In less than a day, I watched Fisher completely. I have not been so attracted to the series in a long time, it was impossible to stop.
The plot takes us to the 1986 scoop and is based on the true story of the maniac Sergei Golovkin, nicknamed Fisher, but the picture is not a documentary. The drama and events are more focused on the heroes solving the case.
Accordingly, the main character is not a murderer, but Vanya Yankovsky in the role of a bullish investigator Evgeny Bokov. In my opinion, this is his best acting work, all the highlights of the character, for example, the Ukrainian accent (or what was it at all?) are perceived very homogeneously.
Bortich - Doubtful, but okay? The first series very hard she fit into the picture, it was hard to believe that the events in the 80-90s, but then used to.
Special attention was paid to the sound. Orchestraly fabulous, even something reminiscent of music from the work of Soyuzmultfilm (there, if you remember, a suspense is such that you can hang yourself?). Musical *tics*, more like the genre of a fantastic thriller. The sound is horribly diverse, has not previously met so interestingly confused music, especially in Russian cinema, and I watched with ecstasy, in parallel gnawing my hand with tension.
Speaking of tension. It was hard to watch. As from the first minute you are drawn into the abyss of experiences of investigators, and in the last series you watch with an already twitching eye for events. Episode 8 was the most difficult to watch, although with regard to psychological thrillers - everything is superficial and light, but nevertheless, the narrative does not let you relax, it already means something.
You can't miss the mat. What a quality and theme it sounds here. I want to put some words in my vocabulary.
That's very good. It's very high quality. Better than your "real detectives"
8.5 out of 10
This Schiefer will never be able to guess what I will walk.
I think it’s clear from the green substrate that I liked the series rather than not.
Now you hear a lot of swelling from all sides about the fact that 'Ah, well, it's not about a phisher, but about some investigators!', 'And you read - it was generally different there!', 'I wanted horror - got some trackers' and all that kind of stuff. This is what I would like to say to such comrades:
Dear ones, this is not a documentary, the authors do not hide behind historical authenticity, no one says, as in the case of war films, that ‘Here it is the hidden truth, here it was, the dog-trough is where it is buried!’ It's an art series, based on motives. This is not a documentary about the work of the investigation, not a documentary about Fisher. This is an entertaining series that may cause the uninitiated to want to know what was there in reality.
Let's get to the show itself. First, let’s talk about the disadvantages, because without them well does not happen.
(1) Wooden play, especially in the first series. Well, I do not believe that in the first or third series Yankovsky-Bokov from Rostov and his speech is real. He often hears the usual, standard language. I didn't. But I really liked his game. You can see how he tries to quickly squeeze the case to save his wife, how the desire to get to the truth goes into the background, and on the contrary, a real investigator wakes up in him when the spouse receives a quota.
Bortic surprisingly does not play a chair, at least after 3-4 episodes everything gets better. I understand that fear, horror, anger is easier to play than the usual state of a person, so that they believe, but still want to say “I believe!” when she moans, screams, sobs, beats in agony and hysteria. She didn’t believe for a second that she was Ella’s mother. Well, there is no chemistry between the characters, she could not play the mother, who sees little with her daughter and sincerely worries about this. Perhaps not enough scenes common, but it is possible to play without them. In any case, Bortich is growing and it is pleasant.
2) Storylines leading to nowhere. What was the quarrel between Kozyrev and the family? Why does he want to divorce his wife? All right, the son's quarrels were necessary to show later that he loves his son sincerely, but where did the conflict with his wife come from? Because of her one reaction to him crippling his son? And then he hangs on Dobrovolskaya, and then this does not lead anywhere in the end. Why is it so easy to throw Igor after Episode 6? Why was it necessary to make the daughter of the Volunteer "children of the Olympics"? It does not affect the plot at all. There are many oddities and empty lines.
But the pros are much more than the cons.
Good shot. The setting of the frame, the series are not filled with boring eights and the statics of both the frame itself and what happens in it.
Entourage. I believe it's the late '80s. We have a great example for comparison - disgusting food block-2, where the mood of the era is not felt at all. No one says that the environment should be one-on-one like a photograph, no, it was enough to get into the atmosphere, the spirit of the 80s. The show does a lot more. Cars, streets, premises, clothes, everything gives the country in the era of perestroika. Perhaps not a documentary restoration, but in the representation and memories of most of the time – definitely got.
Plot. The overall structure of the narrative is something VERY similar to the first two seasons of true detective. (That's a compliment). Two (three) investigators first in the past investigate some strange murders of an unknown maniac, they are pressured by the authorities, one has problems in the family with a tendency to cheat, the second - all of himself is such an unusual, ready to play against the rules detective who once lost (lose) his wife due to cancer. Volunteer did not have a place in Three Detectives, but it is not necessary. They allegedly close the case after the death of the suspect, the murders stop, and after many years they will have to work together again to complete the once begun. If you watched the first season, you will easily know the moves that apply here.
In general, the series is surprisingly good, I swallowed in two evenings and knowledge of the real story did not prevent me from completely abstracting from it for the sake of enjoying watching.
If you like good detective series, where you are left a place to guess for yourself, who is the killer - please, Fisher is a very worthy candidate to occupy your 3-4 pm and leave a pleasant aftertaste, like cognac, from which you did not expect anything, and he surprises you with a pleasant bouquet of flavors and flavors.
Yes, someone will say that he does not like the way police officers are shown, what insensitive superiors, what a bad union, etc. But I would like to remind you that this is perestroika, there was not much with everything and everyone. And I did not particularly notice some openly anti-Soviet attacks, no KGB that force you to close the case with the first person you meet, etc. In our time, the fact that the red flag does not wipe the butt in the frame can already be rejoiced.
7.5 out of 10
(Bortic magnificently played dried fish at Bokov's table)
I expected to see a scary, dramatic and interesting thriller about a real maniac. I saw Fisher.
I watched Fisher on two sets. The first time it came out, it turned off midway through the second series. Something about him didn't attract me. Now, on the second look, I knew what it was.
It's good to start with the pluses, but I won't be here long. The only thing I really liked was the picture. The cameraman is handsome.
Now to the minuses.
1. The atmosphere. When filming historical films, it plays a huge role. At least the creators tried. But from small parts like plastic window frames, it goes to hell. And no, it does not pale in the background of well-chosen costumes and furniture, it catches the eye immediately!
2. Jankowski's talk. No, no and no again! If he coped with the characteristic pronunciation of the letter 'g', then his 'sho' sounds very awkward. I understand that it is probably difficult for a native Muscovite to portray a Rostov accent, but he is an actor, damn it!
3. Acting. Why? Just why? Actors play as if they were paid for this series with a pie with a slack. One for all. A huge number of shots where actors can not pronounce a word, stumble, eat half the letters. I'm afraid to imagine what happened in the failed takes. In some places, they just forgot to play. Really, why?
4. Selection of actors. Naturally, the most questions to Sasha Bortic. It does not fit into the already poorly written character, which we will talk about later. Well, she has too aristocratic features. She does not look like a Soviet woman, especially an investigator!
5. Characters. Sasha Bortic's character again. Natalia Dobrovolskaya is nothing. At first they tried to show her as such a militant police officer: here she is angry that no one takes her seriously on the basis of gender, here she openly argues with Bokov and the headmistress of the orphanage. It literally lasted two series. After Natalia becomes a mumble and incompetent, which does not bring any benefit to the investigation.
