Green Book of an indefinite color

* * * * * *
Without a doubt, the topic of racism is a serious thing and requiring increased attention in our difficult age of the oppression of everything and everything. For the United States of America, these conversations and various events are an even more relevant agenda than in our Russian realities, and therefore it is not surprising and logical that no, no, and films appear that show this difficult topic for a large number. Unfortunately, it is necessary to talk about the conversations of such a sense today very, very carefully and courteously, otherwise you can get strongly on the cap so that until the end of your days you will have to feed only memories of decent work, so the degree of frankness and “stiffness” of the produced sounds leaves much to be desired, but we work with what we have, and we have today ..

… we have today "Green Book" -The film, inspired by the real fact of acquaintance and the interaction of the dark-skinned musician Don Shirley and his hired assistant-shower-Tony Vallengi (Tony Lip), who, by the way, extremely fleeting and episodely appeared in many interesting films and series, starting from the “godfather” and finishing"Soprano clan".

The global plot is simple, like a manual for a novice scriptwriter: in the film, as in life, a talented black musician Don Shirley (gaining more and more importance in the Mahershal Ali market) in 1962 decides to recover to the south of the United States to play his music and “change the minds of people”, and for such an adventure (I briefly remind you that in those times the south of the southThe United States loved black comrades on the planet only as a labor force deprived of all rights, except for the right to work for white hosts), he hires Tony (aging, but not losing natural charm of Wiggo Mortensen)-a middle-aged Italian who has a great desire to earn at least some money and a couple of recommendations in the “necessary” circles, including circles of peoplemafia way of life.

How long, briefly, but the guys agree to put Tony behind the wheel of a car that he will carry heroes in many cities and states from north to south, and it is precisely the interaction of heroes and demonstration of harsh living conditions and travels for black representatives of mankind that two -hour picture will be devoted to.

Without putting off the moment of the culmination of my misunderstanding of what happened on the screen in a long box, I would like to ask one question in the air: about what the film?

No, I already said: about how two dude of different views, social/intellectual/personal provisions, ups, habits, worldviews, skin flowers and other things will try to travel together for two months in one salon of the car, simultaneously contemplating and even taking part in racist incidents of that time. A typical tie for a typical, traditional such Road-Mui-no more, no less, everything is fine, such works are interesting in all centuries.

Great and understandable.
It is not clear that in the end it is a movie and About what it is. This is a feature film? Yes, of course, this is not a documentary, not a historical, non-fantastic-linguistic-destructive film-this is a pure feature film that took as a basis a certain real event with real people in the real period of time with real problems, ultimately complementing somewhere, retelling somewhere, somewhere inventing the events.
But the film does not work as a work of art – from the working one, it has only a correctly built beginning, where we are very talented, accurately, accurately, and is not prolonged with one of the heroes, Tony, showing its main features, worldview, character and probably potentially the main thing for local history: that he does not like black citizens and even disdain them – so that he refuses to drink from those glasses from which they sawdark -skinned workers in his house, and therefore throws this container into the trash.
This splendor of the symphony of the well-tailored thread of the introduction and representation lasts exactly 15 minutes before the scene of the meeting of Tony with his future black boss, the doctor of the “musical sciences” Shirley, where the main “joke” of the film and should start working-Tony does not really like blacks, Shirli-the most black one must somehow hold out with Shirley for two months their tournamentto the south and, perhaps, even somehow change, including in your views.

Guess if this line is in the film?
NO.
Why?
Yes, because.

Let’s start with the fact that we definitely cannot say whether the racist is Tony.
Yes, he is definitely not a fan of dark -skinned people, but this is a household racism, which manifests itself only when he will hurt his personally or his house (the only scene with glasses from which blacks drank)? Or is it social racism, which was saturated with the air of American society, even in the north, albeit to a much lesser extent than in the south, and Tony is not a racist, but thinks and treats black so only because "it seems to be so accepted and necessary"? And how Tony relates specifically to Shirley? We don’t even know this, because this hero has never commented on his attitude to the “color” musician – this topic is so avoided that it is born and immediately dies in a dialogue with his wife, who doubts that Tony can withstand Shirley even a week, then he convinces her, then he will be able.
So, where the film shows the fact that Tony is hard and unpleasant, but we must travel with Shirley because he is a black?
Where the film shows that Tony is hard and unpleasant to travel with Shirley … Any reason?
Tony doesn’t care what is happening-he enjoys and fun, and this has a reason-we really met with the hero in the first fifteen minutes of the film, and the image seen coincides with his further behavior of a nearby guy who is professionally and responsibly performing his work, but where is the development of the heroes of the confrontation of the heroes, including due to the color of the skin of one of them?

