In my opinion, the film is quite good, although some scripted roughness was noticeable. Khabensky managed to create a very interesting image of a man of a very negative profession so that despite all the negative things we learn about the character during the film, in particular, the methods by which this very successful specialist of his business extorts money from debtors, we imbue him with purely human sympathy when he turns from, roughly speaking, an executioner into a victim. Such a very victorious, easily walking through life, a very popular person is lonely and quite easily vulnerable. Khabensky is very good in this rather difficult role, because throughout the film, we see only one of his characters on the screen. I was a little puzzled by the straightforwardness of the parallels - when he, as if foreseeing his end in advance (it is unknown, of course, whether the end), calls the dying dog his name, as well as the desire of the lady blackmailing him in this way to "complete the plot", despite the fact that it seems that the husband did not commit suicide, but staged it, even paying the debt. But I watched the film with interest, visually it is also quite good, despite the limited space in which the action takes place.
Well, first of all, I didn't kill anyone. And second of all, if I said something unpleasant to your husband, it's my job.
Film "The Collector"
A film-dialogue (one big conversation on the phone between all the actors) about one day of work of an employee of a collection office (although for me personally this is not even a job, but just a bad kind of occupation).
An ordinary evening, ordinary affairs, everything seems normal, because the main character in fact does not set anyone on fire, does not kill, does not push under the train, just takes out debtors, morally intimidates them, maims them, brings them to paranoia, blackmails, in general, according to the main character and people with whom he works, they do nothing terrible ... all as always, everything can even be said perfectly, but today Arthur will have to answer for what he does, to be in the skin of a cornered beast, which everyone strives to poke with a stick ...
My opinion is that this film is exactly about the work of a typical collection office, there are many reservations about the conventions of fantasy. In reality, such organizations work much easier, angrier and more ruthlessly than the main character. In the film, despite Arthur’s success in his affairs, there is no idealization of the “profession” he is engaged in. We wonder how he will get out of the circumstances that have fallen on him, but I failed to empathize with him. He chose his own path and we can say that he got what he deserved.
The film is about human nature, about us! Why are we all such assholes under certain conditions? How do you deal with that? How not to become like Arthur or all this has become the norm and there is no need to worry at all?
What are we really better than this collector? Everyone is! For many, what he does is the norm (it would be otherwise would not be this profession), about how easily we change under the pressure of circumstances, turn away from each other, betray for our own benefit, adjust to circumstances, pulling on the mask of calmness and confidence in our infallibility (we are all such, why worry?).
As confirmation of all this, all the actors of this drama, there are practically no positive ones among them. Conventionally, this is Arthur's secretary, who, although afraid of leadership, still sympathizes with Arthur and helps him in whatever way she can, but at the same time, she also works together in Arthur and nothing in her kind of occupation so to speak embarrasses, and of course, a casual acquaintance from a veterinary hospital who, with her care for a dying dog, causes at least some positive feelings in the soul of the main character ... All the other characters are exactly the same people as Arthur, who can easily pose as the son of a dying man only to get a debt from him.
Thank you to the writers for this story with the dog, albeit cruel and sad, but giving both Arthur and us hope that not everything is lost in us, that there is goodness and humanity there, but it is only difficult to get to him sometimes and time to do it sometimes we have very little.
Very good choice of actor for the main role, definitely for viewing!
"The Collector" is a film about the heavy share of an honest worker from the PSYHUGRISHANTAGE department.
Khabensky calls some people with familiar voices. Drums sound. Then some people call Khabensky. The drums are playing again. One hour passes. Curtain. Credits.
There is an unspoken principle in cinema: show, not tell. Of course, circumstances and design matter. The author has the right to decide for himself: to show how the paint dries on the wall or to tell about it. “Collector” is the sound of paint drying on the wall, but accompanied by a conversation about the advantages and disadvantages of this very paint. Is that good?
Two wolves are fighting inside me. The first respects Khabensky’s acting talent, notes the interesting core of the plot and assesses the approach to filming well. The second wolf says that Khabensky’s first half-hour is overplaying, the plot within the framework of timekeeping is developing too quickly, so the finale comes suddenly and feels sharp. Morality is turned upside down, which makes the ambiguity even more ambiguous.
Both wolves found a compromise, shook each other's paws and went to drink tea. The chamber movie of “almost one” actor looks cheerful and does not have time to get tired, because it ends very quickly. The personal drama of the collector as a simple person is there. Charged and expressive emotions Khabensky - there. The intrigue and anticipation of the final is there. But the denouement, calling the viewer to think... But look for yourself. Or listen.
I'm not the kind of commentator who can appreciate the film from all production angles. But as for the script, the feint with the veterinarian is very banal. In general, having received a recommendation from a friend, I expected to see the tension of the plot somehow stronger, there was hope for Khabensky. This film does not use his abilities as an actor. The main character slides quite easily through the script and is not that directly excited. He's got everything under control. Lots of things. In the course of viewing, I had several ideas for the development of the plot in the direction of complication of the villain’s side. But it wouldn’t take a short time, really. From one of the comments, I learned that the idea is that the main character is one in the frame, and everything else is only the voices of other characters. Perhaps the idea itself is somehow artistically interesting, but in this film it did not give any special effect that deserves a separate word. I don’t want to be very low either, so that’s why.
I haven't seen a movie about collectors in a long time. Well, or rather were, but there they are shown mainly as formidable bouncers ready teeth to bite the debtor for 5 rubles. I will tell you from the point of view of profession, because in the past he was an employee of the bank engaged in collection.
The beginning of the film is quite ragged and at first it seems that this is some sort of boiler of dietary supplements. From the first shots it is unclear why this “conspiracy” is needed. In reality, the employee presents and conducts further conversation. Debt, who did not know "knocked out" is quite boring, and the employee must clearly pronounce the word "debt" and "contract" otherwise such speech is no more than naive coquetry.
The entourage of what is happening, of course, is also fun: a spacious and cozy office in the center of Moscow and for me does not look very similar to a collection agency / bank. In fact, the office of KA / Bank is quite a spacious room with a very large number of booths, where employees sit literally on each other's heads.