Eugene Bokov. Who is this cool, brilliant cop who doesn't care about rules and uniforms, like he's about to come out of an American movie? He knows everything and does his job as an operative, an investigator, a forensic scientist, and he knows who the hell. All the characters around him are made out to be utter idiots only for him to say obvious things to them that do not reach these cardboards, and we, as spectators, admired his wit and ingenuity. Bokov is the only one who can catch Fisher. So of course, if the education of all other "specialists" is a diploma from kindergarten.
Valery Kozyrev. What the fuck is wrong with him? Why does this character not evolve as the series progresses, but rather degenerates? He's getting meaner and indifferent. The apogee of this thrash is the moment where Valery rips an earring from his son's ear along with his lobe. And then he whines, 'My son hates me!' I wonder why.
6. Plot. It is not clear how the characters come from one piece of evidence to another, how their investigation is conducted as a whole. It feels like a good half of the series has been cut. No one has canceled meaningless scenes with meaningless dialogue. This is a part of modern cinema.
How much Bokov at the very beginning resented the fact that law enforcement just to put someone in jail, and even guilty or innocent - somehow a dick. And that’s what he did throughout the series. Special attention is paid to his attitude towards the suspect Dmitry. Yes, okay, he openly threatened and tortured a chess player when he really believed he was Fisher. But when Bokov realized that they had detained the wrong person, he even refused to shake hands with the person, calling it “stuffy.” Why is that? Because a gay man is standing in front of him. He is not a human being, so why should he shake his hand? But with a serial rapist and a murderer of minors, he calmly stands next to him, and speaks politely.
Some incomprehensible, indistinct love line between Natalia and Valery, described in three sentences. Why? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that question.
And finally, how can anyone give a shit that the authorities have accused an innocent person and left a real maniac free? Bokov says, “I’m surprised he didn’t show up for so long,” meaning he didn’t kill children for so long.
In conclusion, I may have had some false hopes for this series. I expected to see a scary, dramatic and interesting thriller about a real maniac. And I saw the series "Fisher".
A rather angular series, sinning with numerous sharp failures and ups, what is in the picture itself, what is in the senses, what is in the texts. The time of events seems to be uncertain, especially the regularly arising dissonance between the vocabulary of heroes and the surrounding semi-noir from the recent past. Miss (or Mrs?) Bortic seems to be out of his plate, then diligently convinces us that she is “in the subject”, while as if having waved a hand to an episode just reads a script with a suitable facial expression. Oh, tov. Merzlikin, clear pepper, better keeps the connection between the surrounding what is happening and his hero, but also no, no, but breaks out a modern quite ordinary man from today. Rarely, but not without it. Ivan "works" somewhere in between - but his role is similarly spelled out - the most unstable, always twisted and tossing between correspondence and the broken logic of events. In general, such a “not mixed, but shaken” cocktail of good ideas, executed on turns in the form of question marks. Processed file, but grinding missed in a creative impulse. It's quite colorful, sometimes loud, in some places - it's tricky, which is not bad, but more often - all the same question marks.
Perhaps expectations were inflated, but still it is a good series, although watched literally the day before “Crystal” I hooked more. There seems to be a detective with the search for the named Fisher, but he very often fades into the background, acting rather as a background for showing the fates of the three main characters and the general situation of what is happening in the country and the decline of the USSR.
It may also have been said that just as I didn’t avoid Fisher’s identity in order to avoid spoiling the series, I still knew some details of the real case, and because of that, I was paying more attention to some strange illogical actions. And the project itself is shot very cool, there are interesting main characters, they have good interactions and a creepy, inflating atmosphere, but the first series of moments are insanely long and it seems that the series does not last 50 minutes, but all good 1.5 hours. But the pace that at least the last two episodes have set is something. Maximally cheerful, lively, the heroes for the time skip at 5 years old were well battered and Fisher himself turned out really very frightening.
And if it's about the story itself, well... it is. I really do not know what to say, this is not the usual detective, where the viewer has every chance to guess who the antagonist is before the main characters. This is a grim picture of the investigation, and just life in those years. Of course, I am not a historian and did not go into any details and facts, but the creators quite convinced me that everything was so at that time, and after all, Fisher is real, he is not going anywhere, he actually committed these terrible murders and really was the way of the investigation.
From the technical side, everything is also at a good level, everything is gloomy, frightening and alarming. The constant shock of Bokov (Ivan Yankovsky) at first embarrassed, but I am not from Rostov, so I will not say for plausibility, but I am clearly used to this in the series. And in general, the duo Bokov and Kozyrev (Alexander Yatsenko) turned out to be as organic and lively as possible, Alexandra Bortich seemed to be a little knocked out, but most of the time she was exactly in her place. Actors are laid out to the maximum that striking and not like themselves Yankovsky and Yatsenko in the lead roles, that Sergey Gilev and Roman Evdokimov in the background, which was also pleasant to see.
There is a great and touching line with Bokov’s wife in the first half, which catches almost more than the investigation shown, there is a bunch of colorful phrases from Bokov, there is a long swing with moments of trampling in place, but how powerful and deafening the last 2 series came out. The questioning of Fisher, and in general for all the moments with him I want to applaud, the actor is simply incredible.
As a result, it turned out to be a good project with a creepy and dense atmosphere, excellent technical side and amazing actors.
Why is it worth watching the series? I'll tell you.
First, the series conveys a gloomy atmosphere and despair. This hopelessness can be traced in everything, in how the heroes cannot catch the criminal, in how they spoil relations with their families because of this case, in how they cannot get along with each other.
The series is filmed in gloomy tones, color correction, dialogue.
Secondly, the favorite problem of fathers and children is shown here very plausibly. Many parents do not understand and support their children, and then blame everyone around them, but not themselves.
Thirdly, no matter how the story was changed, the authors were able to maintain a sense of elusiveness of the criminal, for those who are not familiar with the story of the serial killer Sergei Golovkin, this will be enough to be in constant tension.
Of the minuses, I can only note that the heroes constantly smoke and throw cigarette butts everywhere, For environmentalists it is probably a nightmare.
In general, the impressions of the film are positive, passing a couple of evenings will help. According to the actors, I can say that Alexandra Bortich was annoyed at times, but knowing the motivation of her character, everything falls into place. Here fit the phrase “You’re not the sun will not warm everyone!”, which actually did her character in the series.
“It’s not Rio de Janeiro – it’s much worse.” – O. Bender
The plot is based on real events - the nickname "Fisher" had a serial killer Sergey Golovkin, and this is perhaps all positive and true in this movie. Primitivism and dilettantism at the level of the drama club of the junior classes ... squalid interiors, babble, saturated with profanity dialogues (selective mate - it's a shame to watch), Chernobyl persecution of LGBT, black children after the Olympics, dissident journalists, and other "tolerant seasonings" designed rather for Western or pro-Western audiences ... Rostov, not shining with intelligence, the investigator with the habits of the reclining bandos talks or rather "bazarite" mostly in obscene comically "shock" - depicting Rostov's petted dialect (and this is after the law department) - leads investigative and investigative measures aimed at catching a maniac-pedophile together with Moscow colleagues, whose methods cause both laughter and tears, and of course frighten the modern spectator-individual.
