That's prosody and emotional language. Actually imitating these is what American movies often try to do, even if sometimes for comedy component and not well.

(And don't ask me about imitating music, one would think music theory is something movie composers all study, yet they usually don't bother to even look up some basics, like modes commonly used in Russian music, and the resulting soundtracks sound like some sound salad.)

These actually express the same set of feelings all humans have, not really different between Japanese, Somalian and Russian people. Except, of course, for semantic connections and references.

What I'm talking about is level above, of what's being said in said languages.

When an American is bullshitting his superiors, he's telling them different things than a Russian when bullshitting his own superiors. When an American is making a presentation to persuade someone of something, he's also using different means. When an American boss is talking to people below him in hierarchy, he's also using different means. American bosses derive their social authority through different means than Russian bosses. American prestige and Russian prestige are different. American and Russian perceptions of what looks strong are different. And some of these things are opposites, say, in American perception simplifying the matter at hand for easier comprehension by the listener is a sign of professionalism, in Russian perception it's as if you were asking to be treated as a clown.

They show Soviet ministries' officials as some "politicians" or "golden boys" doing their own thing and either oblivious to the matter at hand or treating it as outside their responsibility to understand, even if understanding. But that's clearly American dynamic. First, in general narrower expertise is more normal for Americans and wider expertise is more normal for ex-Soviet people, culturally, and an ex-Soviet man would at least pretend to have knowledge of everything close to their job. Second, Soviet ministries' officials would make careers in the areas of economy their ministries were responsible for, or, in other words, the ministry was the area of economy. A Soviet ministry official wouldn't ask a professor about details of the task at hand, it would be the other way around, the former would be the one having more practice, and the latter would provide theory. The "politician" or the "golden boy" types wouldn't be anywhere near ministries, they would be diplomats or somewhere in some party things or even special services or journalism. And, of course, by the time someone became a ministry official, they'd be far older than that guy in a suit in the movie. Third, the portrayal of Legasov is almost a caricature for ex-Soviet people, they portrayed him kinda similar to Sakharov, but Sakharov behaved still stronger and simpler, first, and Sakharov had made that funny bomb before becoming a dissident, second, to make that image respectable. Real-life Legasov behaved, well, like a normal Soviet man. And he wasn't a dissenter.

There are many such things, if they had just looked at some footage with the people the characters were meant to portray, or followed real events more closely, they'd have a good shot for free, without understanding such nuance. But they decided to make up a plot with some message, around just a few events, and that plot turned out something completely American.