One day, a woman calls Arthur and claims that there is a video from which it follows that he drove her husband to suicide with his endless calls. From this moment, the plot begins in which Arthur has to find out everything and prove his innocence.
Arthur is not a collector. Yes, he is good at persuasion methods, quite stable emotionally. But again, in a real KA he would not work. Yes, of course, acting is necessary, but in the conflict situations shown in the main plot, when the borrower can masterfully fend off any psychological pressure, this will not help. The fact that he so easily collected half of the debt from the debtor who was in the hospital is no more than simple luck. In reality, the larger the amount, the more difficult it is to collect them. Often in court and with major scandals.
Back to the fact that Arthur is alone in the office. Yes, the film shows that all the action takes place after a working day. This technique creates a sense of detachment. In reality, of course, this is rare and usually someone is there.
All the dialogue takes place over the phone and I think it didn’t help the movie. The film mentions an exhibition of a fashion gallery artist. There is also a completely unnecessary dialogue with the veterinary clinic about the downed dog.
So why didn't I like the movie? Implausibility and playfulness. The director deliberately cut sharp corners and showed a certain “collector agency in a vacuum” with a glamorous office and kitchen, too eloquent dialogues of Arthur with interlocutors, for example, a journalist from Echo of Moscow.
I will not say that you can shoot a film based on any call from the spacecraft, but you can shoot a rather interesting plot on some resonant calls, but I will repeat it only if it is shown as it is and as close as possible to reality without pink snot. Even if you imagine that the plot of Arthur will be called for questioning and will be interrogated, which in principle did not interfere with the already short timekeeping. Would such a movie be interesting? Maybe. Again, depending on how to shoot and what to put on the foreground: boring promotion of a criminal case or a game with the police?
So what do we got? It's a boring movie without any heat. It affects the fact that the actor in the frame is one and this (I personally believe) did not benefit the film. Yes, there are movies where it creates an atmosphere of detachment, but here it is not the level 'Remember' Nolana, this shows a sluggish attempt to make drama from scratch. The ending of the film leads nowhere. It is not surprising, and does not make you think about anything. A grand piano in the bushes. More specifically, Deus Ex Machina.
I'm probably too cynical and callous to understand this movie.
I was intrigued by the description of the film. A successful person loses everything because of a forged video, and of course tries to find the villain and regain his good name. I was really looking forward to the thriller drama that is claimed in the description for the film, but got rantings that also didn’t impress me, although I also love psychology and all that.
In the beginning, I see a person who is doing his job and doing it very well. Debtors pay back money, and the main character is the most valuable employee. Personally, I don’t see any drama, tragedy or problem in it. A man just does what he has to do. There is nothing to complain about.
I didn't understand the film. Some video, some old man, a fire, a kindergarten and a puddle. If these components are combined into one version, it turns out either a thrash murder scenario from the thriller, or a ridiculous scene for 'Comedy Club'. And I also don't understand why an ordinary collector's misconduct became public in an instant.
After this “misdemeanor” from the main character turned away friends and colleagues. He realized he didn’t have any friends either. Due to a difficult situation, everyone wants to get a little benefit from the main character. That’s probably the only problem in this movie.
The moment with the downed dog did not impress me either. I understand what the authors wanted to put into this moment, but, in my opinion, they did not like it.
Musical accompaniment is completely unsuitable for events. The voices of telephone interlocutors are the same in sound and manner of speech, it seems that it is the same person. And they sound fake. Well, semantic blunders are also present, like a dog moaning in anesthesia or a courier who handed the phone to security and left without this phone.
Honestly, I do not understand the deep meaning of such a film, I simply do not see the problems, and as a result, I do not see the rebirth and understanding of the main character. For me, the film was empty and meaningless.
I have no children, but many debtors who behave like children.
Making films where the action takes place in a confined space is very risky. The viewer can get bored very quickly, because there is practically no dynamics there, and the action is accepted mainly on one actor. Bright examples of this genre are the films Locke, Phone Box and Buried Alive. Our country has decided not to lag behind the light of the film Collector.
Alexei Kraskovsky had a very difficult task, he had to put the film, with one actor, in the same office, and at the same time keep the viewer’s attention. And Alexei coped with it on ' excellent'.
Konstantin Khabensky reveals literally all his potential as a magnificent actor, which the country can be proud of, his hero initially appears before us as a negative character who creates real evil for people. And now the braid found on the stone, and the threats fly in his address, and serious. The character is reincarnated to the final of the picture, and appears before us in a completely different image. He was a hunter, but he was a victim, literally and figuratively.
According to the plot and dialogues, the Collector is more like a Locke than a phone booth, the hero of Khabensky does not see living people, and does not contact them live, all communication goes through the Internet or phone, as it was with the hero of Tom Hardy. The action does not go beyond the office in which Khabensky sits, but still it boasts its dynamism, every minute something happens and it is interesting to watch.
At the same time, the view of one room does not press on the eyes, here you can praise the operator and the installer, as well as the lighthouse, and in general the entire technical team. The film has pleasant tones, not annoying eyes, camera angles are interesting. In addition, the soundtrack of the film is a meditative ambient.
Outcome: Almost perfect movie for the evening. It has an intriguing atmosphere, the timing is not prolonged, behind the game Khabensky and the course of the plot, time flies by unnoticed.
Collector, it is not a shame to call a Russian thriller, and it may well fit into the canvas of the tapes, where you can feel claustrophobic.
If we talk globally, to take everything apart, then this film is about cruelty, I would even say, about a certain cannibalism. There's a collector that tortures people. But this is only one side of the coin, and the other is that there are people who seek to accuse the collector of all mortal sins. And in fact, it's a long debate about whether collectors are to blame for what they're doing.
