As far as I know, director Yuri Bykov is being sued for allegedly commissioned political cinema. Maybe, but the movie wasn’t a bad political thriller. You can watch. There's part two.
Motivating detective on geopolitics. That's great!!
The series "Sleeping" was very pleasant.
My delight consists not so much in the plot or the play of actors, but in the very fact of the appearance of such a product on wide screens, because it has a very distinctive character.
This creates a danger for its creators, which was confirmed by the public condemnation of his work on the series directed by Yuri Bykov. Most likely, this was done under the onslaught of certain forces that either deliberately engage in bullying, or at the subconscious level reject such information. However, the film reveals similar processes, but I will not run ahead, but go through the points:
Construction of the series
The greatest admiration for me is that the film does not need to be deciphered: in it the authors not only promote the plot (show reality like a mirror), but also give an assessment of what is happening. They give it not from the point of view of getting money, comfort, short-term benefits, but from the point of view of patriotism, love for the Motherland, perhaps even moral values.
In it, the right thing is said by a positive character to the negative.
Since we still tend to perceive everything and everyone “by clothes”, I think this is very important. Well, agree, if your friend, say, a worker in the shop or a salesman in a kiosk, will tell you how to make your first million – you will laugh, even though he can pronounce capital truths.
It is different when something right sounds from the mouth of a person who with all his appearance proves the truthfulness of his words. And if he is also handsome, stately, strong, brave, and even calm and reasonable - thus, he has a better chance of being heard, his words will acquire an educational effect.
That's what the protagonist is.
Fabula
The film says that the causes of many upheavals and tragedies of our lives are hidden not at the everyday level - their threads stretch somewhere upwards, more globally; to people who are difficult to suspect of anything, but who have a huge influence and are among us. They are helped, or act as such, by the so-called “sleepers”, who are part of an agent network into which the interests of different countries are intertwined and which permeates the entire society.
As you know, our "sworn friends" in the international arena do not disdain by any means to achieve their goals - color revolutions are in fashion today.
Since our people (and many other countries), for the most part, believe the media and do not take them critically (he recalls “Oh, it is not difficult to deceive me, I am happy to deceive myself”), the first step is to create the necessary picture & #39; in television and the Internet (twisting comments on social networks and the participation of bloggers), then organizing crowds, covering protests on TV, the appearance of victims among the protesters, creating chaos.
The film chews up all these mechanisms, having a link to real events.
The tragedy of sleepers
What is the tragedy of sleepers?
On the surface lies the fact that they once stood on the path of betrayal of the Motherland and work for another state. This is not just an internal decision – it is certain connections, initiation into secrets and secrets; such people are hanged on a hook, which can pull at any moment.
If you dig deeper, the tragedy of “sleepers” as individuals is that they are not ready to die for their way of life. Of course, no one wants to part with his life, but one thing to become hostage to bank accounts, real estate abroad, yachts, cars, teaching children in Cambridge; another thing to die for the homeland, for faith, for family or children in real danger.
At the moment of truth, this causes a shock, but there is no time to realize and correct mistakes - mat is almost set.
More about the main character
The positiveness of the main character is complemented by his lack of obvious lust.
No, he is not perfect, he is an ordinary man with his passions and desires, but one who tries to resist the hidden female temptation - he desperately resists the effects of female tricks and the naked body (modern girls and women dress in a way that is difficult to call them dressed).
Negative character image
Modern cinema gradually accustoms viewers to the idea that negative elements – criminals, maniacs, perverts, libertines, gays, pedophiles and other zoophiles deserve not so much condemnation, but rather understanding and sympathy: allegedly they are not bad – but just others, not like us!
In this series, a cold-blooded criminal is shown as one who gradually realizes the horror of his life and tries to take the path of correction. This is a prototype of some repentance and this model of crime in films I approve.
Disadvantages
Of course, you can find inconsistencies, tension and wishes for the characters; some moments I would like to show differently, add something or take away, but to cover this in a review would be blasphemy over all the pros and labors of the acting and directing groups.
The film is good and period.
The end
If you have thoughts about why everything is so good, and we are bad; why such clumsy roads, why officials steal, why schools are not repaired and children grow obstinate – watch this series, it helps to find answers to these questions!
My delight consists not so much in the plot or the play of actors, but in the very fact of the appearance of such a product on wide screens, because it has a very distinctive character.
This creates a danger for its creators, which was confirmed by the public condemnation of his work on the series directed by Yuri Bykov. Most likely, this was done under the onslaught of certain forces that either deliberately engage in bullying, or at the subconscious level reject such information. However, the film reveals similar processes, but I will not run ahead, but go through the points:
1 Design of the series
The greatest admiration for me is that the film does not need to be deciphered: in it the authors not only promote the plot (show reality like a mirror), but also give an assessment of what is happening. They give it not from the point of view of getting money, comfort, short-term benefit, but from the point of view of patriotism, love for the Motherland, perhaps even moral values.
In it, the right thing is said by a positive character to the negative.
Since we still tend to perceive everything and everyone “by clothes”, I think this is very important. Well, you agree, if your friend, say, a worker in the shop or a salesman in a kiosk, will tell you how to earn your first million – you will laugh, although he can pronounce capital truths.
It is different when something right sounds from the mouth of a person who with all his appearance proves the truthfulness of his words. And if he is also handsome, stately, strong, brave, and even calm and reasonable - thus, he has a better chance of being heard, his words will acquire an educational effect.
That's what the main character is.
2 Fabulum
The film says that the causes of many upheavals and tragedies of our lives are hidden not at the everyday level - their threads stretch somewhere upwards, more globally; to people who are difficult to suspect of anything, but who have a huge influence and are among us. They are assisted or acted as such by the so-called “sleepers”, who are part of an agent network in which the interests of different countries are intertwined and which permeates the entire society.
As you know, our "sworn friends" in the international arena do not disdain by any means to achieve their goals - color revolutions are in fashion today.