She simply is not.
Tony and Shirley during the film have several dialogs similar to the dispute that show their dissimilarity (which is already easy to notice – and this is not about the color of the skin), but there is simply nothing racist. Nothing truly conflict-no. Moreover: there is nothing interesting either. Any topics affected by heroes receive a very weak verbal description-the heroes set out their thoughts as thesis as possible, without delving into the topics, which is why these topics go to the best, literally by a couple of minutes of screen time.
So, remind you, there should be a change in the alleged racist worldview of Tony, when in two hours we see only one episode either by the usual disgust of the hero, or his racism, and once we hear about it from his wife’s mouth?
In the film, where the main background topic is just the racism of that time in general and the problems of a particular black person among white people in particular?

Another big problem of this film: poorly registered Don Shirley.
No, ultimately, by the middle of the film, we understand whatO He is for the character, we know the approximate list of his tastes and how he behaves (by) … but only we do not know, Why And For what He behaves like that.
Shirley is a character, as they say, “for yourself on your mind”, as it happens with many real and fictitious talents from the world of creativity. But the reason “for yourself on your mind is because the creative nature of special vulnerability” is poorly working in terms of establishing a significant empathic connection of the viewer with the hero – and this is already dangerous for the art of any genre. Dr. Don does not reveal before us as a person – except for a momentary outbreak of despair in the scene in the rain, when Shirley falls on Tony his feelings about his loneliness and that sad role in the stupid society that he plays. Half an hour remains before the finals of the film, and this emotional “camming out” no longer adds a point of sympathy to the hero, which is the previous one and a half hour, that the next half will behave as he used to stay in society: strictly, fit, stifled, intelligently, a little even arrogantly arrogantly. Yes, this is a strict image, it is a honed mask, but there is no character behind this – they do not show him. After two hours of the film, everything that can be said about man Don Shirley, is that he is alone and suffers from this, but cannot do anything because of personal reasons that consist of … Yes, hell knows what. Here my powers end – you can poke into the sky for an infinitely long time, but the chance to get into the real reason for the individual problems of the screen Shirley, I will probably lead to zero due to the lack of information of any sense from the film itself.

The problem of absence of sympathy, empathy for Shirley is dangerous for several reasons, one of which: the automatically breaking “chemistry” between the characters, one of which is alive, more interesting, prescribed (as a person, as a person) than the second, although both are important for history, both equally equally important. Everything that will happen to the heroes will already “limp” on one leg: it is more interesting to observe Tony’s stories and movements, which we were well prescribed for only fifteen minutes and about which we know at times more => we understand better better;Therefore, all happiness and misfortunes that happen to Shirley still pass through the prism of perception of the situation of Tony, who simply works/earns his money.
Another reason: if the film is the main character, then this is definitely Tony. In the presented form, Shirley is suitable only for a figure, for a tool, on a means of a story about those topics that a movie wants to talk about (in the end cannot or does not want), and, probably, there would be nothing of such criminal, if not for the notorious “Road-Muvism”, “Baddy-Muvism” of the picture-the heroes “locked” with each other for a long time, they need to find a common language, contact, contact, contact, contact, contact, contactConflict, in the final they are waiting for changes, and in this form both characters are obliged to be the main character – otherwise the film is “lame” again and does not work in the direction in which it should. Tony is a “language” of the picture that moves, trying to use at least some mechanisms for discussing certain issues, but constantly stumble upon the wall of isolation and even some introversion of the rest of the film.

The picture, unfortunately, does not understand what and why she wants to show. The existing scenes directly the travels of Don and Tony are practically not connected with each other – neither the dialogues and their conclusions, nor the logic of events that take place from the heroes from one scene.

In the very first “road” stage, Tony decides not to share sandwiches with Shirley, although his wife passed food to both of them – we seem to understand that the level of attitude of the Italian to the black boss is not very friendly. It seems like. Maybe. More precisely, it is difficult to say.
Next, I list it in the forehead and without couture briefly summarize All the interactions of the heroes to the episode associated with this scene, in which Tony’s attitude towards Shirley conceptually changes.