Hiding behind shocking scenes of dead mutilated bodies, the authors of this toxic creation actually impose, and show barely concealed hatred for everything our, Soviet, domestic - "Oh Mary, how terrible it is to live in the USSR." So I want to quote in the farewell of this filmmaker: "In the days of Shakespeare there were no cigarettes "Friend" and stop "spoiling" the babble": "Teach matchmaking and love the book - the source of knowledge." Yes, by the way, the music screensaver is a warped "Winged swing" ... Krylatova!
I recommend for viewing people with a solid psyche and lovers of detailed investigations
I was watching the Volunteer Playlist and saw in one of the comments the phrase: 'Ivan in Fisher played even better. It was about the starring actor Ivan Yankovsky. I decided to watch this series too, because in the Volunteer Playlist, Ivan, indeed, was very convincing - the plot hooked.
Today, having a full day off, I started watching, and I couldn’t break away from the storyline and the whole investigation until I looked to the very end. I had never heard of such a bloodthirsty criminal before. It was more interesting to watch the characters of the series. After watching, I got acquainted with the chronicles that were published online on this investigation. It doesn’t bother me at all, as some viewers do, that the plot differs from the true facts. The main facts are stated and noted clearly. The rest of the plot is built around them, all the threads seem to be intertwined, making it clear that the root cause of all crimes, cruelties and suffering lies in families - parents and their relationships with children. If the viewer has previously watched a documentary about this criminal or listened to podcasts with dry facts, then he should understand that here the whole team worked on the creation of the series in order to show from the inside the causal relationship of such crimes. Much work has been done, both analytical and creative.
If I had the opportunity, I would personally thank both authors and actors who have been very talented in turning into detectives. They showed ordinary civil servants who sacrifice the time allotted to their family, devoting it entirely to catching a violent criminal. Their families are falling apart, but they continue to do their duty. It shows how the system works. There are so many stereotypes and flaws.
I immediately remembered no less relevant film with Alexander Yatsenko in the title role, in which he plays a paramedic - "Arrhythmia". In 2017, even before the outbreak of the pandemic, this film raised sharp topics dedicated to doctors and ambulance workers.
In my opinion, such films should be watched and drawn conclusions. The series Fisher contains profanity and scenes of cruelty, so it certainly should have restrictions on viewing among minors, but adults, especially those with families, should watch and understand that criminals and their victims are born not in the womb of their mother, but in the womb of their family.
This is not a review, but rather an opinion. I heard a lot of positive feedback from friends and just good reviews on the Internet. I decided to see that there is no limit to disappointment.
The characters are very scarce and undisclosed. Bortic is just wooden, it is unclear why and why. Yankovsky, apparently, so much wanted to convey the "Rostov" color that very much overplayed with his sho, yes. And in general, questions to the director, in his opinion, only collective farmers live in Rostov, and Kuguts. This we see in a rare scene of the arrival of the character Yankovsky in Rostov. The character of Valery is also indistinct, some kind of mattress.
The series is not catchy side, no scenes, no music, no tension.
It is replete with such gauntlets as the wiggling legs of a corpse in a morgue or, for example, as an investigator goes to the forest in heels.
The character of the maniac appears before us as a brilliant criminal who in one case plays a chess game, in another substitutes a person to distract suspicion from himself. In the end, he comes across as the latest idiot, which is very funny. By the way, it appears in the series quite suddenly with rapidly developing events, absolutely not according to the tempo of the series.
By the way, who the maniac is clear, literally after his first appearance in the frame, when we do not yet know who he is.
The series is as empty as Chikatilo. It is better to revise the method again.
If you watch a movie about a maniac, it’s just like that. It's okay here. But let's start in order.
1. Lights. God, this movie is dark and it's cool. It's gloomy. Like the last Batman movie. The light is set specially so as to illuminate the heroes a little. It doesn’t shine 45 degrees in the face in any scene. Heroes are stale and black and the light shows it.
2. Heroes. GG - with a hard humor, with constantly repeated phrases "the day has passed, the number has changed, ..." Anyone who has seen such people will know them immediately. That's who they are. In public - shock, hack, etc., but once you somewhere mentally talk to them, they say "what" and not "shaw", etc. Kozyrev and Dobrovolskaya also turned out well. But the whole trio pulled Bokov.
3. Lack of stuffiness. No unnecessary details. There's a focus on plot, on action. If you want stuffy scenes where the whole series is looking for evidence - go see criminal Russia. There you will be shown how the investigators painstakingly studied the crime scene, walked 15 km and found some trace of a shoe. It's all foreheaded. Here's the place, here's the head, here's the shoe trail. “Well, let’s think, what is this?”
In general, the series is excellent, almost from the secret documents of Van Buren. There are files in the plot, especially at the moment when Fisher was found, but they can be omitted.
10 out of 10
As I began to watch this masterpiece, I expected a story that would show the terrible things that the monster had done. That I got the result, some obscure story of one homicide department, to the end of which I just do not want to watch. Just not interested. We only hear about Fisher, we show nothing. They talk, they talk. Why this plaque about the scenes of violence in each scene is unclear. It was violence to my brain and nerves. The arch about the boy is boring, bland, not interesting to follow the word at all, plus the "play" of the actor of the boy causes Spanish shame. But more on that later. The arch of the history of the most murderous department resembles a circus with children's content. Inadequate protagonist Ivan Yankovsky, just two fingers in his mouth. Every hero here is some cardboard bullshit. The prosecutor tries very hard to be normal, but nothing works. Watching is dull and uninteresting. Mat for mate. Oh, come on.
2. Actors' play.
The main character Ivan Yankovsky - can and does. Another is that the hero himself is a terribly spelled out inadequacy. Rating 6/10
Alexandra Bortich - she's just playing a stone here, but she's really trying to play a role. Rating 2/10
Alexander Yatsenko is an absolute misast. It's just not his role. Rating 4/10
Sergey Gilev - well, it seems to play, but a little short. Rating 5/10
Stanislav Solomatin (boy), you guys, don't see? I want to squander and forget. -10/10
And so with everyone.
3. Bottom line.
It's boring. The director doesn't know what he's shooting. I wanted a thriller, and shot a play of a conversational genre. I watched this masterpiece after Chikatilo. It's also a wonderful creature. But at least we see the villain, what he does, how he does what he did, and not listen to the whole movie about him. In general, do not advise anyone. Give me back my time.
I started watching the series because I was interested in the story of the maniac, usually I am not attracted to the series of Russian production, but this time curiosity about the biography of Fisher took over. The strangest thing is that the main characters were investigators, and not the maniac himself, the selection of character types is also surprising.
In the first minutes of the series, the viewer is shown the Rostov investigator as a caring, albeit authoritarian husband, but already in the second scene with his participation we see a biased-negative attitude towards the entire female sex, his first phrase told Natalia (senior investigator): "What an investigator you are, you are not even a man." In the third line, he is already rude and scolds the interlocutor. In the future, Evgeny already turns to Natalia on "you" and systematically insults her, humiliates and ridicules her, raises her voice for no apparent reason. The investigator does not even try to defend her honor, just keeps silent in response to all these insults.
Why did the creators of the series decide to endow a seemingly positive character with such negative qualities? The hero constantly smokes in the frame, snaps and swears, and so badly treats an innocent investigator. The last quarter of the twentieth century was a time in which women became more comfortable, more likely to pursue higher education and were freed from discrimination in the workplace. Such boorish attitude does not fit into this era, we are shown the main character is indifferent and ignorant, at the same time experienced and good employee. All these qualities do not coexist in one character. If the creators of the series so badly wanted to make the main character a sexist – you could show a couple of scenes in which he is rude to the investigator, and not fill the entire series with such scenes.