And if we talk about the main character, then this is an extremely ambiguous type, which the environment has stuck. He would have been a different person, but he was surrounded by the same cannibals as himself - indifferent girl careerist, friend, greedy to gain and other people who have only money on their minds. And how can they help the innocent, what can they do? So he's sitting in the building, a chased beast. The interesting thing is that he's doing exactly the same experiment he did on people. Psychological pressure and threats are no longer his weapon.
Speaking of characters, there are many and different. And they're all good truthful. I especially liked it ' Widow' Madame, who threatened on the phone. Played brilliantly. Evgeny Stychkin in the role of an ironic friend is also beautiful. Khabensky, too. But that's his level, he did his job without surprises. This is what you should expect.
What do you say on the bottom line? The film, I would say, is philosophical, but I highly recommend it to amateurs. But for me personally, the film is one of the best that was made in the entire existence of the Russian Federation.
One actor, one room, talking on the phone. It would seem that it may be interesting, but thanks to an interesting, catchy plot, a beautiful game by Konstantin Khabensky, the result was a good built thriller, from which you can not break away. This film confirms the rule that the script should be in charge, not special effects. I rarely felt proud of Russian cinema, because they can, whenever they want. Especially, as I understand, everything was taken with enthusiasm. For real connoisseurs of cinema, who are interested in the ideas and disclosure of the script, I recommend revisiting the "Collector with the director's comment". I assure you, you will discover a lot of new things!
As is often the case, a really hooked film does not want to write a long, detailed review - it will turn out crooked, emotionally and inconcretely. And without emotions it is impossible, it will be cold, and this is even worse, even more inconcrete.
Normally, in such cases, I simply do not write reviews, but in the case of Collector, I am too eager to pay my respects to what I think is an undervalued work. I never expected such a strong picture! I was going to look at one eye, by a happy coincidence. This is original, I thought, when the whole film we look at one Khabensky!
But it turned out that we are not just watching, but living together, from minute to minute, passing each telephone conversation as your own – and not so everyday from nothing to do, but one in which expresses all who we have become and who could not become.
Krasovsky achieved a rare combination of dynamism and quality, entertainment and independence. This is not Malik, who is a thousand times beautiful and deep, but makes the mind painfully work to stay awake and understand something in the action on the screen. The collector himself leads the viewer, he shakes off his dream. And yet, through the words spoken (most often in an even tone) the same True human fate shouts about itself, to which all really complex and subtle stories are devoted.
These dialogues are not just about us, they are our dialogues. The very harsh essence to which even the closest ones rarely agree, but which nourishes what is said and done like an underground source. This is our indifference and our compassion, this is our inability to see the truth and our inability to forgive those who tell it, this is our gratitude and our monstrously cheerful selfishness of pleasure, for which ... what is wrong with that? And those are the rare moments that are really worth living and remembering. I don’t want to say more, because it’s better to watch without expecting anything in advance.
That priceless case when you do not have to love art house and keep under your pillow the German edition of Hesse to understand something important and join something really worthwhile. I recommend to everyone who appreciates drama not for compliance with cultural trends and not for a brilliant touch of Oscar-winning, but for conscience, truthfulness and ability to touch the soul.
One of the best domestic films. What can I say? After the “Collector” I began to search and for three days looked at all the post-serial creations of Krasovsky, which were just on the Internet.
9.5 out of 10
At one time in our country, the problem of collectors was of particular relevance when a number of scandals related to real crimes came to light, as a result of which people suffered or even died. Of course, it was important to display this topic in cinema, to show the essence of the problem itself, and what it is fraught with. The psychological thriller “The Collector” was devoted to this topic.
Synopsis Arthur, a collector with experience, used to achieve the goal not banal threats against debtors, but using subtle psychological tactics, when, finding the weakness of the opponent, mercilessly hit the most painful place. Thanks to such tactics, he earned respect among colleagues and superiors, as well as competitors. But one evening, Arthur’s whole life will be turned upside down when he receives a phone call from the wife of one of his “victims.”
Game of actors Although in fact "Collector" refers to the films of one role, given the fact that behind the scenes sounded the voices of truly talented actors, coupled with the viewing remained exceptionally positive impressions. Of course, first of all, I want to note the stunning performance of Konstantin Khabensky in the role of Arthur, a typical resident of business Moscow, who “on the drum” to other people’s problems, because in the foreground is his favorite work, on which he masterfully knocks out debts from his “victims”. However, being on the other side of the barricades, he realizes for the first time how much he has lost simple human qualities.
Alexey Krasovsky directed a very subtle psychological thriller on the topic of how collection destroys a person from the inside. At first, the director draws us Arthur a real connoisseur of his business, who for many years of “favorite” work has developed a special method that allows you to easily knock out debts. With such professionalism, he earned the respect of his superiors and colleagues, as well as the envy of competitors. However, this preoccupation with his work has developed a cold-blooded cynicism, which eventually falls against him. At first, the hero tries to correct the situation, but when nothing comes out, he tries to understand where he made a mistake. Looking at his past, the hero realizes his emptiness and inhumanity. I was especially impressed that he was helped to realize this by a downed dog. Such a subtle psychological technique disposes more to the film, making it more penetrating and soulful.
Scenario The plot of the film is quite simple and not intricate. The main character Arthur, one of the most successful collectors in Moscow, used to achieve his goal not with banal threats or physical violence, but with a psychological attack, when he finds the weak points of his victims, presses on the sore points and as a result achieves the desired. Of course, this lifestyle could not but lead to unpleasant consequences when the wife of one of his victims uploads to the Internet video, where Arthur may brutally deal with an elderly man. From the hero immediately turn away as colleagues, so once close friends, and now he needs to prove his innocence to the contents of the video and calculate who drew him into the whole story. However, these searches will not remain without a trace, because, looking at the present through the prism of his past, the hero sincerely realizes his mistake.
Result To my surprise, the film turned out to be really good and worthy of attention. What draws attention is that the creators focus not so much on the collector profession as such, but on how this kind of activity changes a person from the inside, before it is too late. The only thing is that the film lacked certainty about the ending. But despite this, the "Collector" is recommended for viewing.
