For being a shit eater. I mean, how I think that a person does reviews on shit, which means that he looks at this shit at least twice, and also with a notebook. And then he makes reviews flowing with hatred and insults to the authors, actors and those who watch it, then I want to ask: "why then do you not love yourself so much that your life and work revolves around this shit?" And there is only one answer: Evgen is a coprophile. I can't look closely at what I consider to be shit, so that later I can make an even more detailed detailed review.
I like Turlkabot more, which scribbles and reviews third-rate movies, but they are stylish and funny. The dude doesn't come with poison like the Badcomedian. It is clear that a person watches films because he likes the genre, he does not humiliate anyone.
And Bad is a latent coprophile who cannot come out.
Prejudice, when he reviews something about the USSR, making it just perfect. The bias is especially strong in the review of Company of Heroes 2. But when we got to the 28 Panfilovites, then everything, everything can be forgiven, even the fact that this is generally a myth that was refuted even under Stalin. HBO did not really say anything about Chernobyl.
Another review on Leviathan. And immediately his hamsters supported him.
But the popularity is all from a review of some obvious shit, on Nevsky. And shit that no one has heard of is also there. Seriously. Everyone had already forgotten "to Paris", who knew, he understood what exactly was there, and how much before that. I don’t know, if he makes an overview of the Union of Salvation, Serf, Invasion, he will definitely not make a review of Kalashnikov. He has very little more serious cinema, yes, let's remember Leviathan again and what happened to him. Yes, the Fool is also good, but he is not alone.
I won't say that I really don't like him. Rather, its content is not very interesting to me in most cases. But sometimes there are frankly unpleasant videos. And I do not like the school of film criticism that has formed around him. Bazhenov (of which he, of course, is not to blame, but I still think that the behavior of his fans in many ways speaks eloquently about his content - it is no coincidence that he attracts just such popular masses).
Creates a negative image of "Russian cinema". I know a bunch of his fans who say "I don't watch Russian films at all" with an intonation like "who is watching this shit?" In his reviews, he, perhaps unwittingly, often uses phrases that make the unintelligible viewer extrapolate the shortcomings of specific films to all Russian cinema. Although we have many excellent directors, in whose works you will not find "stupid Russian montage". In general, dozens of good Russian-language films are released every year. But more and more people are appearing who, with a condescending grin, react to the offer to watch a Russian film. Because their idea of our cinema was formed by Eugene.
Beats up babies. Criticizes cinema, about which everyone understands everything. Or did someone sincerely think that the new film by Alexander Nevsky would be good? These films, even without the Bad Comedian reviews, are laughable and disgraceful.
When he criticizes a disgraceful movie, he often criticizes unreasonably. In the shameful, too, periodically instilled in the wrong. Takes frames out of context, distorts and distorts the meaning. You still won't watch the movie, will you? And it may not be as bad as painted in the review.
Doesn't say anything new about cinema. Expresses a very average and generally accepted opinion. We praise Tarantino, we praise Nolan, we criticize Bondarchuk ... It's all very simple, and most importantly, if they do not agree with this, then at least they will not argue too much. Such content is completely safe. Nothing interesting, and most importantly, nothing new. Nothing that your average pretentious movie reviewer won't tell you.
Has a very amateurish idea of cinema. As if from a movie he only watched, of course, a bunch of Russian films, which he reviews, and besides that - some kind of minimal list of a very mainstream cinematic school curriculum. For some reason, he believes, for example, that the main character must necessarily evoke sympathy and empathy. The absence of this factor passes off as a lack of the film, although this is not at all necessary. These templates for evaluating films get stuck in the minds of many, they begin to "analyze" everything they watch in this way. Although this is completely incorrect.
He became too dartan and even angry. Too many videos not with ridiculous reviewers, but with "righteous anger". And it is these videos that become the most popular with him. This righteous anger is usually hightobogganing nagging at generally good films.