I only watched one episode, and it was disgusting. I think that a significant number of negative reviews and low ratings of the series are due precisely to the fact that it is impossible to have compassion for a hero when his character and behavior are repelled.
It is a pity that in Russian cinema it is not customary to observe the norms of decency.
Honestly, it would not be 18+ and all 21 - a very harsh series turned out. As the circus used to say, the faint-hearted should leave. To some extent, the main disadvantage of the series is excessive naturalism and reliability. It looks like you are watching real events. That's what makes the mat in the frame, and the rest. Zhuti adds a beautifully and in detail recreated atmosphere of the late eighties and early nineties: unsightly in many ways were the times. Premises, furniture, utensils, transport, clothes - everything is recreated to the eerie precision and without embellishment. But if only this - conversations, types, relationships of people ... Also recreated.
Of the pluses, even children play very reliably, this is infrequent. Bortic, of course, a little on his wave, but it is almost invisible 21st century, as it usually happens, and so she plays exactly and is not afraid to be ugly. The rest, even in the episodes, are just handsome. The script would be odd if it didn't know that it almost exactly follows the real story.
Many compare the series with the True Detective - similar to the visual solution, but ours is still much darker in my opinion, there are no charming characters and stylish songs.
In general, I repeat, the series is very scary. And even hopeless - yes, the villain was caught, but the happy ending is not at all. The society that gave birth to the maniac has not changed, and even the positive characters have everything bad.
I came across the series Fisher by accident, got the first episode on YouTube, I looked at it, as if I thought I would go and watched all the other series.
About the maniac Fisher read a lot and watched before the series. But since this is not a documentary to dig into inconsistencies and fictional characters and the circumstances do not make sense, still this is a series.
Of the advantages, you can in principle distinguish the scenery of the scoop, cars, buildings, clothes and so on, everything is done well, I never lived in the scoop, but I think everything looked like this.
The main actors play normally, Yankovsky and his accent, Bortic, which the whole series endlessly allows Yankovsky and Yatsenko play well.
The plot is as follows - there is Yankovsky, an experienced investigator, he is forced to fly from Rostov to Moscow to investigate the case of the murder of a child, he is very dissatisfied and he does not like it, because his wife dies in his hometown, they give him Bortic in a strict suit, who smokes the whole film to seduce local boys, apparently, everything that Yankovsky does with her it lets her verbally, she also has a tragedy, but it looks strange.
And then Yatsenko is also an investigator, he also has problems with the family, which must be kept from collapse.
The rest of the actors, to be honest, do not play very, the boy witness is just a sad spectacle, but there is not so much of it, so you will not often hear him 'But YA NIVRU is NEVER honest!'
And I do not know by what miracle, but the screenwriter of this series has refrained from the most important problem of Russian cinema in principle, smack LOVE LINE EVERYWHERE, there it is not and it is not needed, but the feeling that some schizophrenic, in every script, every film / series fits for some reason love lines, for this already plus the series.
But still, the series lacks if not any hardness, then the dynamics of what, after all, he is about a maniac, I would like something shockingly cruel in the frame, as in Real Detective - more locations, mysterious characters, drive - but this is what the series lacks, so it sometimes feels very jerky, some events occur very crumpled.
In general, the series is a good, strong middle peasant, there are its shortcomings, but there are not so many of them to not give him a chance.
6.5 out of 10
I looked at the work of Taramayev and Lviv, who remembered me as the authors of the excellent series “Black Spring”, then I looked at the reviews and reviews of the series and, let’s say, was surprised.
The fact is that the series is excellent and I can even call it a sample of a series about a maniac in Russia.
Well, moving on to the main claims to the series, because of which it has as many negative reviews as positive, which is very strange for me.
- A lot of dialogue. For me, this is the funniest part of negative reviews, and literally half of them have this theme: “If everything in the series is communicated through dialogue, it’s bad directorial work and bad taste.” In the conditional “Mind Hunters”, the abundance of dialogue does not confuse critics and viewers.
- Jankowski's "shock." Here the comments are superfluous, it can be presented as a kind of meme, but seriously say that the dialect of the investigator from the Rostov region, also taking into account the events of 30 years ago, is a certain obvious disadvantage of the series, because he cuts someone's ears - it's just a clown.
- Bad script work. It’s basically a claim to the character of Bokov and Dobrovolskaya, to some logic of their actions, well, I’ll tell you what, the script in this series is just at the highest level, at least among Russian TV series. Literally every event that happens in the background, the personal drama of each of the investigators directly affect their future actions, and the characters do not behave in any way “clichéd” or predictable. I especially liked the kind of checks and balances system, namely that each of the three investigators makes a visible contribution to the case, and when one makes a mistake or tries to close the case without sufficient reason, the others disagree with him and continue to investigate, checking other theories, evidence. The claim to expressiveness of Bokov is simply ridiculous, because, as I said, the characters are not flat, and there are a lot of moments in the series where it is Kozyrev and Dobrovolskaya who show excessive aggression, and Bokov’s character stops them. The only drawback in this regard is Bokov's attitude towards Dobrovolskaya, all right, his attacks seemed just a character trait towards women, but the scene at the end of Episode 6 where he begins to humiliate her at the most inappropriate moment seems too much. And yes, in the same episode 6 at the end, Yatsenko begins to suck with Bortic, which does not affect the plot and they still do not have a relationship in the future, why this scene was needed is unclear.
"Not solved the maniac." Another weird claim. Of course, to show "Difficult childhood" and the difficult fate of the maniac would be a very original and not pulling timekeeping decision. People wake up, 90% of maniacs have the same fate in childhood and adolescence, which does not make sense to show for the hundredth time, the character of the maniac is sufficiently revealed in the last two episodes, and it is not necessary to show his “backstory” in a series in which there are so many storylines.
To summarize, I want to say why I consider this series one of the best in this topic:
The entourage of the era of perestroika, the mysterious atmosphere of the forest, according to the best canons of the TV series Twin Peaks and Darkness.
- Acting. All investigators play well, even Bortic isn't so infuriating. A bunch of good actors who play secondary characters
A script that perfectly demonstrates and connects with the main plot almost all secondary stories, personal dramas of investigators. What is only the story of a journalist who needed a sensation in the article, and then his son comes into play, who invented Fisher and led both investigators and his father around the finger, after which false information about the personality of the maniac was published in all newspapers. And this is not the end of the storyline of this family.
Special attention deserves the screensaver of the series, musical accompaniment in general.
Anyone who doubts to watch or not - definitely advise.
9 out of 10
A controversial series, but a simple and important message
It's been a while since Fisher. As the hype subsided, I made it to the series. I watched almost in a volley, remained in difficult feelings. And not for nothing, but with the phrase “and Yankovsky’s attempts to portray Rostov’s speech!” . "
The key disadvantages, in my opinion, are two: the eternal lack of disclosure of characters and the equally eternal throwing away of storylines:
- I think it is very important when revealing heroes, some little things and habits that are unique to them. These can also be short stories from a character in a dialogue. The main thing is to build this frame so that the hero is blinded. Relatively speaking, to the old habit of smoking in packs sounded in the hero cough. And if he has problems in the family, then let at least a small hint it will always be with a person. So that the viewer does not forget about it.