In time immemorial, when the ideas for unusual plots in world cinema were over, filmmakers came up with the idea of locking people in confined spaces. But when that context was exhausted, they went on and left them there one at a time. In general, this idea has not been squeezed to the end to this day, although we have seen something like this more than once; but for domestic cinema the case is almost unprecedented. And even shot about a representative of such a topical profession as a collector, which from the very beginning adds interest.
In connection with the above, this film reminded me most of Cortes's ' Buried Alive': both there and here the main characters are buried in graves - the first in the present, and the second rather in the grave of life circumstances; both there and here there are only telephones from survival tools - however, in the first case you have to call strangers, and in the second quite familiar, only they do not burn with a great desire to communicate; there are also ' telephone ' antagonists and assistants. In both cases, the authors have prepared an unusual ending for us.
It is worth noting that domestic creators, unlike foreign colleagues, tried to add a maximum of psychologism to this stingy on possible events, and even there was a place for any love line. But the salt was hidden in how the protagonist, a professional collector named Arthur, a man for whom nothing was sacred, finally found a human face. And the line with the dog, in my opinion, was intended to demonstrate the apotheosis of this humanization.
I can’t say that the film disappointed me or liked me. But it was at least unusual.
It is very difficult to write anything about the film "The Collector", without slipping into the temptation to stupidly retell the plot, and ask for opinions on the open ending. But since I want to write terribly, I will try to stay within the framework.
Script - one word - literature. Any writer will understand me and will tear up half of the novel started out of envy ... That's when you can't take a breath out of a song. Humor is humorous, pain is painful, emptiness is empty, and the mind is intelligent. You smile, but really much more often it is the opposite - from humor hurts, from how-so-so funny, emptiness too abstruse to bear its name, and in the head of the declared wise man clearly and virginally empty ... “Had they not declared her beauty out loud, no one would have guessed it.” The more you watch movies and read books, the more you appreciate rare compositions, where the handsome is really beautiful, and the terrible truth without fools is scary. "Collector" is just such a story.
But, you know, if the writer and the director were different people, maybe the movie would never come out. Having admired enough, the director would have spread his hands: you, dear writer, are an incredible fellow and almost a genius, but what would you order me to make action cinema?! Your hero all the way from corner to corner in his night office, and the viewer meanwhile noisily yawns and switches to a spectacular game of thrones.
The more striking is how filigree Krasovsky, with inconceivably scanty artistic means (!), achieves hypnotic confinement to the screen. Of course, a considerable merit of Khabensky himself, who, the “mirror” of telephone interlocutors, incomprehensibly animates the characters, seemingly left far behind the scenes. And in the end, there is a clear feeling that I personally met each of them.
... The camera follows the hero, follows the night of his sold conscience. And the hero goes for the voices in the tube, for the cheerful cynicism left outside the window, in the sparkling lights of Moscow, in which he, it would seem, will never get again. And maybe it didn't seem like... Maybe if you lose measure one day and walk too far, someone will suddenly snap the lock from the outside and you will have to ... see and take a good look at how the darkness within your locked life has gone no less seriously. But just a half hour ago, here it is, reach out and touch, there was not the slightest doubt: it is you who owns it, not she who owns you. But only a large-scale person, like the hero of Khabensky, could not burst from indignation in response. Whole me! Guard! Yes, I do! . . . and in the end hear the siren of fate and make a truly 180-degree metamorphosis. Once again I was convinced: for a person who is ugly by minus a billion, it is enough to draw one vertical line, and it will come out - plus a billion. No matter what you draw, you won’t see the difference. But the film "The Collector" is about a big man. Who was great in evil, and remained great by changing the barricade. The fact that the change had to pay dearly – well... This world was not invented by us. Time to collect debts and time to pay them off.
10 out of 10
Khabensky, of course, drags, and therefore to make a film where you will not see a single person except for him is a win-win venture. Also, the screenwriters of the film very guessed with the fact that the traditional theatrical playfulness and ostentatiousness of the dialogues of our cinema here is successfully masked by an outrageous protagonist - the ability to control yourself at an inhuman level, calculate the interlocutor and build unusual phrases quite fits into the profession of a good collector. From all this undertaking it would be possible to squeeze even more, if the creators of the picture did not swing at a deliberately uncalculated finale and do not overstep the stick with the plausibility of the plot - they played. However, it turned out very well.
7 out of 10
If you like the trailer, that’s how the whole movie will be. The nearest good analogue is the film 'Lock'.
You won’t like it if you have a built-in Russian theatrical smoke detector, and you are afraid of obviously made-up dialogues like fire. The nearest bad analogue is the film 'Satisfaction' (there, too, one actor, if both are made together).
kinobalashow
I will note at once that the impression of the film greatly depends on what to tune in to when watching it. If you tune in to Khabensky’s play, taking into account, of course, that Khabensky likes as an actor, then the impression, perhaps, will be the most positive. Expect an interesting or original plot, or that the film will leave an indelible impression in the soul, perhaps, is not worth it. This film is reminiscent of Grishkovets’ performances, but with an actor less suited for single play.
And yet the film is definitely worth watching, it perfectly shows modern business people, their attitude to others, to themselves and to life in general. In particular, the hunt for the oligarch, unscrupulous actions, lack of morality, mutual set-ups and all this background is an inextricable fear in the feelings of the participants due to the fragility and fragility of their positions in the conditions of modern realities.
In addition, the very idea of the film is quite original - at least, for domestic cinema, and not just original, but also albeit quite original, but at the same time well implemented. And then over the past 5-7 years, I had the impression that we shoot good films only about the Great Patriotic War and about sports - on other topics, it seems, state funding cannot be knocked out.
Returning to acting, it is impossible not to note the ease and congruence with which Khabensky played the Collector - moreover, not just the Collector, but a ruthless professional in his field, who knows how to separate work and emotions, which is so unusual for a Russian person, therefore can cause some rejection from the viewer. And at the same time, personally, I like his role as Medlin more, and the series itself left a much better impression than the film The Collector. Summing up my thoughts and impressions, I will say that Khabensky is better in the team than Khabensky solo, but if the reader really likes Khabensky’s game directly, then the film is definitely worth watching.
