Good people. Before I saw the movie, I thought, is it worth it? I was surprised by the fact that there was not a single review, not a single evaluation. However, it was already good that at least the film was on the search, on iMDB I could not find it. However, I decided to look at the picture, hoping that in front of me something really worthwhile, which is not a pity to spend time.
Honestly, after watching there were mixed impressions of the film – on the one hand, indeed, the film suggests some thoughts, on the other, in my opinion, the idea is not conveyed well enough – there are many ambiguous moments in the film, some of the actions of the characters leave behind a number of questions.
So, it remains unclear what kind of guys are sitting on the other side of the monitor and watching the doorman - why do they even need them? Well, the story tells us about a watchman who makes sure the hostages don't go anywhere. But do we need a watchman to watch over this watchman, is it not easier to hire a new one if the old one is not trusted enough? Most likely, the types looking at the monitor are designed to implicitly break the fourth wall - to convey to the viewer thoughts that the filmmakers wanted to convey, but which in some scenes are too difficult to perceive.
Another question that came up during the screening is why are there so many cameras in the house? And not just any ordinary surveillance cameras, but high-definition cameras that are directed directly so as to capture the main character in close-up, without cutting off part of his face on the frame. I think it's a little weird and not realistic. Speaking of realism, there is another scene in which the actions of the hero are not very clear, but I will keep silent about it, since it will already be a spoiler.
If we start talking about the other side of the film, how the characters played and, in general, whether the story was set well or badly, then I will probably put a plus rather than a minus. I liked the play of the two main characters, and here I would not like to make any comments, the scenery seems to also look pretty good.
If you look at the story, I think that’s one of the strongest parts of the movie. In general, the film tells the story of a man who was disappointed in his life - once he was successful, rich, happy, but, according to the main character, he still had one drawback. The past life of the doorman is contrasted with his present life, when he was deeply disappointed in all loved ones. In the prisoner, he sees, first of all, the chance of his salvation, and from the very beginning two sides are fighting in him: one requires opening up to the new, future (and the young girl symbolizes, as I believe, nothing but a bright future, the road to which the doorman is always open), the other, more conservative, calls on the main character to live in the past, look back and not pay attention to the fact that new joyful moments awaiting ahead that could fill the life of the doorman.
In general, if we sum up, we can say that before us there is nothing but a reworked story about the demon-barber from Fleet Street, only corrected and changed in accordance with Russian reality. The main character fell into a completely different circumstances in the past, he has completely different reasons to live in the past and try to fix everything. But! Both the director and author of Demon the Barber certainly want to make it clear that there is nothing worse than looking back too much and living the past more than the present or the future. Play actors at a height, the plot is strong, although with some shortcomings, after the first viewing I want to review the film again, despite the fact that you already know how it will end, in short, I believe that the film deserves.
7 out of 10