The heroes are sitting in the diner, where Shirley is not very elegantly staring over Tony’s ability to describe food, and also arrogantly tells the stupid Italian what is actually depicted on the cover of his record;

Tony stops in the middle of the road to celebrate a small need, but, moving away from the car by two steps, returns, unequivocally picks up the wallet and finally leaves for business;

Late in the evening, Tony will see how Shirley sits on the balcony of his hotel room and jerks alcohol alone, watching how his colleagues in the group have fun, the relationship of Dr. Don with whom, by the way, the film is to us does not tell at all at any level – Why does Don shun them, how they relate to this, what is happening between them and why, etc;

Shirley makes a number of Tony’s claims on how he talks – they say, too unculturally and wrong, but says that all this can be fixed quickly enough;He also thinks how to represent Tony to other people: his surname Valleng will be too complicated, and the Street was driven by “Tony Guba” – too not for the higher world, before which Shirley always appears;Tony does not like all these conversations, and he invites everyone to follow the well -known route to everyone who is dissatisfied;

Tony, through the host of the meeting, at which Shirley speaks, finds out the list of the merits of the Don, and also sees with personally how to masterfully plays;He likes what he saw and heard;

Shirley reports Tony for the fact that the driver had to look after the performance at a time when the Italian played bones directly on the asphalt for money;

Tony experimentally learns that Shirley does not know the cult black musicians of that time, and also talks about how he received his nickname “lip”;

Tony is stealing a beautiful pebble that fell agentspinscasino.co.uk from an impromptu sheet at a gas station – Shirley makes the Italian return the stolen, with which Tony categorically disagrees;

Tony efficiently fulfills the terms of his contract and forces the acceptor to fulfill the conditions of Shirley’s invitation as a musician and provide it with the necessary musical instrument;

Tony writes again to his wife, this time I quote: “Dr. Shirley and I get along pretty well, but sometimes I think that he is sad and therefore he drinks too much”; Sorry, where specifically until this point shows how well they got along?;We must guess about it somehow?

Tony learns a piece of information about Shirley – he has a brother with whom he does not get along and communicates, and there was a wife with whom he parted due to the impossibility of combining creative and family paths.

The next scene: Tony stops at the diner, buys a bucket of fried chicken and very, very, very, very, very, very, very persistently tries to feed Shirley with food, which he had never attended in his life before this day. Shirley stubbornly refuses, arguing different versions from “I never ate” to “I do not want to get my hands getting my hands – this is not my way of eating food”, but in the end it surrenders, and then even likes the tones and throws chicken bones out of the car at full speed.

I apologize to a long list of listing scenes, but it was important for the next question.
Attention, the question: where in the given scenes (and this, I repeat, all the scenes that were from the episode A with the clamped sandwiches to the episode B with the practical violent feeding of the dock by the chicken) Tony changed the attitude to Shirley so as to share with the food that he loves greatly, very strongly?
There are few options: in the scene with the contemplation of the sadness of Shirley with a bottle of alcohol on the balcony of the hotel room, in the moment with the game Shirley, who delighted the Italian, or in an episode with a mean story of a black musician about his difficult family-personal fate?

Okay, suppose somewhere here, where else. And in which scene Tony reflected the reason for the change of his worldview? At what point he realized that he moved from the stage “I was throwing a glass after using a black man” to “sharing food”? At what point he showed and explained this to the viewer?
No, the event of the change of racist beliefs, important for the universe of the film, Tony passed by our gaze – we cannot say that it was the cause of a sufficiently serious shift in understanding and accepting a black. We cannot understand what Tony argued his decision – he realized that “black” are also people who were able to be talented, or he realized that this particular “color” is a normal guy who is simply unhappy, or he is that he is that he? Tony is no longer a racist, or he is not a racist relatively only Shirley, or he was never a racist?
As for me, these are quite important questions for the formation of “weight” to the film with the background of racism and infringement of it by others – however, it gives neither an answer, nor a decorated tips for these exclamations, nor others. Thanks to some episode (or to everyone-who knows) Tony understood something, saw something, changed something, and this is important because it is … uh … It is important in the context of our modest conversation about racism.
Conversation that is afraid of himself.

Unfortunately, there are many such moments. There are many such scenes. They must be connected, they must flow one of the other, alternating the touched topics and methods and methods of communication with the viewer, but no dialogue happens-the film is thrown by a set of short clips that should mean something, but it means they are only in the imagination, when the viewer wants to at least somehow bind them. The film itself does not do this.
But this is not so difficult and ornate: sometimes enough one The “desired” dialogue and a number of reinforcing, supporting, illustrating strong scenes around it, so that all the necessary “strings” of the changes of heroes and the influence of intra -films on them turn out to be convincing (recall, for example, “scarecrow”, which perfectly showed how it can work).
But no.