6 out of 10.
An incredibly sterile picture of the life of an ordinary but successful collector, for whom 500 thousand rubles is not money, working in a beautiful glass office and attending art exhibitions in his spare time. And whose social life almost ends after the Internet appears incriminating video with his participation.
Yes, Russian cinema is trying to get up from its knees, going through an incredible number of genres, themes and thoughts. “The Collector” – a chamber, minimalist film-performance – turned out to be an unusual representative of Russian cinema, capable of capturing, albeit briefly, the viewer’s attention.
Undoubtedly, the “one-actor theater” represented by Konstantin Khabensky was successful. He's a great actor, which he proved once again. The remaining roles and, accordingly, the characters are presented as voices behind the scenes. They, unlike Arthur, the character of Khabensky, betray their characters with their heads, so banal. Yes, voiceovers are banal. The voice of a bitch like a bitch, the voice of a weak boss like a weak boss, the voice of a good girl like a good girl. But it makes sense. The plot and events of the film inexorably run forward, do not allow you to think about and evaluate what is happening, so voices that fully reveal their owners are even useful here.
So what's the end result? Have I been able to smother a professional collector? I doubt it. I can’t say I didn’t like the movie either. Of course, this is not a thriller, with the plot everything is obvious and there is no heat of passion, but it is definitely worth watching at least to realize that our cinema has a future.
For centuries it has been known that the word has the most destructive, and at the same time healing and creative power. That is why in the beginning there was a word, and that word was God. God only gives us what we can overcome. Here is also Arthur, being a collector, a kind of murderer, in whose arsenal the word is the main weapon, suddenly, ironically, becomes the same victim of oppression as all his past clients, and his entire imaginary world in an instant rolls into Tartarara and turns inside out.
No matter how strange it may sound, but it is Konstantin Khabensky who often becomes the decoration of almost any film with his participation. This is the actor who, like no other, most accurately conveys the emotions and experiences of a Russian, sometimes verbose, layman, tired of modern false morals and morality, forced to huddle and coexist with other, even more lost people, contacting them through a phone or a locked door. And ' Collector' - another reason to see this. A film built on dialogue, with simple music, but cut into memory words: how easy it is to outsmart an old man, posing as his son, but how difficult it is to deceive your own conscience.
It would seem that the woman who arranged all this, who administers justice and thereby punishes the offender, actually does a bear, but a service to Arthur, in whose life there were not those people, not that job, not that meaning. And it is this curious case that allows him to see the true essence of things and finally see what is really important. When all this happens, when Arthur, with a calm and peaceful soul, can again breathe freely and go out to meet a new life, it suddenly breaks off - as quickly as an epiphany descended, like a catharsis, akin to the famous tragedies of Shakespeare, or the famous words of Tarkovsky: ' As soon as we have our own experience, life ends - and this is the meaning of being' Maybe it's because it's just a movie, or maybe it's because these days, you can only understand with a battered, whining dog thrown on the edge of a road that nobody cares about. . .
The film is a benefit of Konstantin Khabensky, who is the only actor to appear on the screen. From time to time, he talks to someone on the phone, but these characters only shade the main character, showing him from a variety of angles. The story of the collector Arthur turned out to be very strong, she takes it alive already in the tenth minute and does not let go until the very final. In less than an hour and a half, you get so close to the character that you start to see him as someone very close. Working in a specific field, Arthur becomes one of the best specialists in his field, resorting to rather ambiguous actions. The viewer is well shown professional deformation, a person hones the work of his life and is not always a change for the better. However, Arthur is perceived as a positive character even though he does not always do the right thing.
Overnight, this man’s entire world collapses, and he has to make many difficult decisions to get out from under his rubble. And the way he does it and the way his inner world changes is fascinating. I admire strong people who can walk against the wind, even if the wind is much stronger than them. Therefore, the final was a shock to me, I did not expect such a denouement and consider it unfair and undeserved. Everything that this man had to answer for, he had already responded with his environment, knocking the ground out from under his feet. The film is amazing, I highly recommend it.
I am skeptical about Russian cinema. With rare exceptions. I read the description, it seemed interesting. Well, I think it's an exception to what's being filmed right now. I thought I'd look. Now impressions:
The idea and plot of the film is really interesting, unusual and original. A collector who ruined the lives of debtors with his calls, not disdaining any dirty tricks, one day becomes a victim of a phone call himself.
Action: and action is actually not. The whole film, and this is a little more than an hour, there is one person in the frame - Khabensky, who is in the office. Yes, there is a genre, or rather a variety of films, in which during the whole (or almost all) of the film in the frame appears only one person. And yes, there are some very interesting films. Same 'Rogue' or 'Buried Alive', for example. But in the course of watching this film, I did not leave the feeling of waiting, waiting for some action, some dynamics in what is happening. And here's the ending, credits, I sit and wonder: ' And that's it?' Yeah, that's it. The end.
Heroes: Well, what can I say... In the frame we see only Kostya Khabensky. On his acting, talent and charisma and holds the whole film. He has no complaints. We hear other people. And it would seem that their task here is much easier, only ' to play with voice ' and in the frame you do not even need to appear, but no. The chief of the main character speaks somehow disgusting, fake. Tatiana Lazareva, known to everyone as KVNschitsa, host and participant of various humorous shows as a serious businesswoman? Well, her mocking and easily recognizable voice does not go for this role.
Music: sounds bad and sometimes gets on your nerves. Yes, there are scenes where the music should emphasize the tension and experiences of the protagonist. But during one of these scenes, the music makes you want to turn off the speakers. It was overdone, in one word.