I am not very close to his left (what is popularly called "cotton wool") views. Mostly annoying when he shoves them in completely inappropriate, when, it would seem, why are you talking about this? I have many acquaintances with similar views, with whom I calmly communicate. And they themselves do not cause any negative. But Eugene's views are so emotionally and categorically expressed that it looks inadequate. And dissent makes him a condescending smile (they say, well, here again to explain the obvious to fools), or outright bombale.
I personally don't like something about his demeanor in front of the camera. To me he seems to be squeezed and, as it is commonly called, a "notorious" person. But this is exclusively IMHO. Despite this, IMHO I liked him for a long time, I watched, laughed and was happy. Until the other flaws showed too much.
What he is not to blame for, of course, but contributes by its very existence to the development of this trend - people stop consuming the content itself, and are limited to "content about content". You don't need to watch the movies themselves - you can just look at the review. And you can even review the review. Or we first watch a review, and then watch a movie with a biased opinion. Don't do that.
He is much smarter than the reviews he did, but he achieved his goal - he became famous, and his opinion still carries some weight today. But he perfectly understood that in order to achieve fame and ways of transmitting his opinion to the masses, it was necessary to follow exactly the path that he had chosen, and without unnecessary blab, in a maximalist manner, highlight all the most acute shortcomings. But now he is already nauseated from such a presentation, and he has greatly outgrown the reviews. In any case, his last review is already taking two hours, and in it he criticizes the film much more versatile, emphasizing primarily logical inconsistencies. This path will lead him to a dead end in the same way, because By no means all - even smart - people need formal consistency and consistency in their actions. But Evgen is growing, his interview with Dudia made me very happy, I sincerely wish him to grow to what he can become.
I will not go to extremes. Zhenya is handsome. I always sympathized with him, but after the review on Moving Up I began to really respect him. A man goes against the system, while everyone was watching this shitty movie with open mouths, Bad took it apart from the point of view of history and morality. This already deserves respect.
what he is shooting does not look like a real criticism, an ordinary mock zasser, and this is his goal, and not at least a little objective opinion. personally, I laugh, this is what he does. in many ways he is right, but still this does not sound like a comprehensive opinion, that is, he omits many good things that deserve attention, this can create the appearance that he is a critic, and the film is shit, in fact, he is a comedian, stand-up
by the way, I don’t always like these scenes between conversations, the joke that they smell for a long time doesn’t tickle, Zhenya, let’s even have something else
Except for his unreflected and very vapid ideas about World War II, as well as very worthy entertainment content for YouTube
Mmm, to be honest, I treat all the figures of this direction on YouTube with coolness.
First, an initially biased opinion about the entire post-Soviet cinema (rarely when they can give it a positive assessment, I understand that our level is far from Hollywood, but recently in many films you can see a considerable increase in terms of quality, but it's much more fun to pull the film apart into minuses than to mark, albeit not numerous, but pluses)
Secondly, these reviews discourage many people from a banal desire to watch. It is better to first evaluate yourself, deciding with your own head whether you liked this movie or not, than mindlessly label the picture of someone else's assessment. What if you "star" exactly the film that Bad smashed to smithereens?)
For the long wait for new reviews.
P.S. Sometimes it doesn't take 140 characters to make the answer interesting to read. Make it so that there are no 140 characters, pl.
A similar opinion with mine has already been expressed, but it was minus, therefore I consider this answer necessary So, personally, I began to feel worse about Bazhenov's activities when I met his inveterate fans under the trailer of one of the Russian films, my trailer hooked (although most likely it will be average, but nevertheless), looked at the comments, and just almost every comment said something like "Oh, a new film for the poor comedian came out", or "We are waiting for the review. Trouble", well, in this spirit. I went into films of 15 and 16 years, which are quite suitable, and, lo and behold, there were enough such individuals too. The problem is simply that Bed has already created a certain stratum of people, which will litter every new Russian film even before its release, and it turns out that he simply began to work against himself. I wanted to help a good Russian cinema, but instead of that I condemned it to a hate from my fans
I read the above and did not see a single answer that critically approaches the question, some or fans press on the type of "minuses" which in their eyes are not minuses, others, on the contrary, try to "dig in" to Bad's work in exactly the same way as on Bad is buried in their words. Let's omit taste.
