Nikita Tarasov

Napoleon 2022-03-22 09:02:47

The story background of the film is set in 1941 and briefly describes Pavlichenko as a legendary female sniper in the history of the Russian war. She is very talented in shooting and has made great achievements on the battlefield. She has been heroic in the war and once He was almost killed by a...

Earline 2022-03-26 09:01:12

Let me start with the conclusion. Personally, I think this is a war movie that is not a pity to miss. Its portrayal of war characters has too obvious pros and cons. The brilliance of heroism is dazzling, the face of the forces is too ugly, and the narrative method of the three periods of Stalin...

Yasmeen 2022-03-26 09:01:12

Ordinary biopic, the love war is half open. A few war scenes are okay, but only average for countless war movies. The paradox is, why are the films made by the Russians so beautiful?

Creola 2022-03-25 09:01:20

The combination of two-line narratives is not good, often disturbing the audience's emotional brewing, and shooting many scenes in MV to shoot wars will greatly reduce the authenticity (it is not true if there is a broken limb, after all), and the love scenes are too many to focus on the wrong point. Just rewriting Makarov and skipping the others, the female lead isn't capable enough to handle the role, but was startled by a falling frying pan while cooking borsch with Mrs. Roosevelt, and was naked when changing clothes. The back was scarred, and I was moved to consider ignoring the shortcomings; however, the more I watched the later, the more I felt that the ideological output in the film had degraded the film too much. It should be viewed from a more human nature, universal, and moral perspective. There should be no ideological problems, but the film instead emphasizes the superiority of ideology. This is too absurd