Plot: Some points are not entirely clear. What are they and what is their logical continuation? The story of the downed dog is interesting, but it is unclear what the filmmakers wanted to say. The ending of the film is unexpected, unpleasant and, most importantly, incomprehensible. What will happen to the main character? One can only guess. Insufficient, that’s how you describe the whole film. The video that blackmailed the main character was never shown. From the description, you can only guess what was there. And the video itself is inherently absurd and it is hard to believe that people took it seriously and raised such hype because of it. What did a friend send him about the husband of the woman who called him? What happened to him, is he still alive? I don't understand. Many interesting and important moments in the film are simply not shown. Apparently, the filmmakers decided to make it intrigue. However, it seems that this is just a scam. There’s a funny moment in the film when bags of ' content are brought to the venue.' And that's funny! If only you could make that movie in Hollywood. All the absurdity of the situation, the reaction of those present. But where is this scene? She's not. We learn about this from the conversation of the main character Arthur and Tatiana. Because the filmmakers decided to either save and cheat on the shooting and the actors, or hoped to bring the whole film to the talent of Khabensky.
Bottom line: alas, they failed. The idea was good, the implementation was blown up. As a result, we see Khabensky sitting in the office and talking on the phone for more than an hour. Is it worth the hour? You decide.
In order not to shit at the end, I will immediately present a minus: the soundtrack was taken from Birdman by Alejandro González Iñárritu. This picture is not that not for everyone, but in general is aimed at a narrow circle of gourmet viewers. One role, one location, one Kostya. That's it. Everyone knows the people of this profession – collectors. You need to have restraint, be literate, use psychological attacks and go to various extreme measures. The hero of this picture Arthur has all the above qualities, a master of his craft, so he is entrusted with large sums of influential people. They hear negatives and threats more often than greetings in the morning.
All minor characters interact with Arthur only by phone. This is the best part when watching. Slowly, searching word by word from each short telephone conversation, viewers get acquainted with the history of the collector, various debtors and third parties related to the main character. After the workshops of the “hamstrings” of the hero, he himself becomes a target. Well, this profession has its drawbacks. A confused story with a setup comes on stage and acquires details with each time, or rather with each phone call.
It is impressive that the very cause of the conflict is not shown to the viewer, only reaction and observation from the outside. Incredibly harsh actions occur: bosses, competitors, colleagues and ordinary witnesses interact secondary, uniting only on Arthur. Brilliantly shown changes in the nature of the harsh collector, his views and needs, attitudes to others - all this is fascinating and pleasantly surprising. It’s amazing how watching just one character can only reveal others by talking. Perfect!
Of course, the refueling to all this interesting show follows an impeccable finale.
He compared the domestic film with Locke (Tom Hardy) and Cosmopolis (Robert Pattinson). Ours can make good movies. Konstantin Khabensky made an encore. It is in such a movie that you can evaluate the actor’s talent and attitude to the whole film. Yes, and Khabensky's original voice is more realistic. Judge for yourself, in foreign projects we have dubbing, and in our cinema everything is transmitted directly from the actor to the viewer.
The story is divine, despite the fact that the hero is an outright scoundrel and a completely conscious scoundrel.
A story of failed repentance.
We see that the character (somehow awkward to call him a hero), accustomed to driving people into a corner, finds himself in their own position. This is retribution, and suffering forces him to rethink his life. The character's movement of repentance can be traced back to his relationship with a dying dog - it's no coincidence that he calls her by his name. It is in this situation that the key phrase is that the most cruel thing you can think of is to give hope and immediately take it away. This is what the character did to one of his clients.
The character is already close to repentance, he already understands that driving a person to suicide is a serious crime for which he is responsible. But unexpected circumstances – the client is alive and well – interrupt the process. He's back to the king, back on the horse and feeling unpunished.
The punishment was for a different crime. . .
In general, a good and serious film. Thank you very much.
When professionalism is more important than morality
Collector Arthur (Konstantin Khabensky) is famous for his ability to find the weak points of customers and make them pay the debts of the most notorious of them. But someone is trying to break the ground from under his feet by posting a provocative video online. To solve the problem, he will have to spend a night in the office, because there is an angry crowd waiting downstairs ' fans'.
A kind of anti-detective and theater of one actor. And although the action almost does not go beyond one office, it is quite captivating. Of course, primarily due to the main character actor of the country Khabensky, saving in the course of the film not so much his place and public reputation, but rather the human in himself. And the viewer should arise from the negative charm of the collector sympathy for a normal person in general.
But the actor is one in fact, but this is not a theater. In the space of the theater scene it would be difficult to create an image of a virtual environment (almost the Matrix), in which there is a hero - phones, social networks, radio and TV. After all, they have long been the only possible form of social being, normal reality has turned almost into nothingness (in the plot this metaphor becomes absolute, thanks to the final episode). And here the director with sound, light, shadow, camera creates a movie with one real hero, placing it in absolutely visible to the viewer, but not embedded in the screen virtual circumstances. So directing matters, too, although some scripted turns and dialogues are embarrassing. . .
As for the ideas, they lie not in the plane of justification of collection work or pure genre entertainment (although Krasovsky did not shoot an art house), but in the deformation of moral norms and the rapid development of publicity. In the end, professional duty is more important than the norms of private life, and the blackmailed collector becomes as much a victim of public information as his clients. And professionalism not only for others, but also for him, obscures people and even dogs. And this is a sign of time, not a specific craft.
They make different movies in Russia. There is a mass, which forms the idea of Russian cinema in general, and which, for the most part, discredits itself. There is a good segment of author’s cinema, which, apparently, is more appreciated abroad. And there is such a movie as "The Collector" - good, high-quality filmed, interesting, and at the same time not claiming much.
Unfortunately, such films remain without much attention. But the budget is usually not big.
“Collector” is a benefit of Konstantin Khabensky, who plays the role of this collector. At one point, the master of knocking out debts on the phone himself becomes a victim of one of his “clients”.
As the problem is solved, the essence of the main character is revealed. But this is done not by reasoning and reflection, but in the course of conversations (telephone and not only) with different people. These people never appear in the whole movie. We hear a voice from the next office; from behind the door; from the other end of the wire. Therefore, it would be more correct to call it not dialogues, but a monologue of the main character.