The meaning and message of Bad's work is clear, and he himself has already stated this openly more than once. To cure Russian cinema from the spasms of hack-work and lack of ideology. You can argue about the quality of content for a long time. Whether you like it or not, Bad is quietly achieving his goal. Has a response from the Internet community, and indeed his opinion is not the last. And with all this lies the main disadvantage of Bad, it is his narrow focus and one-cell ideas and messages. As his task in 2q11 was to save Russian cinema, it remained in 2q17. I don’t deny that we need to fight the tyrypyra system, but honestly, I’m just tired of Bad’s stagnation. Take the same Nastolzhi the Critic from whom Bad was inspired. He recently celebrated 10 years of the existence of his work and over the course of so many years has tried a bunch of formats, rethought his reviews and is now developing comprehensively. Which is what I sincerely wish Bad.
I do not like him, because he finds fault with films literally for nothing (not all, Nevsky's films are not included in this series), just empty spaces, and Eugene saw something that pissed him off. He simply imposes his personal opinion on all his subscribers, and those who watch him thoughtlessly believe their "idol" and they have the same opinion about the picture. I advise, before the next scattering of some film, first watch it personally, and only then run to watch the review, as it happened with the film "Stalingrad" - first I watched the film, and only then the review, oddly enough, I liked the film! Well, for the best contemporary Russian comedy "Bitter!" I will never forgive Eugene))
Bazhenov turns viewers against Russian cinema. In his reviews, “Russian cinema” is a household word that means rare shit, and Bazhenov himself inspires viewers with his reviews that reviews make them more discerning than all the suckers who go to vomit from Enjoy Movies.
Bazhenov hardly speaks about good films, and if he does, he does not speak for long. He used to make a video about good cinema in Russia, but the last video about good cinema ("Hardcore") was a year ago.
And it turns out that Bazhenov's especially suggestible viewers begin to consider everything our cinema is shit, and Bazhenov is a prophet who cannot be wrong in anything.
In general, I do not like this broadcast format where the goal is to destroy as much as possible, to make fun of something. I know that he also makes positive reviews of films (including Russian ones), but this is not why they watch him, and such reviews have much lower ratings. People watch in order to laugh, and not to find out some nuances about the film or the author's opinion. All this does not fit in my head along with art, along with cinema. As a result, it resembles political TV shows, where the opinion is known in advance, and the 'political scientists' spend hours talking about which conventional Ukrainians or Americans are bad.
Despite the fact that in general I like his content, Eugene has many disadvantages. For example, bias and licimerism: in the example of Attraction, all the claims he makes about this film can be applied to many great films (Terminator 2, for example), and some moments are far-fetched (as in the moments with the military). Also, Bad often considers only the scenario, rarely saying anything about other aspects (he will mention the camera work once and that's it). But all this is forgiven until he pretends to be a super critic and really entertains. (This is my air !!!) It is better to watch the film before the review, because he can misinterpret something, not understand, miss something, like any person.
Personally, I don't like his demeanor. All antics seem disgusting and not funny, although sometimes (that is, rarely) interesting jokes slip through. He also smiles and speaks somehow unnaturally, I don't know how to describe, frowns all the time and slaps himself in the face. It all looks so ridiculous. Although outside the reviews in some video, he seemed to me quite normal. Probably I don't like his image. A matter of taste, of course. It's worth making a reservation about why I watched it at all, if I didn't like it. The content is catchy: basically, it offers films that are very difficult not to laugh at or which are impossible not to charm (this makes sense: there are fewer disagreements). By the way, before I learned about Nevsky's films, the funniest thing was Indian cinema =).
I am a fan of Bazhenov, but I will assume that people do not like him because his opinion does not coincide with theirs. I’m unlikely to be a fan of a person who calls me an idiot because I love this or that movie. Film Besides, he expresses all this in a sharp form. some argue that he takes phrases out of context. In general, Evgen criticizes cinema, and art, as you know, is relative, and everyone has their own view of it. Well, there is a special stratum of those who really consider the films they watch to be excellent cinema. This is already a disease, there is nothing you can do about it.