In Fisher, the character Yatsenko has trouble at home, but he starts working – and I almost immediately forget about this, because there is no smart reminder anymore. He seems to be worried about his son, and then calmly says that he left everyone, and should have done so long ago. How? Why don’t you show me some of your inner feelings? As a result, there is Yatsenko-investigator and extremely incomprehensible Yatsenko-husband and father. And together they do not gather in the whole person. At the same time, partly difficult elections, mainly workers, and emotional throwing, the inner conflict of the hero Yatsenko are still present.
Same with Bortic's character. The same goes for Yankovsky's hero.
- Traditional casting of storylines, which, apparently, simply did not fit in time. You can understand that not everything fits into the timing. I can’t understand why not briefly close it, at least in an oral mention. Examples: after the reopening of the case, the family of the boy Igor was shown - and that was it. Just a little bit of detail! Or: after closing the case, how the heroine Bortic came to life like this - well, why not say? What happened to her, what was the path? Out of the blue, we are suddenly shown a completely different person, and it is impossible to accept it so easily. The head requires elementary explanations, which need little more than a modest single phrase of the hero Yatsenko.
It’s a shame that there are two of these in the series. Because the story came out really heavy, scary and infinitely sad. I would not like in this scenario to still spread my hands and try to answer independently where the director was silent.
Pros:
+ Nice shot. I'm not an expert, but I enjoyed watching. Colors, locations – everything is wonderful, the atmosphere is almost immediately exciting.
On acting there are questions: Bortic in the first half, of course, was as smooth as possible. I don’t know how much credit she has for that. But in the last episodes, especially in the final, it was very powerful. I would even say that she in these series and set the heat.
I liked Jacenko very much. He was believed most throughout the series. It is a pity that the whole character was not assembled, as I said above. If you did, it would be a gun.
Ivan Yankovsky – that’s where all my skepticism started. The accent, to me, was really bad. As soon as the accent disappeared, everything became much better. So I agree that this detail should not be added. Then no one would suffer. Neither Ivan nor the audience who had dissonance.
Bokov's character was, for the most part, disgusting. Whether this was the director’s idea is a mystery. But if there was, why? Vanya just played a wonderful relationship with his wife. These are very touching scenes that do not fit with the humla, which took up most of the screen time. Not only do you try to filter the acting through inept talk, but also after filtering you poop on a person who is just sick. And there is no charisma of a bad boy who could help out and give the hero an indulgence, and even a beautiful appearance did not help. Most of the time, I couldn’t relate to this character. He wanted to go where Bokov himself repeatedly sent.
There were moments when boorish clouds over Bokov cleared up, and he suddenly became alive and brighter. But there were few glimpses. In this regard, it is even difficult to judge the acting. It looks good, but the character is a bit ugly. I don’t want to see such heroes.
+ Matt. Of course, from the point of view of high culture, this is so. But I really like that in such genres in our cinema he began to appear and the characters can now express themselves firmly. This is much more vital than refined speech, which, of course, can not be. The narrative is about dark matter, investigators see such, after which not everyone in principle will be able to continue to live normally. Stressful. No mats. I think it complements what's happening on the screen. I was glad that there was so much of it. Every word was in agreement.
+ Music. First of all, the ear doesn't cling. Music, to me, lives on in the series. It’s organic, you get distracted as much as you need. Together with the visual works on 10 out of 10. Opening is a fairy tale. Very cool.
+ The last two episodes. Bloody, but very strong. Personal addendum: I’ve read a lot of comments under the videos about Golovkin, and people were horrified. I was terrified, too, but like... After these two episodes, the horror grew to monstrous proportions. Because hearing a host of podcasts, and even watching excerpts from the interrogations of the maniac himself and once seeing at least an approximate picture of actions - these are different things. Immediately in the colors you realize how monstrous it is, and the heart shrinks at the thought that such suffering really fell to the children. What a monster they had in their last moments.
+ A message. Through all the shortcomings, the series very calmly conveys the most important idea: how terrible it is when parents are not interested in their children. How terrible it is when parents are cruel, rude and indifferent to their children. This is a terrible tragedy for many generations and not only in our country, but in general everywhere in the world.
There were words of the heroine Bortic that she was not surprised by the lack of reports of missing children. She asked her parents and saw that they knew nothing about their children. It was this thought that grabbed me by the throat. Children are very responsible. This is probably the most responsible thing that can be. And if there is not enough love in a person, if there is not enough time, if a person is not ready to take responsibility and turn all his fibers of the soul to interest in his own crumb always, all the years of his subsequent life, then please do not need to create this crumb. . .
I didn’t expect anything at all, so I wasn’t disappointed at the end.
The series tells us about a real maniac who worked in the USSR in the 80-90 years.
Here we go!
Acting. More or less star cast and such a bad game. The main character, the investigator, performed by Ivan Yankovsky, who plays well just bad. In my opinion, the role was difficult for him, he did not try to get used to his character. According to the plot, he was supposed to speak with a Rostov accent, Ivan imitated it so badly, the “shaw” was even awkward, as if you were looking at an inept parody in a crooked mirror.
Alexandra Bortich in the role of the investigator, looks just like a statistician, zero emotions. In general, the question of why she was taken for this role, she does not fit into it as much as possible, in the plot she is an adult tired single mother, and Alexandra looks more like a girl student.
In my humble opinion, against the background of all the others, Alexander Yatsenko (partner of the main character) played best, at least you believe him.
Briefly on the plot. It develops slowly and by the middle of the series you steadily lose interest in viewing. Separately, I want to note the last two episodes, there the director specifically burned in blood and dismemberment, it is not very clear why such bloody details. The feeling that the director had long dreamed of filming something very bloody, well, he took off. If in the conditional "Damer" such unpleasant details go side by side with the disclosure of motives and dark thoughts of the hero, then they are just like that, not quite appropriate, because the personality of the maniac we learn at the very end.
One of the few advantages I can highlight is atmospheric.
Not 'Chicatilo' or 'Crystal', but it's worth a look.
The beginning of the first series (like) not bad - surprisingly well played.
Stanislav Solomatin (the role of Igor Maltsev, who lives on Rublevka) - his reasoning about his being, his help to the investigation - contrary to the wishes of wealthy parents.
The Prosecutor General (Alexander Userdin’s role) looked solid, as it should. Also, the role of the Moscow investigator Kozyrev very well played Alexander Yatsenko.
But as for the main character Bokov performed by Ivan Yankovsky - alas, Kohl - his character does not look like an investigator of a provincial lot, but a NKVDshnik from 37 g (in the bad sense of the word) - an arrogant humlo, constantly sprinkling with obscene expressions, does not appreciate the girl investigator, humiliating him for an occasion and without reason. It was also (almost) amusing to hear Bokov’s Moscow speech and his constant ‘sho’ instead of ‘what’.
Alexandra Bortich herself (the role of Natalia Dobrovolskaya) played a "taxe", a three, and she does not look like an investigator from the 80s, no matter how hard she tried.
But who wants to know and see how the work of investigators from the 80s looks REAL, watch the series Chicatilo.
Anyway, you can watch this series, remembering the above pictures. . .
Lately, I have watched quite a few mini-series in the genre of thru-crime, but from the Russian filmmaking for a long time I have not seen anything. Fisher caught my attention with his intriguing trailer and, of course, Ivan Jankovsky, whose acting always pleases the eye and ear.