Since our people (and many other countries), for the most part, believe the media and do not take them critically (he recalls “Oh, it’s not difficult to deceive me, I am happy to deceive myself”), the first step is to create the necessary “picture” in television and the Internet (twisting comments on social networks and the participation of bloggers), then organizing crowds, covering protests on TV, the appearance of victims among protesters, creating chaos.
The film chews up all these mechanisms, having a link to real events.
3) The tragedy of the "sleepers"
What is the tragedy of sleepers?
On the surface lies the fact that they once stood on the path of betrayal of the Motherland and work for another state. This is not just an internal decision – it is certain connections, initiation into secrets and secrets; such people are hanged on a hook, which can pull at any moment.
If you dig deeper, the tragedy of “sleepers” as individuals is that they are not ready to die for their way of life. Of course, no one wants to part with life, but one thing to become hostage to bank accounts, real estate abroad, yachts, cars, teaching children in Cambridge; another thing to die for their homeland, for faith, for family or children in real danger.
At the moment of truth, this causes a shock, but there is no time to realize and correct mistakes - the mat is almost set.
4) More about the main character
The positiveness of the main character is supplemented by the absence of he has an obvious lust.
No, he is not perfect, he is an ordinary man with his passions and desires, but one who tries to resist the hidden female temptation - he desperately resists the effects of female tricks and the naked body (modern girls and women dress in a way that is difficult to call them dressed).
5) Image of a negative character
Modern cinema gradually accustoms viewers to the idea that the negative elements – criminals, maniacs, perverts, libertines, homosexuals, pedophiles and other zoophiles deserve not so much condemnation, but rather understanding and sympathy: allegedly they are not bad – but just others, not like us!
In this series, a cold-blooded criminal is shown as one who gradually realizes the horror of his life and tries to take the path of correction. This is the prototype of a certain repentance and this model of crime in films I approve.
6) Disadvantages
Of course, you can find inconsistencies, tension and wishes for the characters; some moments I would like to show differently, add something or take away, but to cover this in a review would be blasphemy over all the pros and labors of the acting and directing groups.
The film is good and period.
7) The end
If you have thoughts about why everything is so good, and we are bad; why such clumsy roads, why officials steal, why schools are not repaired and children grow obstinate – watch this series, it helps to find answers to these questions!
Yuri Bykov made a rather strange and, in my opinion, too hasty decision after the first season, but who am I to judge him? To be honest, it is a pity that the series "Method" will remain without a sequel, because this is one of our best projects for television of all time. The fact that the sequel will appear in the “Sleepers”, I did not doubt for a number of reasons. Did the series get worse without the Bowl? He lost the depth of the plot and the tone of the accents, i.e. it is obvious that he did, but whether Yuri’s role is so great in this is a big question. Rather, it seems to me that the problem is that Sergei Minayev is certainly a talented journalist, but all his books and scripts are an attempt to jump over his head. In the first season, this factor probably helped compensate the Bulls, while after his departure Sergey was forced to work alone, and even in the shortest possible time. Of course, the project could not benefit.
General criticism, and even so harsh, I do not share. Moreover, I even enjoyed the season, although the difference between the potential of the idea and its practical implementation, of course, is depressing, and precisely in the aspect of the plot. Among the technical problems, I would single out the explosion of a private plane - it could not be filmed live, I had to draw, so it turned out poorly and cheap, and against the background of the general, still quite high level of the project, this point is especially striking. In the rest, it was shot quite decently, I liked the full-scale shooting, the general atmosphere of the picture, and the style of the narrative, including in the aspect of the image of foreigners. Partly noticeable borrowings from the already almost cult series “True Detective”, but I would not call them plagiarism, and with the help of the viewer – so even better, because the series looks adequate to time, and not as another talentless craftsmanship with constant close-up plans.
It is quite obvious, in my opinion, that with the release of the second season rushed to the upcoming presidential elections, but this motivation is not fully clear to me. I agree that the amount of propaganda has increased significantly, and to look at some insight of an illegal CIA operative who previously oversaw terrorists was very funny. However, all the propaganda here takes the form of some voice-over information noise, i.e. I did not see anything that could seriously change the viewer’s opinion on foreign or domestic policy, especially the personality of the President. Here, even our so-called liberals are practically no longer offended, and the CIA is shown so-called “with a human face”, and in general all propaganda is written in dialogues, that is, it is not an objective given, but only the opinion of specific characters.
The main external enemy of Russia in the second season is terrorism, albeit controlled from the United States. The internal enemy, in general, is not like this, except that the story passes through the bankers well, I would even say “lubricated”. On the one hand, this is expected and relevant, and the issue of pressure on the elite through foreign assets is an eternal problem for Russia. On the other hand, the series does not pretend to have some absolute realism (“all events are fictional”), i.e. I do not quite understand the criticism on this point. Terrorism is really interesting, especially in connection with the shadow business and refugees - only for this I think that it is worth watching the second season, because at this level we have nothing else on this topic. The only two young guys who fly from Moscow to Istanbul for the sake of casual sex with a Turkish girl ... no, well, at least they were not homosexuals who flew to Iran to come out.
7 out of 10
It is clear that the series was originally planned as having no artistic merits, as an ordinary agitation - just see the names of the author of the script and some producers. But what a thing, in the team of authors of the first season was a really professional director Yuri Bykov. And instead of cardboards, there were personalities. There are people who make moral choices, even there is a developing plot that causes interest.
But in the second season, the professional left, it was necessary to rush to a certain date and took a craftsman as a director. And that's where it all came in. The insignificance of the script, and the absence of any clear plot, worked out characters and say no idea. I don’t know if it’s a movie or a movie. Cardboard, fake, creepy.
I do not recommend season 2 to watch - lost time. Well, except for those who want to appreciate the role of the director in the production campaign. In this sense, the difference between the first season, shot by the Bull and ' cardboard' - the second season, is simply striking and very revealing.
