Voltage Director Alexei Krasovsky accepted the challenge to remove the domestic monokino, and he succeeded in everything. He did not go wrong with the choice of actor for the main role. Konstantin Khabensky lived the life of the collector Arthur vividly and convincingly. But everything in order.
It is worth saying a couple of words
about the minuses , of which there are quite a lot. They were quite convincingly described by
zidlez in his review "It turned out as always." These are some plot inconsistencies, and the idea of the form of the narrative (a movie with the participation of one actor), taken, apparently, from the film Locke 2013 by Stephen Knight, and music that constantly makes you remember the beautiful Birdman 2014, which has already been mentioned in the review. Also, for example,
igiss writes about feeling awkward in the script. But the undoubted merits of the film allow me as a viewer to boldly say: “Yes, everything is so, but this is not the main thing.”
Anyway, whatever techniques were used – music (after all, Dmitry Selipanov wrote it himself, without plagiarism), monokino, the gradual discovery of the hero as a person – all this worked to keep the viewer in suspense throughout the film and allow him to empathize with such a person who can not be called good. And the intimacy here just helps to maintain
tension, contrary to expectations, due to the fact that this tension does not go into the contemplation of other people, when you can compare, say "here is a good person, and this is not." We are given this particular person, there is no one to compare him with, and he is our only reality.
I empathized with the hero, despite all his background, but not justifying him, namely, sympathizing, that is, recognizing his right to experience, feel, and feel deeply.
The review points to Arthur’s working methods as a collector: he doesn’t take anyone out into the forest or knock out his teeth, he acts differently, using psychological pressure. Does this justify the hero in any way? Nope. But the thing is that we all, no matter how much we deny, have something to be ashamed of. And in this sense, Arthur is much more a living person than any positive hero that everyone loves.
Andre-Cinema forever draws our attention to the realization in the film of the idea that one phone call can dramatically turn our well-functioning and familiar life so that we have to quickly overnight reorient our values, goals and vision of the world as a whole. The trap with which Arutra makes a living works against him, he tries to adequately and promptly influence the situation and so, psychologically wounded, weak, he discovers for himself and for the viewer that he can be sincere, and that he has a heart. He was always capable of it, but for life he used his completely different - the callous and cold side. We are shown that, however, for all the professional success, callousness and coldness did not help Arthur to acquire loyal and loyal people in his environment who will believe him first and not some dirt.
In addition, the ending of the film does not leave the viewer in shock with undischarged tension,
discharge occurs. Some may even have catharsis. The plot is verified, honest, accurate. This is a great film that has restored my faith in cinema. Thank you very much to the creators.
8 out of 10
Original