Of course, the series does not claim full historical authenticity. And it is impossible to find fault with this fact, since the positioning initially goes as “based on real history”. The series was released in moderation creepy, executed in gloomy gray and dark green tones, where the atmosphere is literally saturated with hopelessness and agonizing anticipation of the next bloody attack of the main antagonist, whose identity cannot be revealed until the final.
Are there any naggings about the script? Absolutely. In my opinion, despite the fact that the events take place on Rublyovka in the 80s, there is still a certain “distraction” of locations and events, their grinding to the level of a small province, both visually and in the shown methods of investigating such a high-profile criminal case about a serial killer. However, the series has a number of advantages. The intriguing and tense development of events is still the main and rather powerful plot engine here.
But, of course, all this action would not be so attractive, if not for the respectable game of the same Ivan Yankovsky. Most of the series he nervously smokes, loudly swears in his hysterical fits and all the time “shocks” in the Rostov way, and all this looks very plausible, how much it can depend on the actor, if you break away from some of the drawbacks of the script itself. The rest of the actors, to my taste, did not show some outstanding performance or memorable image worthy of a separate highlight. In general, it is quite lookable and according to all the laws of the genre in places quite cruel.
7.5 out of 10
The first series was slightly infuriated by Bortic, yet the lack of acting education is very often noticeable. But in the final series, she was rehabilitated in my eyes. Well done, well done, well done. Yankovsky liked it very much, he knows how to play, genes and acting school, whatever you say. Rostov spy just a candy as it came out, I know what I am talking about, faced with characters. Previously, somehow disliked Yatsenko, he is wonderful, but here is just beautiful. Heavy series, some scenes to a lump in the throat, shot hard, straight, but without vulgarity, of course, as much as possible, given the specifics of the source material. The dialogue was very much delivered, especially the tellings of the hero Yankovsky. Out of ten points I give nine, one score minus just for the fact that the story is very nasty in itself, about Fisher before the film I did not hear, and then read and all this was real. I want to erase such degenerates from memory, not shoot a movie. Thought... You have to remember that so you don't forget. I rarely watch TV series in one sitting, but here with my wife stuck, especially on vacation. Respect to the creators, and Ivan Yankovsky special thanks that keeps the family brand. Bravo.
I rarely watch the movie industry on time. Especially if it's a series. The same happened with the series “Fisher”, which was released as early as February 8, 2023.
If you look at the series as a whole, so to speak, from afar, it seems that it is quite good! Sustained atmosphere, which becomes more tense with each subsequent series, gloomy tones, good style and excellent cast. But if you come closer to this picture, then all the shoals, blunders and shortcomings begin to catch your eye.
When I studied in the theater and we were allowed to take excerpts from the classics for mini-productions, the teacher immediately made a mistake: do not take Ostrovsky! Why? Because Ostrovsky has a peculiar language, very unusual for modern man. We did not take Chekhov, because his characters also communicated quite peculiarly, and sometimes had a specific conversation. The role of the actor is to make everything look natural. Especially speech. You had to get together with her, you know, make it feel like you've been saying that all your life. Emphasis, speech, vernacularity, etc. – naturalness above all! It's not easy to get there. It’s hard to say words you read for the first time yesterday. I’m not talking about the accent or the accent. You can hear the accent hundreds of times, but without the proper number of rehearsals and works - a penny for that.
And here is the first joint that threw itself into my ears from the first minute and irritated me to the last. Unfortunately, Yankovsky failed to create the legendary Rostov talk. This is especially noticeable for those who at least once in their lives communicated with Rostov residents. It takes a lot of work to make these shocks and gekanya sound convincing, vernacular words (such as rain, wait, pike) flew out of the mouth as if they were always there. If there is no naturalness, then it is better to remove this trait altogether and not to be ashamed. Sometimes it even seemed to me that this direction of the director prevented Yankovsky from working normally.
The Bortic line disappointed me. According to the idea (or so it seems to me), it was supposed to be a modern woman, strong, strong-willed, not afraid of anything and no one. She didn't even give up her black daughter, she didn't give a damn! It's a pity, but my daughter ran out of all her strength. Her feminist line was funny and even silly. By the time Bokov arrived, Dobrovolskaya did not have anything ready for a new business, and then she did not bring that very much and everything - reading an accident, not the result of intellectual activity.
Working with children on the site is one of the most difficult. The children’s attention quickly dissipates, they can forget something, and the game experience, of course, not so much. All responsibility lies with the director. Igor Maltsev sees a man carrying the body of a boy, all drenched in blood, and running home to his parents. Parents with overplay and theatrical sighs do not believe the boy. It immediately struck me how the boy has no reaction to the fact that mom and dad do not believe him. No reaction at all. If this happened for the first time, it would be a surprise. This is not the first time it has been so sad. This, by the way, applies to Snitkina and Gilev, playing parents, but these are adult actors whose failures lie only on themselves. The boy had nothing. He did what he was told, he was in shock. And the text of the boy is written out of his hands badly. Just listen to what he writes in his diary. I didn't live in '86, but I can safely say that the language of a simple boy is too literary. Like the sudden desire to tell the truth. He hastily made a scene in which the pope talks about the fact that journalists tell the truth, the truth and nothing but the truth – this became enough for remorse. It won't be enough. No personal examples, no disclosure of the question of whether Igor often lied like that. And what a profound story Igor’s fear for Laval could be, pushing him to keep lying. Everything is fast and hasty, time is ticking.
There are too many lines and it is dangerous. Again, in theater, we were taught that if in the first act there is a gun on the wall, in the last act it will shoot. That is, all story lines must be brought to the end, logical resolution or explanation. Without this rule, detectives would not exist. The whole film / series the viewer drowns in questions and misunderstanding of what is happening and only at the end they explain to him what was the matter and where the dog is buried.
In Fisher, there was only one answer: a murderer. He was afraid of his mother, but that was all. No, you guys can't do that! The story of this person or his psychological portrait must be told to fully understand his intentions.
To begin with, at least, Laval, whom Fischer so skillfully set up. We never learned the motive. Why did he decide to frame him? And the head of a hare with an earring sewn to the theme of a boy? There is shock content and no explanation for it. In Toga, only Fisher at the end of the series questions abound.
Bokov originally came to Moscow because Fischer’s actions resembled a Rostov maniac whom Bokov could not catch. His task was simple: to understand whether Rostov is a maniac or not. We never got an answer, and Bokov’s tasks changed dramatically through the series. The Rostov assassin was not as important as the Moscow one.
I also want to point out the inattention of the creators to detail. Then they have Rh blood factor changes in just a minute, then you hear the sound of a boy crying, and his face is calm and much, much more. This is annoying and suggests that I, the viewer, are being held for a fool.
There is a lot of fuss in the series, sometimes nothing is even clear, because of which the essence is lost. It seems as if the story is told by a child confused in the narrative, afraid to forget the most important thing and on the move forgot what he even told.
Probably, the idea was something between “Silence of the Lambs”, “True Detective” and “Zodiac”, but it turned out as always. One last thought: the real story was only used to attract audiences. Our people love this kind of content. However, the number of errors and flaws turn this work into a simple skip for money, devoid of meanings, ideas and reality (which, by the way, the series also diverges and does not fit, but with grief, you can close your eyes and write it off as an artistic assumption).
This is a good detective series based on real events. Starring Ivan Yankovsky, Alexandra Bortich and Alexander Yatsenko. They played well. Yankowski is pretty. I don’t like Bortić very much, but here she also looked good.