Second season
Anthology of development from Duhless to TASS authorized to declare
The first season of "Sleepers" was more hastily stirred up hung propaganda cranberry than a thorough spy series. However, in the second part there is a serious qualitative leap.
If progress continues at the same pace, Colonel Rodionov will soon grow to Carrie Madison.
Maybe here the change of reflective and brilliant Yuri Bykov to a strong artisan and clipmaker S. Arlanov helped, but it seems to us that the main merit in the improvements still belongs to the screenwriter S. Minayev, or rather the work of his consultants.
It was just Yu. Semenov. He was given specific materials about real events involving a specific scoundrel with a vegetable name, which in the film the master of the Soviet spy detective turned into Dubov. V. Fokin invited the charming V. Tikhonov, Yu. Solomin, V. Kikabidze, B. Klyuev and many others... Hop! And the Soviet spy thriller of all times and peoples is ready.
That's it now. To write a script on the very painful anger of the day about top secret cases that are happening next to us here and now, and about which no one except a few dedicated participants knows (fake nonsense sucked out of the finger by the authors of Telegram channels and various “insiders” and “experts” we do not take).
Naturally, S. Minaev (like Yuri Semenov in his time), no one will show specific materials. Everything here is very hot and in the process, and S. Minayev wants to go abroad.
If the characters from “Dukhlesov” and other “Teleks” have a dubious pleasure to watch half of Moscow, then the characters like the heroes of I. Petrenko and Y. Belyaev most viewers are unlikely to meet. Who knows how it actually happens in the FSB (SVR, GRU...). . .
But despite all the objective difficulties, S. Minaev and S. Arlanov this time more or less turned out. There is a sane fascinating action, almost no cranberries and obvious shoals in the depiction of the work of special services and government agencies. A lot of recognizable types, but in my opinion not enough. You could have been braver here.
The Tunisian-Libyan texture, given the small budget, is quite good. It is criticized only by a lover of TV series - writer A. Konstantinov, who has spent several months as a technical clerk behind the fence of the Soviet military mission in Benghazi and Tripoli, since then considers himself the main expert on the field work of special services throughout the Arab world.
Do you say the pre-election propaganda of the regime? Absolutely! But there is no talented and high-quality propaganda at all, unlike anti-propaganda ... Leviathans and Fools are all sorts of things.
Only F. Bondarchuk and S. Minayev are trying. Not yet, but there is progress.
If this goes on, we will still see Sleepers-7 on Kinopoisk score of 8.5, like Homeland.
And yes, the only quality acting work was the role of the leader of terrorists Saleh performed by Tajik actor Muhammad Ali.
7 out of 10
Once Zhuang Tzu dreamed that he was a butterfly. When he woke up, he could not understand who he was – Chuang Tzu, who dreamed that he was a butterfly, or a butterfly that dreams that she was Zhuang Tzu.
According to the irrefutable and eternal laws of dialectics, every thing, in the process of its development, must pass into its own opposite. Therefore, there is no reason to be surprised by the fact that the most non-conformist, honest and truthful director of modern Russia took up the allegedly most propaganda, thoroughly politicized and quasi-patriotic project of the main federal TV channel. However, it cannot be said that the series is a radical deviation of Bykov from his own moral, ethical and political principles. Rather, it is their downside. Bykov’s paradox is that he is not an active critic and subverter of the system, his side is exclusively creative, contemplative and creative.
After "Major" and "Fool" many began to perceive the director as nothing more than an art-house anarchist, fiercely cutting the truth to the womb, not afraid of anyone but his conscience. Liberals of all stripes immediately enrolled him in their ranks as a like-minded person, and Bykov’s work served as a convenient tool for indiscriminate criticism of the thoroughly corrupt system. However, “Sleeping” Bykov dealt an unexpected blow to the entire liberal gathering of free-thinking, progressive and democratic citizens. The blow was so strong and unexpected that a mass of libertines in a single fit of anger decided to turn Bykov into a certain ghost director, make the latter persona non grata. All this says only one thing: Bykov managed to catch, subtly feel and boldly express the creative, ideological and political impotence of all modern liberal-oriented demagogues. In the sarcastic persecution of an angry flock of a lone artist, the morality of the current intellectual elite is clearly traced, namely, ressentimenta ("defective aggressiveness syndrome", malice born of impotence).
The main argument of the libertines is that in the film liberals are shown as traitors to the homeland, ideological unpatriots, whose values exclude such concepts as loyalty to the homeland. They are recruited by US intelligence agents and forced to lead a double life, which is a direct insult to them as loyal citizens of the Russian Federation. That's where the whole secret lies. As you know, any action consists of two parts - cause and effect, and in Bykov's film, only the cause is invented - serving another state, but not the effect. Let free-thinking, progressive citizens be guided only by the good intentions of defending truth and justice, the result is the same as the consequences of betrayal - destruction.
The series sits somewhere in the middle between absolute state propaganda (as we all know from the news) and a radically philosophical view of what is happening. It is surprising that the first complements and supports the second, opening the way for the viewer to freely and honestly choose their attitude to the Motherland with all its problems. For example, the formal narrative structure of the series is a typical antagonism between good FSB operatives and evil State Department agents. In this regard, the protagonist in the performance of Petrenko is remarkable, whose moral authority is indisputable, since he sacrifices everything for the sake of duty - personal happiness and even his own conscience. However, with negative characters, things are a little more complicated. The fact is that in the film they are distributed on several levels, and none of them are "strictly" negative. Firstly, these are “performers” – killers, who are essentially emotionless tools, the attempt to revive which by Bykov completely failed, since in the role of “tools” they looked much more vivid. Second, they are moles, double agents who simply carry out orders from above. Third, foreign intelligence officers whose work is in fact non-ethical and, strictly speaking, a priori evil. But in fact, all these are gears of the ideological mechanism, the so-called “Big Other”. The film poses the question of which “Big Other” do you serve? As we have seen, it is technically possible to remain a citizen of one’s country, while “in-himself” a person will be farther from it than ever. The ideological battle of the “Big Brothers” does not stop for a moment – all the problems (from rising gasoline prices to global cataclysms) are blamed on the enemy, then their own figure of power. Interestingly, and not by chance, in Bykov’s picture, the struggle of interests for both sides ends in nothing (after all, this is truly an eternal process), while the entire burden of guilt for committed acts is borne by one who remained indifferent and perceived ideological war as a form of delirium, preferring a calm, apolitical, measured existence.