Voices of “invisible” interlocutors, as if they sound specially played, unnatural. Or maybe it just seems against the background of the brilliant acting of Khabensky, who seems to not play at all.
The film cannot be called boring. Despite the presence of only one actor in the frame and, in fact, one location, he looks in one breath. In addition, a successful, for this genre, timing in one hour with a little. The picture ends before it gets bored.
Dramatic, kind, moderately sad, and most importantly interesting movie, will definitely find its viewer. Fans of the game genre, and especially fans of Khabensky, definitely should not miss this.
Khabensky. A lot of Khabensky. Seventy-five minutes of Khabensky!
The Collector is a film by one actor. If you want to admire the game of Konstantin Khabensky, turn on, you will not regret it.
Built around the story of one collector who knocked out, knocked money out of people, sometimes not the simplest methods, spoiled their lives, and one day received a response. And this is how he gets out of this answer, and whether he gets out - and there is the intrigue of the film.
Not the length of the tape, only one hour fifteen minutes.
Mono-performance filmed on camera. One place, one action, one time. And it looks good! Rare for domestic cinema. As far as I remember, the film was not released in wide distribution, but it was shown at film festivals.
In general, I like the setting of the frame and the movement of the hero, and how this affects the storyline. The light of the picture, by the way, also plays an important role. The tone of the frame and the change of lighting during the play from light to dark.
Relevance of the topic. We often hear about the people in the news. I would not say that the topic of this position is fully disclosed, it would be possible to turn and even more heartwarmingly turn. But we stopped at what happened.
As I watched the movie, I thought, but it was probably shot in two days. So it is, found information on the network - 84 hours.
Minuses -
One of the genres of the film is a psychological thriller. I still lacked some spice and pepper in this story. Because sometimes the film I still put on pause and distracted by some other things. Maybe she wasn’t there yet.
I won't end it, you'll find out. It seemed a little different to me, but that’s the salt.
The music has familiar notes from the film 'Berdman' which may also have been a source of inspiration. And who doesn't plagiarize? But let this be the biggest sin of the creators of this film.
In general, you can see it.
You’ve noticed that even stray dogs respond to whistles – they also want someone to call them.
I really appreciate modern - high-quality and interesting - domestic films. ' Collector' just one of these small amounts. This is a monofilm in which most of the frame is only Konstantin Khabensky. But the film does not become boring or boring from this, on the contrary, it keeps the viewer in suspense until the end and makes him watch the events with interest.
Why don't you want to run away?
- I'm not wearing shoes to run.
Plot
The collector Arthur is one of the best in his pure work, everything goes well for him, and his conscience does not torture him. But one evening he receives a call from an unknown woman who decided to avenge Arthur for the suicide of her husband, posting a video on the Internet defaming a public person. Arthur tries overnight to find a woman, prove that the video is a fiction, and restore his reputation.
I didn't kill anyone.
- You cornered a man and left no other way.
- It's my job to help people pay back.
1. Shooting. Enclosed space, wonderful camera and directing work.
2. Konstantin Khabensky is just fine in this role. He's good at everyone, though. He shows all the vicissitudes of his character.
3. Duration. Many tapes lack a sense of proportion, but this film is literally a little more than an hour and during this time does not allow the viewer to get bored.
4. Chronicity. How many reports can we see on the news about these ' collectors ' So who's on the other side of the tube?
The truth can be terribly boring.
I recommend everyone watch this movie. You may not like it, but you can’t say it’s a bad movie, it’s a very good movie, especially for our cinema. Filmmakers in our country at the moment, only make attempts to leave the viewer in suspense throughout the viewing. 'The Collector' is the movie that makes it five plus. I really appreciate these tapes.
Here it is perfectly revealed ' collector' as a person with his own problems and so on, because when we talk to a stranger on the phone, we do not think that there is a person like us, we do not humanize him at all in our minds. For us there is only his voice, but it is not.
8 out of 10
Full-length monoplay in the spirit of “Revelations” by Alexei Krasovsky
Full-length picture ' Collector' Director and screenwriter Alexei Krasovsky is an organic embodiment of the style set by its creator, in which the series ' Revelations' with Kirill Pirogov in the title role. A distinctive feature of the special ' manners of cinematic writing' inherent in the mentioned works of Krasovsky is their intimacy and psychology - all the action unfolds within one location so that the audience's attention is focused on the dialogue between the two characters present in the frame.
In ' Collector' the author goes further - only the title character, brilliantly played by Konstantin Khabensky, remains on the screen, and we can only hear other characters. We must pay tribute to the skill of the actors of the second plan, which of the available means of expression remained only the voice - only with its help you need to create a unique character. Everyone is doing this more than successfully.
However, is it easy for the performer of the main party, on which all the audience attention is focused? The answer is obvious. The choice of the actor for the central role is an absolute hit, because who, if not K. Khabensky, pull out the blanket of screen time (and this is for a second 74 minutes!), forcing the audience to tirelessly monitor every turn of the head, the nuances of intonations and the vicissitudes of the dramatic plot, whose development does not go beyond the Moscow office, from where a luxurious view of the night capital opens. Fascinating by its power, charisma creates the very same ' charm of evil', familiar to connoisseurs of Krasovsky’s work from his previous films (it is enough to remember Eve in the excellent performance of Vera Strokova from ' Revenge'); but at the same time allows you to see through the mask of a profession condemned by society a living person - deeply lonely, rushing like a tiger driven into a tight cage.
Of course, Arthur is a high-class professional, for whom competitors fight, while his methods are not street-criminal threats, but tactics of sophisticated psychological pressure. He elevated his morally dubious craft to the level of skill and achieved success in the conventional sense - he has a high income, demand, wife. But in fact ' success' fragile and crumbles like a house of cards, as soon as the hero faces a serious obstacle that threatens his reputation. If you sow the wind, you will reap a storm: a woman obsessed with revenge for the death of her husband, driven to suicide by a collector, publishes a video in which allegedly Arthur commits arson and creates another god knows what in the eyes of children. Predator and victim change places. And a fancy office becomes a trap.