Not traditional by modern standards, when everything is shown by investigators. They are like the main characters. And because of this, there's a lot of social, related personalities and secondary characters. The approach itself is somewhat strange, for Russian cinema. Well, the fact that everywhere is corrupt and drunkenness is logical, but the fact that worked LGBT, BLM and even feminism of the agenda is directly surprising.
For me, there is so much secondary socialism that stretched the timing for a couple of extra episodes, a bit too much of the maniac himself and a dramatic finale, which for some reason was pushed out, which violated real historicity. In the final I did not believe and it spoiled the impression.
Plot. In the late 80s, a maniac operates in the Moscow region. Kills and rapes boys. On his capture appoint a rude and cynical investigator Bokov, who is worried about cancer in his wife, a soft investigator of the prosecutor's office Kozyrev, who is worried about family problems with his wife and son, a teenager, and investigator Dobrovolskaya, who is worried about different things, and she also has a daughter - a mulatto. And this suffering trio worked well, although the capture of the maniac turned out to be a very difficult and protracted affair. As a result, the maniac worked from 1986 to 1992 and killed 11 teenagers.
Again, the movie is good. Despite all the plot and script flaws. The actors are out.
I love trucreime, but this series is from the genre I will not evaluate: this is a good attempt of Russian cinema to try yourself in the popular direction now, but no more.
As many people have already noted, Fisher has several advantages. First of all, the good work of the operator. Personally, my eye did not stumble and the footage looked organic. Second, it's the work of a costume director and makeup artist. And in general, the stylization, in my opinion, was successful.
Of the minuses, I will immediately distinguish what irritated me from the first second: Yankovsky and his inept attempts to play a very difficult role. Why is it complicated? Because imitating someone else’s speech (something we use unconsciously) is a very difficult task, especially if you are a native Muscovite with an obviously northern face and a toned body. There are none in Rostov. It seems that the speaker of an exemplary literary language suddenly began to shock and use fricative gloss.
Most likely, the casting director should be blamed for the torment of Yankovsky (and not only for this). Ivan is simply not suitable for this role. I won't say anything about Bortic: I don't like her at all and this tape hasn't changed my attitude towards her. What upsets me a lot more is the terrible acting of the episodic actors. I think that’s what gives a poor picture. Let the main character fail, but it is simply unforgivable for secondary characters. Although many people may disagree with me...
Yatsenko is always brilliant.
You know, but still well in Russia production learned to do. The picture is just beautiful, costumes, makeup, entourage are also not bad. And there are almost no stupid blunders (I am ready to forgive the bottle of wine that appears and disappears in the first series). Supporting actors play very convincingly. And everything would be fine, but there is one minus for the series - Ivan Yankovsky and one failure - Sasha Bortich.
Yankovsky plays well, but very much cuts his false, ugly, immediately betraying the Muscovite "sho". Nobody says "sho" like that. I would have gone to Rostov or Krasnodar for a week, it was more convincing to shock and ghack. But it's small, you can get used to it. You will explain one thing to me: I understand that the hero is a burnt-out, cynical professional, but why, WHY did Ivan Yankovsky again turn out an aggressive cattle, which just throws at everyone for no reason? Are they there in VGIK so taught to play or is it another actor of the first magnitude who just plays himself (like Petrov and Kozlovsky)?
Total failure is Sasha Bortic a.k.a. our answer to Kristen Stewart. Apparently, she really wanted to try on an image like Yankovsky, but it turned out to be a lol-type-chela girl who smokes a lot (I could already drink Yagu, what is there). Plays badly, sloppy, sometimes just emotionally speaking script. It's a good thing he doesn't look at the camera and his eyes don't move like you read from a teleprompter, and thank you for that. If Yankovsky just tightly plays a gopnik, as he was taught in the almater of kinokopniki VGIKE, then Bortich apparently studied the skill of the actor on the TV series “Apple Garden”, and specifically on the scene where two actors yell at each other “she thinks she loves you”.
The production of scenes in the series sometimes resembles school theater because of the moronic formula "the actor appeared - the actor said something important for the plot - the actor went off-screen." If you repeat this formula three times in a row, then from any mega-serious action you will get a circus of the mentally retarded.
And of course, thin, barely noticeable threads sewn agenda. “It was better under Andropov”; the entire intelligentsia listening to the Voice of America are stupid hypocrites; Igor’s mother, defending her rights and the rights of a child, is a shrill liberal who prevents the work of the valiant police in the face of a gopnik in a jacket, a lol-type man-girl, and a dude for the background, God loves the trinity.
The result: the series Fisher is a pompous glossy fuflo, in which they tried to embed deeper meanings, but either from the lack of intelligence, pettiness and flatness of the authors, or from carelessness, ordinary police skirmishes with Matyuks turned out.
Motivation to view was absolutely philistine: good ratings and a curious synopsis describing the events occurring in a predispositional union.
Accordingly, I had no expectations regarding the reliable transmission of the history of the capture of the antagonist prototype. It was interesting to look at what this time the domestic film industry managed to spawn, and see what assessment will be given to that difficult era by modern mass culture.
And... my respects.
The series can be praised for the wonderful work of the operator, the picture almost everywhere looks juicy and beautiful, setting the mood for the scenes.
Great work on the reconstruction of the era, the interiors of the premises and the appearance of most characters look extremely authentic. Especially pleased with the fact that the events of the series are organically inscribed in the context of time: the Olympiad, Tsoi, deficit, Andropov, putsch, the collapse and decrepit state are not only mentioned, but also in places have a direct impact on the plot.
In addition, there is a set of recognizable and authentic types of late (post) Soviet citizens. Detached from reality, the bohemian, the drinking proletariat and its superiors, bitchy teachers and orphaned children, former prisoners and the police, which are often generally interested in establishing the truth about the crime and do not hesitate to use torture and illegal methods of collecting evidence.
A child with bleeding can not get to the doctor because the queue.
And the line is a sacred place.
The series does not try to condemn anyone, but rather states the gradual decay of that society.
Now to the controversial moments (about the heroes).
I believe in Yankovsky’s hero, despite the fact that he periodically forgets about his characteristic shock.
This type is found among employees of law enforcement agencies: sharpness in words and movements, seeking and at the same time thoughtful look, careless style of communication with a lot of mat and stupid, but eloquent sayings. Purposefulness, combined with cruelty and the ability to put pressure on people, to achieve the desired in any way. The character is morally gray, his assessment is completely at the mercy of the viewer. Yankovsky well, it was extremely pleasant to see a worthy embodiment of such a difficult character to play.
Bortic... Well, everyone has already said about her in other reviews, the only thing that in the last 2 episodes she plays a head higher than in the rest.
You can have fun if you imagine that the hero of Yankovsky scolds the actress for a bad game.
The dialogue looks quite natural, the characters are organically obscene and very (very) smoke a lot. In the context of Bokov, this seems appropriate, because this person is a strained string, the constant smoking further emphasizes his character.
Bottom line.
The series is good if you do not build false expectations about its content and come to terms with flaws in the acting and motivation of the characters. There are many positive aspects to it.
There's very few criminals here. For me, this is not a minus, because I went to watch the series for this.
7.5 out of 10
When filmmakers or, in this case, serial producers try to show and tell the viewer the story of a serial killer, a dualistic dilemma arises, from which it is very difficult to find a way out.