Bykov makes it clear that in political life one should strive for a harmonious coexistence of top and bottom. Authoritarian lawlessness coming from above, fully reflected in the previous films of the director, this time balanced liberal-democratic orgy, hiding behind freedom of speech, the right to their own opinion, indiscriminate criticism of everything and everything. Somewhere between these two trends lies the truth to which we must strive with all our might.
The series is not without flaws, but the merits still outweigh. Of course, endless conversations, a melodramatic love line correlated with the political rules of psychoanalysis, constant logical inconsistencies and simply incomprehensible motivations, as well as insufficient development of secondary characters, the clicheness of a number of images and situations - all this is not very encouraging when watching. But at the same time, the series is brilliantly directed from a technical point of view - plans, mise-en-scene, scenography, camera work are performed simply impeccably. History keeps in suspense from beginning to end and, remaining banal in form, is not without a rather intricate ideological and philosophical overtones. Actors, with the exception of minor ones, play confidently and more than convincingly, and some scenes are real finds.
In the end, can we say that Bykov betrayed his ideals, bending under the yoke of power and capitalist existence, filming a propaganda series with state money? No, on the contrary, he only confirmed his status as a great and talented artist. Having climbed into the guts of the main ideological tool of the modern state machine, he managed to show the contradictions and ambiguities of the situation. As a creator, he rose above the pressing questions of politics and social problems, entering the realm of eternal transcendental concepts of loyalty, duty and homeland. And these are by no means empty, clichéd forms, taken up by a variety of ideologies – this is a living self-contradictory and painful process of maturing love for one’s land, for understanding and accepting all its problems, for their constructive solution, and not indiscriminate criticism of the government over a glass of bokardi, not the elevation of oneself as a progressive, cultural personality above the country as a swamp with mob and cattle, not eternal demagoguery about problems that should always be solved by some “big other”. A prophecy from the film “Fool” comes true, and now the “best people of the country” are buried alive really great artists looking for the truth that no one needs. And the surest sign that you have attacked her trail is always your own suffering.
I understand the outrage of the liberal public. For the main liberals in the series are either fools or traitors. I'm not a liberal, if anything.
I understand ' apology' Yuri Bykov. No matter how they treat it, it is something inherent in a real artist, complex, searching. And now I have the feeling that I am reading an unwritten biography of a great director. I sincerely love Bykov, I closely follow his projects - and I come in some trepidation from the fact that we may be witnessing the formation of the new Balabanov'.
It is done: in terms of presentation of history - good, in terms of technical - doubtful. Yes, I know that I am a sofa critic, shooting vertically, but I rather compare with Yuri’s previous works. Sanudrek is a hodgepodge of state police dramas, the main themes 'Syphon filter' and imitations of Bykov in 'Live'. There's something Hitchcockian about the murders, from the bathroom scene. With the script full of seams in places - the characters say... I don't know who. Like a kitten from a cartoon 'How to become big ' But the animation, there are nuances. Repeat words after the interlocutor, giggle out of place, weave long phrases, swear that your excellent student from the first desk (it is better not to swear at all in this case).
A lot, a lot of ... cranberries? Kitcha? High-ranking crustaceans eat in Mac (pss, I was whispered that in America the Mac is not quoted at all), test the shaverma, say aphorisms. Liberals in emergency situations include the regime 'Vatnikazazaz' and lament the rule of law. You just have to close your eyes as a literary convention.
Yes, I am inclined to believe that 'Sleepers' - state order for the elections. Too many strings are coming together.
And now the twist.
With all the abundance of minuses from the series can not stick – it is made according to a powerful scheme that keeps you in constant tension. Heroes appear in such a way that you empathize with them - and you even get used to them, after all. I was thinking of saying goodbye to The Sleepers & #39 on the first or second episode, but suddenly I found myself craving to know – What’s next? On the way out, I was seriously sad because the film was over - you can see that professionals worked on this sadness of mine.
The series after the news on federal channels is in itself a questionable pleasure, but the hype has risen, and “coming out” He was simply forced to see this creation.
In addition, the subj caused a new round of confrontation ' liberals' vs' patriots' and often this creation was recorded in the camp of the opposing side, that is, diametrically opposite assessments were obtained. But this is only part of the entourage of the series and does not directly relate to it, but the series itself confirmed, alas, fears about Bykov's talents - he is, without a doubt, a quality director, but "dig deep" without PR topical topics, he, alas, can not (in this case, big questions are also to the screenwriter). In fact, the trend of cinema (not only domestic), is obvious - the quality of the show is higher, the content is worse; of course, in the subj, you can refer to the fact that, they say, the series is about special services - we will not tell how it really is! But, alas, the story told only with sin in half can justify the subj from the "artistic" point of view, but the logic of the action does not shine, which is most striking - the "randomity" of the actions of the security forces, that is, they organize a full-fledged special operation to catch a possible agent, but the police officer alone breaks down on the apartment to the bombers - from the artistic point of view, from the point of view of logic (as well as previous actions of the security forces) looks like illogical nonsense.