In this situation, the hero feels his loneliness even more acutely. He used to shut himself off from the world, preferring to deal with it at a distance, because it is safer - you will have time to dodge a blow or warn him by attacking first. And in this context, another way to look at Arthur's conversation with the security guard over the closed door. This is a metaphorical picture of his communication with the people around him. At the same time, you can’t escape life – and here the parallel story of a stray dog hit on the road is symbolic. At first, after driving past, he still picked her up and took her to the vet clinic, which means that there was a bit of compassion in him, albeit from the series ' the more I get to know people, the more I love dogs' Arthur feels himself ' shot down by a pilot' as abandoned and unnecessary as this stray dog who, despite everything, desperately clings to life. And from the life of Arthur disappear and demand (the boss dismisses retroactively), and friends (long-become ex), and his wife (' we are together only when good'), and does not leave him completely only faithful Lyson, like Sancho Panza, encouraging his boss. And there are only two voices left in the phone - the voice of Conscience (the widow) and the voice of Hope (the Tamara of the veterinary clinic). There is an urgent need to change something. Although sometimes you want in a fit of anger to pour out on the world around you all the abomination that has accumulated in your soul (as in the film - bags of dung at the door of the gallery), it is better to leave behind all doubtful achievements and past grievances, for ' there is always another way out'...
10 out of 10
Interesting story. Camera performance does not deprive the film of the inseparable attention of the audience until the very end. The script, of course, required revisions, but Khabensky's game - exactly 5 plus (I doubt that anyone would have played a better role). He made an interesting idea of the movie, which can be safely recommended to everyone, regardless of taste preferences.
The main leitmotif: there are no bad people, and there are no good people, even the profession of a collector is ambiguous. Some positive for society personality manifest themselves from the worst side. Traditional techniques to elicit sympathy for an initially negative character also work.
The thought of accepting ' as it is' by its unyieldingness reveals the obvious lack of this very acceptance in the lives of the filmmakers. But on the creation of the film worked mostly men (here I even wondered why the film so sentimental?)
Reminds me of ' Satisfaction' with Grishkovets. The same ode to justice within the four walls. I recommend it.
To surprise the audience, filmmakers often resort to experiments. This is 3D, and cinema with smells, and virtual cinema, and shot in the first person, as well as many other tricks that go filmmakers around the world. Russia is no exception in this regard. But as this film shows, sometimes one location and one actor are enough for success. Where it is necessary to place the accents correctly and as a result get an interesting and high-quality product.
Director Alexei Krasovsky in his debut feature-length work decided to turn to the topical social theme of collection. In recent years, this problem has acquired a very painful background. And therefore, even before the release of the rental, it caused controversy because of its content. But it is surprising that the director of the series made such a worthy film for the debut, both from a technical point of view and in terms of storytelling. I especially want to praise the work of the operator Denis Firstov, visually the picture is shot as if in a glossy style.
This is a real one-man show. Small for modern cinema timekeeping in 74 minutes, contains the story of one very successful collector Arthur. He is a true master of his craft, masterfully breaking debtors psychologically. He is very successful, but one day he becomes the object of blackmail. Hunter-victim. The intrigue is whether Arthur can get out of the situation or not. In my opinion, there is one significant disadvantage in the scenario. It's a finale that seemed out of place in the context of the overall story.
Chamber drama with a single character in the frame. This is an existential film that tells the viewer not about the profession of the main character, but about his life foundations and moral choice. In fact, he could be anyone, that’s not the main thing. During the film, we see the inner transformation of the hero. If at first we feel negative towards him, then gradually his human qualities cause sympathy and understanding.
In such a mono film, the actor plays a key role. It should keep the viewer’s attention throughout the action. Konstantin Khabensky is one of the best actors in Russia. His talent and charisma are known throughout the country. In this film, he demonstrates his skills to the fullest. He does not play, but lives his role. In a short period of time, he demonstrated the full range of emotions and experiences of his hero. The rest are represented only by votes by phone.
Collector is a very worthy product of domestic cinema. Chamber, tense, atmospheric and deep existential drama. With excellent acting work, visually expressive staging and a bold idea of the director. The picture deserves attention.
Movie for the evening. It looks like a breath. Good quality. Khabensky is as good as ever. It's just him. You never get tired of looking at it.
Beautiful female voices on the phone. The filmmakers did a good job at this. The actress is not in the frame, but the whole film enjoys their voices.
But the script is not so perfect. Even the naked eye can see that the plot is far-fetched. Some unknown collector, albeit successful, suddenly becomes top news because of some video, the falsity of which is recognized by completely strangers. The almighty secretary, who in two accounts gets information about anyone - and this is essentially everything that is so ' successful' the main character.
Live on Echo of Moscow is the worst episode of the script. Unnatural. The last scene seemed to me too stretched by the ears.
Although there are good moments in the script. A story with a girl from a veterinary clinic, a relationship with the wife (or girlfriend) of the main character.
And in general, the script keeps you on edge. It's a good movie.
But nothing more. After the film does not leave the idea that this idea (by the way, stolen) could be done better.
Nevertheless:
This is my first ever film review. But it was the "Collector" that pushed me to register on the Kinopoisk.
How good is the picture of the film – the idea, the interior, the actor, the voiceover is amazing! It would seem that all the components are in place! Ahn no. That's not enough.
I wonder what target audience this film is intended for. Since when have people with high intelligence and excellent erudition become collectors? Have filmmakers ever encountered collectors? Indeed, collectors drive people into a complete dead end, lead to suicide, heart attacks, strokes. And not only debtors, but also their close, guarantors. They do not allow people to live, call work, friends and neighbors, hang ads in the entrance, violate all conceivable and unthinkable limits, without any individual approach. I believe that there is also the reverse side of the coin – the collector is also not every person will go to work, probably they have their own reasons, their life situations that lead them to this.
The film does not reveal either side of the coin. This dog incident is gonna be a big deal, too, eh? The dog was miserable, well, no gates. What the author wanted to say with this film. . .