The saddest thing is that the film eventually does not come anywhere with the topic of racism. As with any other that is supposedly taken for.
For some reason, Tony changed his worldview on this topic an hour after the start of the film, but there is another hour in which it happens … nothing important for heroes, or for the world, or for the plot, for anyone and what and what.
Shirley still travels to the south, in order to change the minds and hearts of people, but he does not succeed in this: the final scene near the restaurant shows all the futility of the creative “struggle” of the Don with the White consumers regime that they are trying to seem better than they, swearing racists.

Shirley does not just succeed in his struggle – he loses it, ultimately giving it to the register to decide the fate of his dignity, which he was fiercely bursting about not so long ago, Tony, who made a beautiful gesture, in fact, forbidden Shirli to give a concert for people who infringe on his human rights.
The white man Tony won the situation – the dignity was more expensive than serving the cultural delights of white gentlemen, but the black man Shirley lost it, because he was not allowed by this final situation. He escaped, he gave up, he showed that his struggle could not be solved by music – at least there is no film Not a single one example of how the method of Dr. Don worked. Tony’s situation remains in question: the film did not show whether the music affected the Italian’s love fountain for the black American or was it something else.

Moreover: in the very hem of Shirley, he loses again, coming to celebrate Christmas to his new friend Tony-this is a strong and important act for a black musician, but he comes to the house to Italians, some of which are not very fond of black … This is where the film ends, attention is not focused on this, but the next question arises: the film laughed at Schirli or that? He somehow, by the will and ridge of Tony, retained dignity, showed some kind of struggle of mores and interests, so that later, when he defeats himself, going to voluntary contact with someone in order to spend time as friends, to be in the society of racists again?
No, the film did not laugh at Shirley, of course. The film had not guessed before, and such laughter would be too strong and noticeable against the background of total lethargy of everything else.
It is impossible to make noise in this work.

What then is the moral of the film? What is the message of the film? What the film is about? About friendship? So how she began, how she developed, what she was reinforced and how she was checked? Almost all crisis situations were decided by Tony because he is a person of honor and obligations, and the contract is a contract. Tony was not seen in a friendly love for the black boss. Film about changes in heroes? Yes, not really. Tony ceased to disdain black, Shirley took a step towards the man (and ended up in the company of his family, some of which do not favor “colored”)-Okay, there is something, but these changes are significant and valuable for the two hours of the film and his heroes, and how the accent of importance for the viewer (spoiler is not done) is made on this)?
The film is not a set of some random scenes with a hint of “it was in reality-or maybe it was not entirely true,” or there is something behind it? If there is something, then where and how it is shown?
I have no answers, but I have no answers-the film just passed, just showed some scenes, pretending that they can somehow be interconnected, and ended. Neither the disclosure of the problems, no artistic delights, no strong conflicts, no turning points, nor important dialogs – there is simply none of this in the film.

Generally squeezing the futility of the film in opening at least some topic is perfectly hidden in the name of the film and the role of the title object in the work.
“Green Book” is a real guide for black motorists of his time, and in the film he plays the same role: he serves as an assistant for choosing another motel where Shirley could stop. In another scene, he serves to demonstrate Tony’s understanding of how black people are separated from society – on this its metaphorical role ends, the green book does not bear any role in the plot or in metaphors. Why then the film is called exactly what the sacred meaning is? The presence of a book in the film plays some important role?
AH, they just called it.

"Green Book" is not a bad movie.

In order for the film to be bad, causing negative emotions, bewilderment, dissonances and pain, it must do something wrong-either individually for the viewer, or ineptly breaking the canons of cinema, making it uncomfortable at some subconscious level.
"Green Book" is not a bad movie, because it does not break anything.
It does not touch anything.
Does nothing with himself, heroes, themes, plots, problems, flashes.
It enters the territory of one topic, looks around, pronounces one or two phrases, which in his head mean something, although in fact nothing, and then leaves and enters the territory of another topic, in another city, staff, a country where he does the same again, and there is nothing right behind this.

After the film there is nothing to discuss-it is too timid, timid, toothless, even, tolerant and superficial, to hook at least at least at any level. A million things in the film could be better or otherwise – then the movie would start working At least somehow, Then it would be possible to discuss the content.
Now – the impotence of ideas and means to talk with the viewer.