The story of the killer is led in two ways. Or you are immersed in the skin of a maniac, dissecting on the screen causes, effects and other superficial psychological research on the relevant topic, to read the story in a non-standard way and show the killer from a side from which the layman did not see him. Or you have to shove the viewer into the skin of the sniffers (sniffers), who follow the trail of the maniac and with them slowly reveal the causes of the atrocities of the sadist in attempts to find him.
Any comprehensive approach is almost impossible to apply here. There are always two sides of the same coin and you either look from one side or the other. To turn the medal edge does not work, because in this aspect you can not see anything at all.
The creators of Fisher went from simple, taking as a basis the story of one of the most terrible killers of the late Soviet period - Sergei Golovkin. To do this, they placed a real maniac in the designed world, creating a triumvirate of investigators to catch him. Hence, that is, from the first series, the story develops according to a very free invention of the authors, but I cannot blame it on them. After all, we are not watching a documentary picture, but a feature film, in this case a series, so liberties and interpretation of certain aspects from our own bell tower are quite appropriate.
I am very impressed by the painstaking work done by Sergey Taramaev and Lyubov Lviv, trying to recreate the world of the late 80s and early 90s. What’s more, getting into the first half of the 90s is just perfect. Apartments, everyday life, everyday objects, furniture, all this is shown so well that willingly believe in what is happening. It's a little harder with the 80s, and I don't remember them either. I wasn’t at that age to remember anything. But for the last two episodes, I take off my hat, because the work done is colossal and it feels like it.
Only the images of the main characters are not felt. If I fully see and understand the motivation and duplicity of the hero Alexander Yatsenko, Ivan Yankovsky and especially Alexandra Bortich cause bewilderment and disappointment. No, Yankowski is good as a male investigator. There is no such thing as goodness that came before, and that is great. I even understand and accept his harsh, crude chauvinistic character. No one said an investigator should be a role model. This is a dog job that exhausts to the end and deforms a person. But Yankovsky’s character has no backstory and nothing to lean on to understand why a person has become what motivates him and why he changes his views quite dramatically (although there is a rather long time interval). That is, the creators gave us a ready-made character, but even when we get acquainted with him the other characters of the picture, we learn almost nothing about him. This is a bit confusing.
Separately, I want to be disappointed with the character of Alexandra Bortich, who fails the first six series and radically falls out of the era with modern trousers cut, high-heeled shoes and hairstyle from the current era. Coupled with a rather pale game, the character of Alexandra does not believe at all, except for a couple of episodes. I wonder how much it has changed in the last two episodes. I’m not going to give you the details of the movie, it’s not ethical. Just look around and you'll understand. In the last two episodes, Bortic transforms and begins to almost live his heroine, rather than portray something slurred that spoils the entire impression of the series.
As a result, we have a rather free film adaptation of the story of Sergei Golovkin and I repeat once again that I allow the authors of the film such a departure from reality. We're not watching a documentary. However, the relatively weak three main characters, just endless smoking and the failed work of stylists who did not bother to dip their characters in the appropriate era do not give the series the highest score. I’m not going to call it inconspicuous or anything like that. The story is quite fascinating and in places becomes really scary.
8 out of 10
After reading the interview of showrunners and directors ' Fisher' I found myself confused. I never left the thought that we were watching different projects: they are a sophisticated analogue of Mindhunter, I am a simple detective about finding a maniac. Having decided to completely abstract from the personality of Golovkin, the directors rendered themselves a disservice - the average viewer to look at the trimming of investigators and their internal disassemblies, let's be honest, not so (at all) interesting as to observe the formation of a monster. True crime can be as noir as you like, but the hardcore of what is happening is determined by the scenes with the killer himself. No matter how clumsy it was filmed 'Chicatilo', its writers were able to instill at least some horror in the audience. Here I caught myself thinking that I was never afraid or anxious for all 8 episodes.
There is a feeling that a very bad actress Bortic was sent only part of the script, which is associated with her little word and complete misunderstanding of what is happening. In futile attempts to give her heroine at least some significance and character, the writers wrote a heartwarming storyline with racism, but this did not help them erase the eternal pokerface from her face. Even to fight with ' bungled post-Soviet Patriarchate' (c) Natalia Dobrovolskaya is not able: hard jokes Bokov about her mental abilities is still not sexism, but a statement of fact.
If you discard the Rostov saying of Yankovsky, over which only the lazy did not mock, and 274,479 cigarettes smoked on the screen, ' Fisher' good. For all its protracted and slow narration, the series did not lose its atmosphericity and visual aesthetics. And even if almost no one counts in ' Fisher' references to the notorious ' fertile ground for the appearance of evil', the project will not cease to be just a beautifully shot detective, where the central idea is not the personality of the maniac, but the self-destruction of his pursuers in the name of a good goal.
I've been wanting to watch Fisher for a long time, and now I've got my hands on it. The series was interested as soon as I heard about it, I love detective genres, and especially here an interesting cast.
What about the show itself? As they say at first, it is based on real events. That's right. Always after watching the movie / series, I read how I filmed, the history of creation and so on. And Fisher is no exception. The series tells about a serial maniac - Sergei Golovkin, who killed teenagers in the suburbs.
Well, the series of course shows his capture and investigation. Comparing Fisher to Cicatillo, Fisher is more realistic and better. Here's how to say more gloom and cruelty. What else I noticed, the series did not avoid and ' note ' obscene vocabulary, which also gives its shade and character.
I also wanted to mention the cast. The remarkable game of Ivan Yankovsky, who continues the famous Yankovsky dynasty, played perfectly Rostov investigator with elements of Rostov talk. Charismatic Alexander Yatsenko is as good as ever. And the bright Alexandra Bortich diluted the male composition of the Soviet militia.
In addition to the main theme of serial killings in the series, other relevant topics are also raised. For example, the topic is non-traditional orientation, or the topic of bullying of children born from other races. Even in the series, we were shown what difficulties were in those days, because we first show the end of the 80s, and then the collapse of the Union and the devastation throughout the country, for which no one was ready.
Well, the theme of maniacs in the cinema is not new, only recently began to publish and publish materials of those years. It is now more accessible and more open. But diving into a story like this is always interesting, wondering who he is this killer, going through each suspect and wondering if he is torturing the boys. But of course, in the end, you don't even think the killer was walking around. So who likes detectives, I think you won't be disappointed. Fisher didn’t disappoint in 2 days.
A frankly weak film. It seems a win-win story - the capture of the last maniac of the USSR, but the implementation of the idea leaves much to be desired. It creates a strong feeling that the authors of the film cheated: on the script, on the artists, on the scenery, etc.
1. The abundance of dark colors, squalid interiors of offices and apartments of the heroes of the film create a depressing mood when watching. And this oppressive mood is caused mainly not by the plot, although it does its part, namely the pictures from the screen.
2. Actors are a little weak, too. The main characters (Yankovsky and Yatsenko), in my opinion, did not cope with their roles. I couldn’t believe they were very good investigators. How do you know that Don is shocked? It cuts your ears, really! Who Alexandra Bortich played, I never understood. But the water bottle from the throat was not aesthetically pleasing.
3. Smoking in the film is a separate subject. It seems that the heroes are tasked with spending more time in front of the camera with a cigarette.
At the end of the film, it seemed that the leitmotif of the film was the show of poor life in the USSR, and the capture of the maniac was only ' cover operation'. Maybe I was just thinking.
Sorry for the time spent watching this 'masterpiece'.