In general, everything that happens on the screen is still tied to the “elite” party and is shown through its eyes (that’s even GG, which “office”, in Russia has not been for a long time, but lives, albeit in a studio, but designedly decorated, and clearly not in Chertanovo – apparently, it looks like poverty in the eyes of the creators of the Sabzh), all these spiritual experiences that “there is no love”, people living in a designer house in an elite village are not interested in the bulk of the population (in my opinion, this is the main difference between Soviet cinema and modern, hm, “creativity”). And here there is another important point - our "creative elite" lives in his world, therefore he shoots to himself, and they do not know real life, and therefore they give out such stories where an FSB officer has not been home for 15 years (as in my opinion, already delusions), and he is immediately sent to a newly created group for an extremely important operation, only ... and who of the two characters in this group leads - it is not clear, the "main bad guy" is generally a twist from the series à la Castle, all the same "spiritual throwing" of an aunt-killer, for a short time without any reflex ...
Summing up: I have reviews of “Fool”, “Leviathan”, “Dislike”, and if the first two works the comparison was clearly not in favor of Zvyagintsev, and I really believed that Bykov can shoot a “social” movie with a high level of realism, in contrast to.., then at the moment unexpectedly for himself I found that Zvyagintsev is above the level of immersion in his plots, and Bykov, alas, is PR on opportuncture topics, not denoting, in fact, nothing, as simply arranged...
The pluses include only the audiovisual component and the play of actors (although the castes are sometimes surprising - the actress who played the role of the main character Kira can safely conduct trainings "how to look fifty at forty")
In general, another passing series, which constantly literally shouts that this is our answer to Homeland (the screensaver and the soundtrack were practically licked one at a time), with obvious thoughts and worn-out cliches, may be technically made better than similar series from prime time, although I have nothing to compare.
5 out of 10
PS. Oh, yes, when watching something cut the eye, even revised the episode - in the seventh episode "mole", leaving the chase, jumps into Volkswagen Passat in the back of the B6, and during the chase famously lays on the Volkswagen Polo sedan (car pursuers also changed) - as for me, this is all you need to know about the series after the evening news in general and about Bykov as a director in particular.
Many people say that this is a failed propaganda. . .
Someone will say that this series is an unsuccessful attempt to influence the opinion of hapless viewers and whitewash corrupt to the highest ranks of the authorities. Maybe, yes, it's propaganda. But propaganda is correct, useful, if I may say so. Therefore, I think it is foolish to reject this series, just as it is foolish to reject morning gymnastics and brushing your teeth in the morning and in the evening just because of this word Propaganda (healthy lifestyle)!
This is not Stirlitz, of course, in scope and in relation to small things, but for the viewer starved for spy movies - this is some small joy in anticipation of masterpieces about the struggle of the special services of the opposing powers.
You can see that the chases are low-budget, but they are, of course, better than in the Carrier, where you can only observe the flickering of frames and scenes of several pieces in the interval of one second.
Some actors play inconclusively, but there are not many of them, and you can not focus on this. The main thing is that there are heroes who want to believe and empathize.
Finally, this work touches upon the themes of realizing oneself as a person who sincerely loves his homeland. And certain characters voice the experiences of the creators of the series about the fate of the country and the happiness of its citizens. We can see heroes here as role models. We can also observe those who, of their own volition or stupidity, or by coincidence, found themselves in 'the enemy's camp'.
The opponents of Russia are worthy, not comical, not stupid.
The series may not be the strongest in terms of implementation, but with the right values, without dirt and ' tolerance' with an interesting and modern plot.
This series is one of the options for educating Russian citizens. This is what state money should go for, and here it is not just ' mastered'.
I gave a score of 8, but added 1 point because I believe that many were biased towards this picture, and it deserves more appreciation with its views and attitude to the viewer.
9 out of 10
It turned out strongly, interesting, truthful, bold and very topical
Introduction
Once I heard an active discussion of the film 3 me people and I was intrigued, decided to check and see.
First impression, acquaintance with the film
The film begins at an acute moment in the life of the main positive hero. Starts as an action movie. This beginning of the film will go through the plot with a thin thread and will regularly be remembered one way or another, as it influenced the general, the main character, the situation in the country as a whole.
Heroes and antiheroes
I was curious to see positive and negative characters in the film. We are not forced in the narrative of everything that happens who is the hero and that he should be treated positively, and who is the antihero and they should be despised and hated.
What happened to the victims of the 90s
The ruthless killer-purifier is shown not as a scumbag and ghoul, but as a girl who is not without warm feelings, who “slipped” and embarked on this path because of a difficult childhood and youth, when she had to become “strong” and begin to avenge her former weakness and defenselessness.
Her friend, a bomber, is also shown to be taken away by a non-joyful person who enjoys his atrocities... he was imposed on the will, he succumbed to it and there was nothing left in his life except this “brotherhood” ... who, after all, begins to manifest feelings and, under external pressure, was ready to begin to tear down the inner wall-barrier that separated him from the ordinary person. And he did it because he was afraid of not being known and knew nothing. For me, he is represented by a weak man who succumbed to circumstances and does not want to revise them and his life... so “easier” and more understandable.
They both didn't want much and were expecting money for their criminal activities. They weren't happy about it. This existence oppressed them, it crushed and destroyed them and they even together, feeling attraction to each other, and the closeness of their fates due to the difficult events that occurred in their youth.
I had the impression at the sight of these two heroes that the author showed us the crippled youth in the 90s, when the destruction of the USSR fell on them, when some ideals were sharply replaced by others, when these youth saw the opposite of the new without having time to consolidate the old and many did not withstand such changes ... someone broke down and received deep injuries from this transition period and the substitution of ideals. They have emptiness, no aspirations, and if they do, they are insufficient and the past is stronger than them. They betrayed society, loved ones, country... they betrayed their ideals and themselves... they sold themselves.
