshipmen, forward” and “Peter FM'om”; Instead of “Harry Potter” (or Peter Jackson with anything, from throat to King Cong) - a meaningless tear “eragon” with a dragon; Instead of “daytime patrol” - “wolfhound”. Against this background, even the Hollywood “exchange vacation” looks like a Shakespearean drama with a famously twisted plot.

Religious discourse in the domestic and western broad-rolling cinema also somehow disappointed this year. In domestic cinema, the very fact of the wide, to match the “patrols”, the rental of the Dukhobor “island” is a cultural curriculum, if you understand what I mean. And in the West, a conversation about the end of the world and spiritual searches on this occasion reached some hysterical hiccup, when Mel Gibson, instead of the “passions of Christ”, removes the glamorous “Apocalypse” about naked Peruvians with sophisticated piercing, and in the “Omen” the Cardinal, stabbing, reads the Roman revelation of John the Theology, and he obviously listens with interest to himself. text.

In a word, recent times are in a wide box office, and not only. There are no snow on the streets of the city, in the hearts of people - a holiday, and among moviegoers - unity and impulse. They would be glad to unite and tear themselves for some film, because they don’t give crafty distributors, they slip the “wolfhound” with the Cambodian flying fox, then the “Superman” with a complex of special effect. To top it off, Joseph Barber, creator of Tom, Jerry and many other drawn characters recently died. So there is nothing more to hope for.

On this pessimistic note-here is my dozen films with a reservation “Well, I liked it”, and more than that year I owe nothing.

"Daytime patrol", dir. T. Bekmambetov.

The first film of the year, which was talked about all January and even February, and at the book Fair of Non/Fiction in early December, Falanster as a publishing house presented the scientific result of these conversations in the form of the cultural collection “Watch as a symptom”. In it, people like Oleg Aronson and Daniil Dondurey talk about whether it is good to be a daytime patrol of domestic cinema. A film that has become a symptom, signal and symbol of the Russian blockbuster; It’s only a pity, so far the only one.

"Return", dir. P. Almodovar.

Every year, Almodovar is getting simpler and sincere - apparently, gets old. Juicy horrors and charms of the everyday life of a small village, ghosts that “fart”, Penelope Cruz, rags collecting the blood from the cuisine of the kitchen with his own chopped husband, and not a single main male role - all for which we love Almodovar.

“Pictuating the victim,” dir. K. Serebrennikov.

Another Russian film that was talked about and talked about. The homerically funny film adaptation of the theatrical production of the Presnyakov brothers, which was extolled for the vitality of the plot confusion, then reproached for the conventionality of the ups and downs (as if it doesn’t care what to laugh at, if we laugh at ourselves). One of the few films about Hamlet, which unequivocally shows that everyone died because Hamlet was M*Duck.

“It doesn't hurt me,” dir. A. Balabanov.

Speaking of Renate Litvinova, you rarely remember that she is still an actress. After the Balabanov film, you remember that actually she is a good actress, especially if she is released from scarlet lipstick and television makeup. An unusually simple and clear film about pain and love, which in Russian films is never alone without another.

"Saw III", dir. D.L. Bowman.

And again, a film about pain and love - this time with the eyes of either a dying maniac, or the Lord God. Suspiciously, they are not particularly different from each other. Cinema, which is almost impossible to watch, because not everyone can endure the degree of suffering from the screen. And this is not about the twisting insides and trepanation of the skull close -up for 5 minutes, but in general. For some reason, it is precisely what-almost unbearable-the amount of violence we need in order to talk about divine will, love and forgiveness seriously, without self-irony.

"Labyrinth Faun", dir. G. Del Toro.

Who can’t watch the “saw III” and there is not enough “chronic of Narnia”, you can reconsider a tough, but beautiful to glamorous cinema about Francoist Spain and a little girl, who is involved simultaneously into a partisan conspiracy and the struggle of fairy -tale monsters among themselves. The garrison officer stopes his cheek with a crooked needle, a monster with his eyes in his hands with a crunch bites his heads, in the end all the main characters die. Beautifully to glamor, I repeat.

"Piranha hunting", dir. A. Kavun.

Russian cinema is not particularly rich in drivers. With the exception of, perhaps, “brother” and “brother-2” in the last five years can boast of the main character, simple as an ax, who would not utter a single word longer than three syllables for the whole film. Incendiary fights, incendiary music, incendiary dialogs. Separate phrases are included in popular use, for example, "well, this is normal." True, few can repeat the clumsy grin and no less clumsy intonation of Vladimir Mashkov, with which this makes more impressions.

"Casino piano", dir. Martin Campbell.

A real postmodern film based on all films about James Bond, taken together. A separate mention is a favorite drink of an English spy, which was launched from all sides, without leaving the ice floes in it. In addition, Daniel Craig is strikingly similar to a person “from organs” and the president (not American, of course). Therefore, in particular, the London and Moscow audience laughs in different places - as in that part about Harry Potter, where Dobby appears.

“Paris, I love you,” dir. G. Van Saint, T. Tykver, N. Suva, J. Cohen, O. Schmits, I. Cohen, etc.

It turns out that all these arthausian and cult comrades, shooting a long confusing cinema, can make simple, intelligible and very charming cinema, if you give everyone 5 minutes and stuff them into a collection. Funny, sad, scary, cute short stories about Paris, but in fact - about each of the directors. A collection of star names on both sides of the lens, which looks in one breath, like a real plot movie.

"Human child", dir. A. Koaron.

An unconditional contender for Oscar for directing and the favorite of my personal chart. Absolutely not glamorous and not a futuristic action, shot as if it is a seat. The camera runs after the heroes as a crazy one, turns on unexpected shots, hides around the corner from the tanks, and by droplets of blood in the lower right corner you can guess that all this was shot in one plan. Direct and hard, in places, a cynical report about the war of all against all, in which the winners are only because carpet bombardments have a statistical error. It remains to be hoped for her.