The best comments

I do not agree at all. This is your personal opinion and worthy of praise as painted. But half of the nit -picking are sucked out of the finger. As in a recent video of the falcon about the beauty and the monster.

You watched in the cinema? I watched in the full hall and more than once or three or three halls got torn. With a friend there was a short dialogue after watching:
-I liked it?
-Definitely. And you?
-Insanely cool and sincere cinema!

This is generally very rare when humor is really “right”, kind and to the place. Not familiar ass-site jokes, but humor in words, situations … On only the actions of the heroes. A bunch of trifles ridicuating traditions, stereotypes, racial intolerance, and so on. One moment with a left wallet is worth.
The heroes are well spelled out. Yes, in the first fifteen minutes you understand them more than in any dramatic film for two hours. This film is about friendship. Susism, intolerance here is more likely a background. Do I believe in these characters and their transformation at the end? Yes damn, I believe. And telling in two hours a trip in two months was insanely difficult, but the director did. They perfectly complemented each other and learned to be a little better. A great duet generally turned out. Do you come from recent gosling-krou as a souvenir.

Yes, and just such films, well, there were no. Well, I don’t remember so kind and mental films that would have passed on so many topical topics, but did not emphasize them. This is an excellent Road Muy with excellent acting work, good operator work, complementing it all with musical accompaniment (Tsimmer by the way in composers) and the few performances of the Shirley group are very cool. In Oscar I will root for them definitely.

In general, you just believe in. Believe in this scene. Believe in these heroes. You see yourself in some situations and moments and just enjoy the film from beginning to end. Something similar was in the servant. But here is somewhat different. If you need exactly a film about drama and satellism, then “12 years of slavery”, “Django freed” to your attention. This film is about another. This takes.

I personally recommend getting to know. And I admit that I do not like many advertised and recognized masterpieces. It’s just a matter of taste and your worldview. Personally, I really liked it. One best comedies for the time. But even a little drama in the film, they cut and return to our sinful land 🙂

I didn’t watch the movie, but the chance was the same – that the director would come and drag.Because when transferring to the cinema, all the advantages of the primary source will be lost by a automaton, as if dignity are associated only with how the book is written. Not fading. Not if you learn to write, or if you want to know how to do it correctly, I advise you to make out the book "The First Player to Get ready". There, if you throw out the whole plot about the “evil evil, the boy of the Savior,” then there will be a quite suitable frame on which you can sculpt anything and it will shoot.
And so, I generally think that the “first player to prepare” is a symbol of everything bad that is happening in modern geek culture. Without understanding the primary sources, a meaningless fan service in order to cut a dough.

And I do not watch cinema and especially modern film industry and do not feel sad)) there is not an Easter barrier, but a fan service precisely. Only in the creation of female panties and boobs shine in your face with gikovsky references.

I can highlight the arrhythmia from the last one found. And on the geographer I even read the book, extremely entertaining)

Yes, the death of Stalin is something. Very funny and provocative. Jokes and humor are really not for everyone, but they really show the absurdity of some political principles, repression and universal fear, redistribution of power, attitude to religion, selfishness of people. And in principle I understand why he was not allowed into cinemas. Too much defeats and defiles a good Soviet past, so to speak.
I can also recommend for viewing. Do not wait for revelations and be ready that humor is on the verge. But these hours and a half flew perfectly.

-I told Comrade Stalin a joke about builders. He liked it. After he told a joke about sailors. He didn’t like it.
-No longer joke about sailors

The last comedy, which personally was really ridiculous to me, was "Features of national hunting". All that was next. Somewhere a little better somewhere a little worse, somewhere in general they pierced the bottom and more than once. But to cause a genuine smile, from the heart, it is difficult for our film buildings.
And in general, our cinema is so intensely advanced recently (even advertising in cinemas all Russian trailers), everything is also indifferent to me. There are separate nuggets such as “geographer drank the globe”, “summer”, “dislike” and a couple more. But in general, I go on. Especially intensely advanced by the central channels, which MX sponsor. Two months of aggressive advancement of "Movement Up" and "T-34" will not let them lie.
But in general, this is no longer on the topic. So I wanted to add a few words from myself.

The trailer intrigued, Aragorn in the title role, and personally, my special interest in studying such a phenomenon as racism told me – “Go away!»But I missed it in the cinema, maybe I’ll watch it at home later. And perhaps not, thanks to your blog. I will save a couple of hours of my life.