Golden Generation of the 90s
The same generation is also depicted, but they were “golden youth” thanks to their parents’ money and connections. The aching ones are the most dissatisfied, although the reasons for suffering are the least. They are arrogant, arrogant (differently shown), there are. Many of them complain the most, disdain people, countries, the state, their history. Pampered by permissiveness, they are like spoiled children, hate and despise their mother, who gave birth to them – the country. They think it's better somewhere because it's not here. The feeling that they want to forget who they are, forget history, forget themselves, dissolved in melancholy and lack of will, developed if not all, then a lot of permissiveness and depravity by the same 90s and they also did not stand up and were broken by that warm and pleasant dirt, when you can all and you against the background of most other non-haves - special in itself, because of which you become soft-bodied, incapable of self-criticism. These people, who received the most from the country, hate and despise it the most, for reasons that they themselves do not tell us in the film. Wherever there is, but not here.
The struggle between truth and not truth
It was interesting to see how subversive activity in the country was sanctified and how truth was replaced by lies. The struggle between truth and lies. How people get confused where the truth is, and where lies and even people who know each other well cease to trust each other, to suspect betrayal. Very interesting and revealing is the substitution of concepts.
My opinion
The director and screenwriter took a big shot and happily admitted that they were very strong and good at it. I’m looking forward to watching this movie and look forward to continuing. I'll miss the flaws that were... But in general it turned out strong, talented, interesting and useful. It is useful to look at our society and see, look for the reflection of the heroes of the film their features, bad and good. The film encourages you to be better and shows you better not to go and who better not to be... because it could end up worse than we think.
It happens when ' fame' you get to the movie faster than the movie itself.
And here is the glory of ' Sleepers' was very bad: accusations of unfitness and shame poured information flow, confessions, repentance - sarcastic and not very.
And to be honest, after such a flurry, it is very difficult to force yourself to look at the film as honestly as possible, relying only on your feelings, and not on the opinions of more authoritative and professional citizens, which you absorb yourself unwittingly.
And for me it was a discovery that the film was not some simple fake, which is physically bad and ashamed and further on the text as convincing as possible, but a high-quality series, with good technical characteristics - camera work at height, editing, music for some century in the series and in its place - it is organic, and not by itself lives in the space of the tape.
The actors are generally well selected, the images do not conflict with the actor’s role. For all my cool attitude towards Petrenko, he is convincing here, although he is static in the beginning. Dmitry Ulyanov, Alexander Rapoport, Yuri Belyaev, an interesting colorful character turned out in Grant Kagramanyan, who played the role of Ruben Ashotovich, a major of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - unusually honest, but not caricatured, a cop, so now where will you see? Well, except that on tv, but there is no caricature anywhere.
Even Fyodor Bondarchuk embodying the most recognizable, albeit somewhat collective, image of a politician ' a new format'.
Paulina Andreeva is nothing new, a beautiful lady, but in her place. with female images is increasingly ambiguous, of course, but in general - to look more pleasant than vice versa, without irritation. Unless I mention Karina Razumovskaya - she has an interesting role, albeit a small one, reveals little, more to the final, largely thanks to another character, a directorial cameo, whose appearance pleased me rather than upset me. Still, Bykov is a really good actor, yes, perhaps not very rich in the variety of roles, so far, but nevertheless, it is pleasant to look at him in the frame, he knows how to play no worse than to shoot.
Personally, my disappointment is Osmolov’s hero – the image of the main media fighter with the system, the lack of personal charisma is not compensated by the plot crutch of their dialogues or convincing scenes. His motives are as blurred as possible, neither for money nor for the flag - vanity, stupidity, courage?
And I have had these questions repeatedly throughout the film, from series to series. And here, smoothly from the pluses to the minuses.
And the minus here is one, but significant. It's a script. No, for the series - it is not bad, although sometimes not without failures, especially they are felt by the final, when the tension should grow and the pace will accelerate. And everything begins to get stuck in conversations - very understandable, sometimes pathetic. . . Pretentious? Yes, and pretentious, where without this, it is the same movie with a temper for patriotic feelings, not leaven-scrub, but quite understandable, especially for those people whose life is connected with the homeland - consciously or not very.
And what is interesting is that double agents are not all corrupt and monetized dummies, they have a rather bright and clear, albeit not mechanically, but speculatively position, a motive for saving not only themselves, but also what is around.
Spy film is exactly like this: ' ours' and ' Aliens': enemies, spies, scouts, double agents, the conflict of ideologies, special services. To look for in a spy movie, albeit not the most twisted and verified, a reflection on how bad everything is here and let’s sit here and repent, and not there, rest on the enemy inside – a stupid, hopeless occupation, even though it is all true, but for a spy plot – it is sideways, as not twist.
Yes, probably, scripts written not by mainstream journalists writers, but with the participation of former intelligence officers and KGB agents are more successful, accurate and logical, simply because it, and although very conditionally, allows us to present the working mechanism of these services as it is, and not as it appears to us from books and other series, albeit more successful (yes, we all remember about ' Homeland).
Yes, the series lacks scale - it is very noticeable in the mass scenes of the rally, frankly few people, the shooting is not very dynamic, there is no whipped up horror and panic.
It wouldn't bother me.
In general, I am glad that I did not ignore the series by Yuri Bykov, the director he is worthy and, as practice has shown, can work qualitatively not only in author projects, but also on TV.
In general, the TV series 'Sleepers' is a good decent product, which absolutely has a place on TV and in the modern realities of media space.
The main thing is that the country exists, and we will deal with shit (c)
A series with a pleasant aftertaste. How many days have passed since watching (thanks to the scandal, I’m one of those who otherwise would have learned about the film in a year), and still on the heart – OK. Because we have good directors and good writers and they make good movies about good people. And most importantly, how the audience came together. As we clearly saw again that our cotton/laptop “80%” is true. Sleepers are a marker of time. Autumn 17.
When we try to evaluate a picture on the Kinopoisk, we often have to compare things incomparable. We can’t seriously give ratings on one scale, for example, “Mirror”, some doc, “Obsession” and “Sleeping”. It’s not just different genres or categories. These are different planets. And I don’t only (or always) appreciate the artistic merits of a piece of work. But the authors’ sense of the historical moment, and the timeliness of the picture, and a competent reaction to the social request.
Thank you for the right things, at the right time, called unambiguous, right names. Without halftones and “complex characters”. This is a “social request” today. Thank you for listening and speaking to the audience in the same language. Truths and normal human values.
Simple language and simple truths. About duty, about homeland and about love. There are three basic things that liberals do not understand. That’s why I’m all over it.
Simple things, but for each of them you have to give up selfishness, forget about your own ass, and a liberal cannot do that. And if it is not possible, then we will devalue in all ways, not admit to ourselves of defectiveness. Or maybe it's not at all... So others are pretending. So, all we were shown - "stamps" and "agitka" and "brainwashing".
You cannot “brainwash” a person who does not replace concepts for the sake of immediate comfort. It's not embarrassing to be out of trend. Not afraid to be alone. Here's the main character - well, what will you wash him... "primitive and clumsy." He is just a mentally mature person. Not an infantile, but a normal adult man.
And it’s so nice and important that he’s finally the hero of our time. And that he is engaged in "propaganda" of common sense. And that it all resonates. Thanks to the authors! Let's live! (c)
A butterfly who dreams that she is the awakened director of the Bulls. [/B]
I wonder how many assessments, reviews would have this series, if not for the epic statement of Bykov exactly after the PR of creation on the First at Urgant? Black PR, so great with Matilda (all ruined too big budget and lack of mainstream advertising on TV) with “Sleepers” was much better. After all, even I, a person who watches 95% of Russian films and TV series only in the form of reviews from Puchkov or Bazhenov, just felt that I should watch this opus. A decent rating for a domestic work also inspired. Summary is in the header of the page, so I suggest you immediately familiarize yourself with, in the language of figure skating, estimates for components.
Scenario/Scenario
At the center of the events is the confrontation of two intelligence services (known to whom) on the territory of modern Russia, before all the events of 2014. The Americans are trying to implement the Gene Sharp method on our territory, simultaneously disrupting the state contract with China, and the FSB is trying to prevent them from doing this. Along the way, a couple of romantic lines develop (for women, they should go well). It is clear that the director watched spy thrillers, and TV series “Homeland” and “Americans”. That was pretty good. I looked at the 6+2 with pleasure. Minaev performed a cameo solid four for the script.
Director
An experienced master of the image of harsh Russian reality, Yuri Bykov, did not hit his face in the dirt, shooting a glossy series for the First Channel (let the “Method” already be behind him). Good casting, memorable music, the use of modern shooting methods. It's a pleasure. Although there are disadvantages, but about them later.
Actors
Of the actors in the plus, you can single out Petrenko (not a big fan of his, but here he left a pleasant impression), Dr. Evil - Rapaport, an excellent supporting role in Paulina Andreeva. It is clear that after the wedding with Bondarchuk problems with roles she will not, but their 20 minutes of screen time they worked 4+. And the best role, perhaps, Natalia Rogozhkina. This is who played at the level of a foreign series of the corresponding genre. She believes most of all (although the actress looks a little old for her role - she looks much older than Petrenko). But there is also a miscast, the main of which is Yuri Bykov. First of all, he plays poorly because he is not an actor. Secondly, being in the frame, he does not control the game of Razumovskaya (an important character). This has been bad for the last two series. But this will be a separate paragraph. In general, the cast at 4.
General impressions (+)
Minayev vividly and naturally showed a liberal party, falling for the sensations of journalists who live in a “terrible totalitarian regime”, but participate in press conferences and are afraid of the FSB! There is a certain lawyer, anti-corruption fighter Asmolov (it is not difficult to guess who his prototype is), and falling for the exclusive Tyrshitskaya (a collective image from Politkovskaya, Smirnova, Felgenhauer, Latynina, etc.) and a conscientious blogger, and an office with trolls writing from two dozen accounts on assignment. A great dialogue between Kira and Andrei, about the party. Google at leisure "Zakharov + Venedicts or Zakharov + Tsymbalyuk". When the Ministry of Culture sponsors films in which the country and people are poured sludge, the question involuntarily arises - WHY? It is obvious that people should see what hell they live in, that officials and police are around the bastards. Great role models. Bright ideals. Here the authors did everything cool, although, to dip the elite could be stronger, the good reality is much worse.
General impressions (-)
Now for the flaws. In short, there are two globally. One. A sharp contrast in the level of intrigue, the play of the actors, the plot between the first 6-6.5 episodes and the remainder. Although in principle, the problems begin from the moment of the appearance in the frame of the hero Bykov. Reflection from the heroine Razumovskaya, after all her affairs, also looks out of place. There is a certain reference to "Nikita", but there it looks more logical. If the story of Bykov’s hero in the form of an oral story looks appropriate, then the story of the girl just asked for flashbacks (smeared on timekeeping), because her retelling, and even not the heroine herself, looked crumpled, and the authors clearly wanted us to be imbued with sympathy and understanding (I don’t know, really why?). Mikhalkov's son-in-law has already shot such a thing - no more. Second point. Too confused and ridiculous actions of many characters, lack of preparation for operations. Where did the investigator go alone? How did he end up found the same day? An obvious, but low-level scene with a forgotten phone (why did Bykov’s character follow, if he didn’t want to return for the phone at all?) Why does an investigator who enters an apartment in a matter of seconds walk around like a little girl in a fairytale castle, moving a centimeter per minute? The setting of the scene is normal, but you could shoot at least 3 more logical scenes with the same outcome.
