Serial mix. What happens if you train ideas from everywhere, mix them up and drop them on the screen? The answer to this question is the series 'Historian'. And the answer is disappointing, because just a set of other people's chips, this is clearly not a sufficient base for something worthwhile.
It is clear that the authors of the series looked ' Method', thought, and what is worse, we composed a very ridiculous and frankly far-fetched idea, and then squeezed out of themselves something like that... here you and the traditional for domestic serial construction theme of cops, and habitually repulsed on the floor of the head of the main character, allegedly ' with a twist ', and already the orderly annoying theme of strong, independent women who are just because they are. Even the now fashionable naked adulthood of the series tried to capture, but modestly, on the floor, as they say, bumps.
And I understand that we have a project with not the most fabulous budget, but the problem of the series is not in the visual - it is not good here, but it is not bad - the usual average. The main problem ' Historian' in the obvious stupidity of the protagonist and the incomprehensibility of the plots. At the time of writing this review, I've watched eight episodes and honestly, I just got bored. If in good series it happens that the first series do not seem particularly interesting, and closer to the middle of the season the authors somehow gain and delay, then in this series everything happens exactly the opposite.
The seed may not have been the most outstanding, rather ridiculous and unscientific, but, in the end, why not? TV3 isn't a big deal. But then it all slides into a frank sucking of ideas out of the finger. Personally, I am absolutely not clear what the authors want to squeeze out of themselves at all? There is no detective here, rather some sluggish smearing of lean plots on timekeeping. Maybe drama? Also no... the main characters up to the eighth series are not disclosed at all, about secondary I do not say anything. What else is it? There is no such thing as a third.
Traditionally, such series go on the charisma of the characters. Let’s say absolutely stupid ' Method' dragged Khabensky, who at least slightly brightened up the first half of the first season (the second did not even watch). And more 'Historian' and there is not much to compare, since before foreign analogues here, as before Beijing in the knee elbow.
So what do we have as the main character? The incomprehensible historian-comicist, who incomprehensibly composed his very dull ' theory' then on 'miracle' by coincidence was in the field of view of the local miracle track and, hello... further on rolled. The funny thing is that the authors don’t even try to explain it. They simply sculpt without stopping some ridiculous cuts, the only clear essence of which is the advertising of the Leninist library in Moscow, leveled by the endless maranage of paper with sketches of crime scenes.
I am, of course, happy for the artist, who fell such a profit, but in the body of the series all this looks only monotonous and worthless stretching of timekeeping, which in one sentence can be described as follows: GG ran to the library, trained some books, drew sketches, it dawned on him, he ran to solve the case. What? Why? Why? At least simulate real archival cases, explain how he knows where to look for answers, show how he finds them... give the viewer at least some food for thought.
But no. In most cases, the outcome is ' investigations' predictable. Surprise the progress ' investigation ' the authors do not even try. To observe the dull physiognomy of this very Izvorin and does become nauseous in the first place because the actor, frankly speaking, does not pull the main role from the word '. I can’t say that I’m familiar with Artemyev’s filmography, maybe he shines in other roles, but in ' Historian' his work looks just depressingly boring.
By the way, Maria Lugova liked much more, even though the character is as flat and unwritten as Artemyev. But in some places there is at least some reliability, although there is also enough outright absurdity. However, it is not the fault of the actress, because she does not write herself.
What's the bottom line? I don’t know, maybe fans of endless series about cops will like this craft, but if you are looking for something noticeable and stand out from the general flow, I would definitely not recommend you to spend your time on the series ' Historian'.
You can’t say that it was really bad... no. But this is a typical passable filler of screen time, devoid of any originality and originality, causing boredom and from time to time disturbing just one question: ' Why am I watching this at all?'.