The overall trend of Africanomination is terrible, but here you need to understand. This hit me on the presentation of Oscar 2017, where instead of amazing, charming and magical La-la-Land, the prize was awarded to the moonlight. I heard a lot of bad things about the second film in our terrible non -tolerant Russian society, but did not look. Too “dark” film, and the problems raised in the film are not close to me.

Thank you for the blog! Very honestly and clearly.

Yes, I talked about the film. There was so much hype around him. But in fact, as they say … And if we talk about the book, then … to be honest, the concept of another fantasy about “evil evil, the boy’s boy and his love at first sight” sounds like something very boring and a bunch of times already seen. But I did not read the book, so I can’t say anything specific to it.

You haven’t even seen my page in KinoPoisk and have no idea how many Russian cinema I watched. The only problem is that absolutely all the appetite in this list was in no way in the cinemas (and most of us were either not shown at all, or one session at one in the morning on the outskirts of the city on Tuesday), because you will find it when the bulk of the feces are the above -mentioned opuses. And once again – you have no idea how and what I look, react to living existing people, and not your personal fiction in your head.

Oh yes. I forgot to mention, thanks. I am the first thing that came to my mind.
Vitka generally pleasantly surprised. Pleasant Road Muy about our hinterland. It is quite interesting to observe the characters and how on the road they find out “according to concepts” and eventually change … The final song sunk into the soul.
I have not seen him in the cinemas at all, not like advertising on the Internet and came to him at all by chance. About "arrhythmia" heard good. I liked it very much. You look at the work of doctors a little differently. Somehow more understanding appeared with what difficulties they have to fight … How to deal not only with misunderstanding citizens, but also with a system with bureaucratic wires. Operator work, long doubles, acting the main characters. Straight wow … Gorbacheva and Yatsenko turned out to be a great duet. Just as if I looked at the real everyday life of people … very cool.
But people will continue to be on the lips of wooden Petrov and the elders with the same types from the film to the film.

Tony stops in the middle of the road to celebrate a small need, but, moving away from the car by two steps, returns, unequivocally picks up the wallet and finally leaves for business;

Well, here’s the answer. This is definitely the best comedy in Russian cinemas over the last … over the entire existence of Russian cinema, starting since 1991. Because it already in it for a whole joke more than in all other Russian "comedies". So in the place of our reviewers, I would really praise her. And I imagine how well it was played.
You watched Wall Street Wolf? Remember how DiCaprio played his stubbornness and then slid to the car? I was just getting away at this moment.
But I did not look a green book, then I’ll look in the internet. In our Mudy, go find something except transformers 15 and “Alexander Petrov in the film Danila Kozlovsky-Viking Christmas trees: bitter movement-pronunciation”.

Although maybe I have something wrong with a sense of humor. I just lay with a layer with the death of Stalin, so funny. A joke about “I see them for the first time” – the best that was in all films that I saw 🙁

“Prepare the first player” from a technically professional point of view is written correctly, without a single blot and jamb. It can be considered as a textbook. Therefore, the book works and attracts the reader and around it hype. But if you break away from the technical part and go directly to history, then it sucks. Creative impotence, clamping in the framework and templates on templates and templates drive.

It was very interesting to read, thanks to the author. I heard about this film a good review from the falcon (although I began to trust his opinion much less than once), I was going to see, I was waiting for a really good film about a difficult topic. It seems that I was mistaken, hah.
A very well -spelled chain of reasoning, it turned out great.

With all due respect to the hall and any friends, this does not show anything. : D
When I walked, for example, on the eighth episode of Star Wars, the hall also laughed at the voice over everything that could. Does it make any movie better? : 3

In the first 15 minutes we are shown only Tony.
Shirley in the film physically at this time is not.

Otherwise – good. I am glad that now I can be sure that many positive descriptions of the film from the press may not be based on fear of speaking against, but also because the film can cause something that he eventually gave you. This is the charm of creativity – in its unequal effect on the absorbing it. : P

Yes. Absolutely so. As in news releases (not to mention advertising on TV/Internet banners on the roads), the enthusiastic audience shows the “upward movement” for the third time and the presenters sing praises … And how Vitka garlic about which I have not heard anything at all and has not seen anywhere. The truth accidentally stumbled, read the reviews and looked. And I was, I repeat, pleasantly surprised. Yes, the same arrhythmia or dislike was mentioned in a slave in professional resources and programs. Such films do not have such a marketing budget. And in vain … Here people in crowds go to spineless and empty T-34 and save Leningrad.