Kalashnikov
- 2020
- 1h 50min
NOTE IMDb
6,6/10
5,7 k
MA NOTE
Blessé en tant que conducteur de char en 1941 pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Kalachnikov voit la dernière mitrailleuse soviétique échouer. Comme il est aussi inventeur, il se retrouve e... Tout lireBlessé en tant que conducteur de char en 1941 pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Kalachnikov voit la dernière mitrailleuse soviétique échouer. Comme il est aussi inventeur, il se retrouve en 1947 avec un fusil d'assaut AK-47.Blessé en tant que conducteur de char en 1941 pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Kalachnikov voit la dernière mitrailleuse soviétique échouer. Comme il est aussi inventeur, il se retrouve en 1947 avec un fusil d'assaut AK-47.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires au total
Avis à la une
On one hand, this is a technically good piece of filming. Costumes, vehicles, decorations, sounds, small details of the everyday life look very true. The overall picture is simple, but beautiful. A pleasure for an eye.
On the other hand, the story is very shallow, flat and non-engaging: just 5 years of Mikhail Kalashnikov's life condensed into an hour and a half. And also, quite... let's call it 'pleasant'. Saying that, I mean there's no conflict in the story, no struggle, no tension, no unexpected turn. The road to AK-47 just unwinds before us, smooth and wide, and dotted with signposts. Just like Mikhail Kalashnikov himself! Who as a character looks just an-all-round-good guy. Quite pleasant to glance at, but there's nothing much to examine and explore.
You can't really call this a biopic, because there's no real biography in it, no personality - only large milestones. Instead of diving deep into the tangled thicket of man's life the story just flies by at speed, barely touching treetops. And it is not the story of Kalashnikov's invention, too, because you can't really trace the path of the thought on its way from the idea to the final triumph. Not a drama, certainly, because there's no drama. And not a struggle, again; rather a chain of fortunate events. If Bilbo's journey of "There and Back" was of this kind, I think the book would start right at the Lonely Mountain. And the dragon would give up.
The most fitting words would probably be "a formality". A well-built panegyric formality. A layer of gilding upon the relic, that makes it glittery, but smoothes out its real features.
Watching this you will lose nothing, I think, except 90 minutes of your life. On the other hand, you will probably gain nothing, too (except maybe picking up some names).
On the other hand, the story is very shallow, flat and non-engaging: just 5 years of Mikhail Kalashnikov's life condensed into an hour and a half. And also, quite... let's call it 'pleasant'. Saying that, I mean there's no conflict in the story, no struggle, no tension, no unexpected turn. The road to AK-47 just unwinds before us, smooth and wide, and dotted with signposts. Just like Mikhail Kalashnikov himself! Who as a character looks just an-all-round-good guy. Quite pleasant to glance at, but there's nothing much to examine and explore.
You can't really call this a biopic, because there's no real biography in it, no personality - only large milestones. Instead of diving deep into the tangled thicket of man's life the story just flies by at speed, barely touching treetops. And it is not the story of Kalashnikov's invention, too, because you can't really trace the path of the thought on its way from the idea to the final triumph. Not a drama, certainly, because there's no drama. And not a struggle, again; rather a chain of fortunate events. If Bilbo's journey of "There and Back" was of this kind, I think the book would start right at the Lonely Mountain. And the dragon would give up.
The most fitting words would probably be "a formality". A well-built panegyric formality. A layer of gilding upon the relic, that makes it glittery, but smoothes out its real features.
Watching this you will lose nothing, I think, except 90 minutes of your life. On the other hand, you will probably gain nothing, too (except maybe picking up some names).
Truth is that I imagined finding myself in front of the thousand times seen pro-Russian propaganda film, full of unrealistic scenes and horrible CGIs. But quite the opposite, it is a solid biopic, without great pretenses, well acted, with costumes and vehicles faithful to the time and with little or no propaganda on it (It is striking that the only negative character in the film is an NKVD soldier). I hope that as it becomes known, its rating will rise.
It is been more than seven decades but Avtomat Kalashnikov has stayed as the most popular and widely used in its category. With 200 million assault rifles produced in the 20th century AK 47 became the most recognized weapon. It is an Assault rifle meaning it has Intermediate cartridge and detachable magazine and can be adjusted for semi automatic fully automatic and burst mode.. Every year on an average quarter of a million people die because of the wounds inflicted by AK-47...
This is an Interesting insight on how the most infamous weapon came into existence ..it is a story of the perseverance and the passion of a young Soviet man during WWII - Alexander Kalashinkov and his invention AK-47 (the 1947 version). Good cinematography, convincing performances and engrossing story .. however, it fails to capture the war times ..also, the chemistry between the lead characters seems insipid..
I'm sympathetic to the notion that a society must create a mythos. We in the US have invented cinematic portraits of Washington, Lincoln, Edison, and other greats that are so whitewashed that when realistic views are presented that they're considered revisionist!
However, the old Soviet style glorified heroes are so airbrushed as to be caricatures: Handsome, selflessly devoted to duty, darkly introspective. In short, models for inspiration rather than illumination.
However, the old Soviet style glorified heroes are so airbrushed as to be caricatures: Handsome, selflessly devoted to duty, darkly introspective. In short, models for inspiration rather than illumination.
I just saw the English dubbed version of this film and the voice actors did a pretty good job. Don't know how accurate this was compared to the real history, but it sure was entertaining and kept my interest right to the very end. Propaganda, so what? You'd be hard pressed to find any fictional movie, docudrama, documentary, or fact based movie of similar genre that doesn't have propaganda. Hell, the Americans are experts on it and I wish us Canadians were better at it.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesMikhail Kalashnikov in his final days wrote to the head of Russia's Orthodox church shortly before his death, stating he was afflicted with spiritual torment. Kalashnikov, who died 23 December, 2014 aged 94, told Patriarch Kirill he felt responsible for the millions of deaths caused by his revolutionary assault rifle. He wrote... "My spiritual pain is unbearable. I keep asking the same insoluble question. If my rifle deprived people of life then can it be that I as a Christian and an orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths?"
- GaffesMichail Kalashnikov could not meet his brother Victor as a prisoner on the train as he was freed long before the war.
- Citations
Zhenya Kravchenko: So we'll have to eyeball it. Measure until we get it right.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Vecherniy Urgant: Yury Borisov/Netta (2020)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Kalashnikov?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- AK-47
- Lieux de tournage
- Moscou, Russie(Mosfilm Studios)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 000 000 RUR (estimé)
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 593 464 $US
- Durée1 heure 50 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant