The mixture of rice and meat is not yet pilaf. The mix of jokes with tantrums is not yet dramatic
May the reader forgive me the colorful oriental analogy in the title, but this audience response is addressed primarily to the director, born in the sunny expanses of Central Asia. Then he will see it, and then the creator will understand the viewer.
The creators of the series for some reason squeezed the a priori graceful comedy idea of an “alibi for the fat-driven elite” into a complex genre of drama, smearing comic cases-gags of customers of alibi agency services on the timing of viscous melodramatic soap. Apparently, the authors were trying to reach the maximum possible audience. From bored day-to-day housewives, through those who "after work to have dinner under a funny seric", and to fans thoughtfully solve psychological crossword puzzles in the relationship of heroes. But as is often the case with compromises and hybrids, it turned out to be an awkward freak, rather scaring off all those listed.
However, some bored housewives can reach the final, especially if you do not get something more addictive and emotional. But here's a huge army of Dinner-Under-Serials will definitely start pecking at the protracted scenes with dull family fights. Fall asleep, working people, in front of an uneaten plate of pilaf, and without waiting for the hook at the end of the series, luring to continue watching.
The viewers of the first series will begin to accumulate annoying questions. The main one is why the hero of Stychkin, a kind of Cool Reshal, a kind of domestic Mr. Wolf, who handles the most difficult situations on a fly, suddenly falls into the next scene: then into hysteria with the breaking of furniture, then into the multi-word half-drunken smearing of family snot, then into colored schizophrenic dreams. If this is the idea of the authors to show such a funny complex shoemaker without boots, then it failed from the beginning. Because a shoemaker without boots can be both funny and dramatic, but a one-armed shoemaker with signs of schizophrenia is absurd and thrash. Then it was necessary to specify the genre in the description appropriate. However, no – we are told that “dramedy”, and period.
Maybe it's the banal miscasting. Perhaps the role of the main character is appropriate actor more multifaceted, able to more convincingly show sudden changes in the mood of the character and the reasons for this. Stychkin also plays in every episode (even in alcoholic dreams). Stychkin is a small man with great ambitions and unbalanced character. Probably, according to the plan of the creators, this type provides the necessary fusion of laughter with tears, but the fact of the hero is only a feeling of bewilderment, sometimes on the verge of kringe. In any case, it remains unclear where he came from, why he became what he became, how he came to life. It is possible that somewhere under the curtain of the season, the authors give answers to these questions with some flashback series. As was the case with the “Ordinary Woman.” I don’t know this – I mastered “Alibi” only until the fourth episode, until I started pecking my nose at a plate of salad during the next heavy family showdown of the main characters. Someone might say, "Hey, what an impatient and ungrateful viewer." Can't stand at least until the middle, there's all the interesting k-e-e-k spinning! Let it go. But if there are still film lovers who stop watching the series, which did not convince the third or fourth series, they will understand me well and will not waste time watching Alibi.
The reason for the ineptitude of the series, in the details on the facts. How to imitate genius.
The author wrote a text that the director embodied in the series. Many have been deceived. The film pretends to be easy, unusual, and in the end, and even tries to mow under the truth of the womb. What manipulations the screenwriter uses and why it betrays mediocrity.
Let’s put a point in one paragraph right away. In drama, people do not collide, but pictures of the world (values). That's not in the show here. Period.
No more reading. The previous paragraph is essentially a verdict.
But for the curious, I will describe the nuances. There is no value because the author is too self-admiring. That's the problem with the series.
All twists and intrigues are exclusively around who will sleep with whom and who will lie to whom. Romantic infidelities, mysterious lies, the magical howls of the horned, the charm of whores, the mundaneness of the goose, shameless impudence - the list goes on for a long time. The most thrash you can think of - it's "for fun" set for normal. In the end, one-time. But the author does not hesitate to compare himself with Dostoevsky. It is possible to shock the audience with the screening of the writer, vulgarly swearing in the jargon of the main character. To make a talented piece of work out of it - no.
What do we see in the frame? Same thing. Paradox. Everybody's lying. Values do not collide.
And in the end, the concepts are completely replaced (say, if a friend had an alibi, he would be alive). It's like saying if I had a bagel in my pocket yesterday, it wouldn't rain. If a friend died, it was because he committed a crime, not because there was no alibi.
In principle, the problem of the series (and the playwright as an author), in addition to narcissism (not backed by the right talent), is that he is only busy with how to make a turn unusual. As a result, there is a one-time effect - dramatic music, someone runs somewhere and wants something. But that never happens again.
It turned out to be an absolute empty - season 1. The second did not watch, because the author himself began to call those who should be included in the school curriculum and what he said about the family.
The difference between talent and talentlessness is that talent seeks generalizations in life and transforms them into drama. Bezdary is busy with shocking and self-admiration. Talent expresses pain and confronts pictures of the world (this is the basis for him, and characters, words, actions are superstructures). Incompetent, on the contrary, confronts characters and deeds, and the picture of the world (as a superstructure in his understanding) he even forgets to come up with.
Yeah, and more. It's bought, it's seen. But it's an absolute lie. And it's not written out of envy. Perhaps someone thought, someone saved a few hours of life. If you want to have fun, even in this capacity, this work will have a degrading effect, because there is absolutely nothing behind the artificially sharp moments. It's like there's a chewed-up newspaper peppered on top. The illusion of "taste" will be, but nausea will not pass immediately.
2 out of 10
Tribuntsev made up beyond recognition, only the voice gives. Really, which one does Dostoevsky look like? An unusual plot, a kind of benefit of Stychkin, his swan song ) , interesting, but ends as if in half a word. There will probably be a second season with the "resurrection" of the hero.
That's fantastic. Well done, but fantastic. This film is not about reality at all. In real life, everything is much more prosaic and often more tragic.
Again, the garage of expensive cars, which in reality is becoming less and less. Houses, apartments, penthouses, although in reality people are increasingly living in forty-storey moulds standing in queues to the elevator.
But the most important business that the main character is engaged in is not in demand from the word at all. Because life has changed.
But there is one main story - the relationship of the main character with his wife. I think she's worth all the intricacies of side stories: "Do you love your husband?", "I respect him." And then there are tons of lies, unsaid.
It was by inserting this story that the creators talked. There is one big problem that each of us faces. Technology, services, relationships change very quickly, and people don’t keep up. Means of communication as from fantasy novels of the middle of the last century, and jealousy as from Shakespearean tragedies.
Pay attention to the magnificent role of Wilma Kutavichuta. She gives a special charm in the scenes where we see her.
And Ustyugov. The scene of the hero meeting him is almost theatrical scene of the highest quality. It's very cool.
Especially nothing from the film did not expect such a wow, just tuned in for a pleasant viewing. But -- somehow it didn't work out. . .
The plot is not trivial, exciting.
The main character writer figured out how to realize his script talent, applying - firstly in real life, and secondly enjoy the process of implementing ideas, in which you are the only and all-powerful director. He is also trying to direct the lives of his family. But as it should be, he is shown that he is also a chess piece in it and cannot be the absolute master of situations.
The first third of the series is intriguing, exciting ... and all events, like a snowball, twist. And according to the law of the genre, the climax is reached, there is a denouement. And watch the series half.
If the first season had stopped there, everything would have been harmonious. But the sequel follows ... and in the second part, the emphasis shifts to the fight against crime, in which the main character is dragged. And somehow everything was mixed - thoughts, emotions, actions, continuous sexual discharge. And somehow I got lost!!! in this cacophony of feelings and events.
It seems that the writers themselves were somehow confused and confusedly looking for accents on which to string the main ideas. What's the point? What the director and his team wanted to say. This is about the second part of the series. In the first, everything is clear.
I want to write about the heroine separately. Here's a 40-year-old woman who's married, a successful career, and there's a . . . harmonic background down to the level of an 18-year-old girl. Well, I'm sorry, it's possible, but not to the extent that she runs over there and can't deal with herself. There is a disharmony between the woman and her actions. Or it was necessary to add initially the colors of frivolity - well, such creative ease, or infantile. That would be true.
I especially want to note the excellent solution with the line of communication of the hero with Dostoevsky. It was really cool and funny. But even this line in the second part did not save.
Of course, this series is worth watching. It will be funny in some places.
F. M. Dostoevsky performed by Timofey Vladimirovich Tribuntsev is the same number. A kind of petty demon, if you can compare Dostoevsky with a demon. Usually, demons are petty mockery, this one requires writing a novel. If he came to me like that, I would move. But I don't drink like Peter Reshetnikov. The number of drunk drunk at the beginning of the series is not amenable to verbal counting.
The main character, well done, even composes on the go, manages to divorce his wife, fuck his son’s ex-girlfriend and much more that they do not talk about and do not write at school.
As my grandfather said, he has no conscience. Conscience is more of a burden than dignity. And the main advantage of the hero is to be able to lie without blushing, hide his true goals from his wife and child, play a double game and get what he deserves from life in the person of Deputy Rudov. That's where the main demon is. For everything is not good.
Truly the best movie I've seen lately.
If you compare with the products of RTR, then here is a balm for the soul. And black humor, and a little drama and tragedy. And I was disappointed in the talent of Stychkin. It seemed after the Cinema Major and bewilderment for third-graders Gazholder, on Stychkin, as an actor you can put an end.
Can't wait. Looking forward to the second season.
The main character leads a double life. He has his own alibi agency. People come to him, confess to not very good deeds, and maybe crimes. And the main character, along with his team, helps people escape justice. And one day his wife comes to the agency and confesses that she killed a man, and she needs an alibi. The main character throws all his strength to protect his wife from prison, risks his own life and business, is on the verge of disclosure. Have you imagined?
But unfortunately, that's not the case. The series is an absolute household, decorated with an unusual and hidden occupation of the main character. All of his clients are comic, dealing with their trivial life situations (mostly everything revolves around someone’s mistresses or lovers). But there's no crime here. There’s not even a big story in the series.
The main storyline is based on the family problems of the protagonist. If it were not for his secret occupation, watching the series would be completely boring. The soulful throwing of his wife, difficulties with his teenage son, the pityful eyes of the main character throughout the series. . .
In general, I personally watched the first 6 episodes and do not plan to continue watching.
5 out of 10 for a good shot.
We were pleased with the first series of the adventurous drama Alibi. On the one hand, the project blows with a frank fairy tale and implausibility that Russia seems to have a creative and productive agency to provide a large-scale alibi to various traitors and knaves who for one reason or another made a stupid mistake. But on the other hand, all this happening comic is very easy to take on faith and is addictive with subsequent empathy, because the authors very competently come through humor and self-irony in relation to cinema, since the main character officially works as a screenwriter, as if hinting that our whole life is theater, and the people in it are actors. In addition, the authors frankly banter seriousness, because, as you know, all the stupidities on earth are done with this facial expression, so even family disagreements and social problems are shown through the prism of excitement and good mood, where the main character meets any difficulty with his head held high and smile, even when it smells like death behind his back. Special thanks to the authors for the storyline with Dostoevsky, where the main character periodically intersects with him in his dreams and each time receives a portion of moralistic comments from the master (for example, Fyodor Mikhailovich periodically calls the most famous capital screenwriter a shitmaker). In general, the series is fun, cheerful and dynamic, but at the same time with important accents on the current problems of modern society (faithlessness, fathers and children, conscience, family and love). For the script is Dmitry Lemeshev, who gave us the series “Contact” and “Project Anna Nikolaevna”.
p.s. the series was shot back in 2018 and all this time lay on the shelf of the First channel.