8.2 ?
-
yaroslavrudenko — 12 years ago(November 07, 2013 04:17 AM)
Need to read more about this film and other threads like:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10091251/board/nest/205674574?ref_=tt_bd_2
Good remark from user with nickname - earthman34:"The movie flows as sort of a surreal stream-of-consciousness sequence of events, without any background or attempt to explain what was going on (mainly because it was made for a Russian audience who would have been familiar with the history, at least at the time). Because of that, and because the history of WW II in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is pretty hazy to most American audiences, it can be hard for some people to follow what's happening."
It is normal that there are some themes which are not clear for people from US. To understand why and for what this film was created: checkout Klimov's interview in youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9_r1NEnGM
As for me, there were not such films in Soviet Union before "Come and See". -
yaroslavrudenko — 12 years ago(November 07, 2013 01:40 PM)
-
knoxfan2008 — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 09:57 PM)
beep! the OP doesn't like the film, that's his feeling and he has explained reasonably why. Anyone saying "A russian film makes you think more than Hollywood crap" needs to shut up and think. There are plenty of beep Russian films and US films, to say no Hollywood film is complicated and makes you think, then you are blind and a gigantic hipster.
Who cares if he doesn't like this film, cry about it and move on. -
matthewwave-1 — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 02:04 PM)
I agree with OldSam. That's why the 8.2 is ridiculous.
As for the OP's comments, all I can say is that all of the things he/she claims were confusing in the film didn't confuse me at all. Not the first time I saw it, not the second time I saw it. And I had read only very basic things about the plot like, no more than "a Russian boy sees the horrors of war firsthand," nothing much more detailed than that.
The most perplexing is the complaint that we just suddenly see the captured Germans. It took me a few seconds to realize that that was what I was seeing, but then it didn't confuse me at all that that was what I was seeing. I didn't think, "Wait, what are these Germans doing here?" It never occurred to me the concept of prisoners of war taken even after an attack that was otherwise successful for their own side was an odd thing. What would be freakishly odd to me is if that rarely or, worse, never happened in real life. I've always assumed that even the losing side often manages to take some prisoners. I don't get not getting that. I didn't need the movie to show me the act of them being captured.
I understood that the Hitler effigy was to serve the standard purposes of an effigy; the guys taking it on the road with them aroused both my amusement and my curiosity; and, when the guys talked about it as they placed it in the road (I can't remember the exact dialog), I understood it had been boobytrapped with explosives.
And why did Glascha drop out of the story? Because the main character went away from the place where she was, and she didn't. I just don't understand not getting that; I don't understand how the movie didn't make that perfectly clear.
To cut the OP some slack, the movie, its very storytelling approach, is a beautiful and disturbing blending of the dreamlike and the realistic, the graphically believable with, at times, the outright surreal. (The female co-pilot eating lobster in the cockpit is one WWII movie image I'll certainly never forget, and certainly a biting comment on the sad, misplaced superiority complex of Hitler and those who followed him.) But I never didn't know how one part of Flor's journey led to another; he suffered the dislocation of war, but I understood how he got to each place in the plot he got.
And, Holy Crap, is that storytelling approach beautiful. The cinematography just blows me away in this film, for one thing. Some of my favorite ever, I believe.
Matthew