Well, there are minor flaws that can only be in Russian cinema, not spoiled by attention to detail. What is the clumsy "terrorist" video at the beginning with costumes from kindergarten? What kind of chase through empty closed streets in Moscow (you can at least a couple of cars to pass nearby for entourage)? Again, these unknown operating systems on large screens (there are classic large boards with photos, markers, etc.). Totally stupid ending. Here we are shown that the apartment above the “Chinese” and its tenant, and the detainee is a character who got to the scene of events clearly not of his own will, which is easy to find out from the witness, but put in... in short, the last series greatly cuts the overall impression. Perhaps, as the authors write in some reviews, Bykov really got tired by the end (or decided that he showed not what he wanted, but the material should be handed over).
Conclusion.
Despite a number of shortcomings, the plot is quite strong, there is blood in the right moments. I want to believe that the second season will be cooler, although it will not be shot by Bulls. The only regret is the historical reality, with a well-known result, in which Petrenko’s hero will have to act. P.S. The reader will probably ask, “What is this crazy headline?” You have to watch the last couple of episodes.
A work of art reflects social contradictions and therefore is internally contradictory, and the more acute these contradictions, the more they impose on it. This art reflects the extract of the spirit of the era and the living soul of civilization. Our epoch is an epoch of decline and disillusionment, of the universal defeat of progressive forces, of stagnation and degradation. The cinema of our era cannot be bright and victorious, cannot be objective, because of the regressive and biased nature of our era. It inevitably has an absurd, emojid, obscurantist character.
Most authors use this state of affairs to justify their artistic failure, but Yuri Bykov’s film is not. He gives an accurate and deep portrait of our era, imbued with its spirit from beginning to end.
One of the most powerful scenes in the film:
" - You know, people read books. I'm bored. I read cases. This, for example. Whatever it is, whoa! She worked in Eastern Europe, slept with a diplomat for 5 years, 14 recruited agents and 7 volumes of special materials. Oh, when the Berlin Wall came down, you know, they kind of forgot about it in a hurry. Tortured. The spine is broken. Nefedov pulled out.
- It's not sweet.
- Wrong word.
- How's she doing now?
- It works. And things above the roof.
With all this, the film can be crushed to dust for: ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject, in some places - just a lack of acting, misunderstanding of the logic of social processes, numerous violations of the internal logic of the narrative, the lack of clear motivation in the vast majority of the actions of the characters - to disassemble all this nonsense is not possible in a huge monograph dedicated to this film. That's not the point.
The main thing is that here we finally see on top of all this some timid attempt at artistic reflexion.
As for propaganda, the propaganda charge is a great value of the film. The ideas with which the main characters operate are as superior to the standard petty-bourgeois background as they are wretched in comparison with the lofty language of Soviet ideology. From the film you can clearly see where we came from and where we came from.
Watch Sleepers, it deserves it, despite its contradictions and flaws. Perhaps this is the most significant event in the popular domestic cinema - for many years.
The series turned out to be medium, sometimes boring. It is sometimes similar to the American & #39; Homeland & #39; but does not reach it.
It looks like this: there is an emergency, spymania, paranoia. And then the characters start having idiotic conversations ' about life '. Female characters are especially annoying: as soon as they open their mouths, squander immediately. They will not say anything intelligent, they are only sexual objects.
In some places, acute social topics are raised: why some state employees like cheese in butter skate, while others are poor. Why ' Golden youth' just have to clear everything from criminal offenses, and ' not gold' can be imprisoned without trial and investigation.
Briefly about the plot: ' in this country ' live wealthy citizens (citizens of Russia they do not consider themselves citizens). Their life ' in this country' succeeded, but they all day and think ' get out of Rashka' They are not interested in anything but a beautiful life and easy money, so they do not consider treason a crime (these slugs never served and did not give an oath).
Foreign intelligence agencies consider the creative class of this country to be just a herd of sheep to be led to slaughter. These naive majors should be saved by the special services, but it turns out that they are bad. In any case 'cosmopolitans' dissatisfied with the state power and blame it for all sins.
I, as a provincial spectator, it was unpleasant to hear that I am only ' Neanderthal cattle' interfering with life ' the people'. At the same time, the right-wing opposition was also dissatisfied with the series and made a scandal.
It turned out as with ' Matilda' - a mediocre work that will be remembered for its scandal, not content.
What can I say about this series? One thing is for sure – the idea and the message are good, but the implementation is not very good. In a nutshell, we are showing Russia the 2013 model. On the one hand (outside) everything is quiet and calm and there are no shocks on the horizon, but in the “quiet pool of devils there are”. Behind the outer calm lies a huge conspiracy, a large underground network of “sleeping” agents awakened and ready to act. Moreover, the agents themselves sometimes do not know either the final plans, nor the customers, nor other agents. This agent can be any resident of Russia (deputy, governor, FSB officer, banker, journalist, etc.). The main idea of this network is a revolution in Russia. And to prevent this, intelligence and counterintelligence will have to work hard. That's basically the whole story and the message. The main character is an FSB officer who is trying to unravel this conspiracy (naturally, the police, the FSB, and other structures are involved in the investigation).
Pros:
1) The story and the main message.
2) There are actors who have tried.
(3) There are some interesting dialogues.
Cons:
1) There are actors who have tried hard.
2) There are actors who have not tried.
(3) Badly staged shootings and fight scenes.
(4) Sometimes the actions of the main characters are illogical.
(5) The scale and scope are not the same, it seems that all the “sleeper” agents (as well as spies, saboteurs, double agents, informants, etc.) are only in Moscow. I did not see any other Russian cities in the series. Sometimes they show China, Libya and everything.
(6) There's no normal music. It seems to be playing something, but it is something.
7) I also heard criticism about the actions of our special services shown in the series. I did not work in the security services and therefore can judge only from books, documentaries and feature films, games and interviews of the intelligence officers themselves. There are few scouts, there is no image of a formidable structure. It seems that 7 people are doing all the work. And of these seven there are analysts and computer scientists, it turns out that in fact there are 2-3 people who are investigating.
I rarely watch domestic TV series. So “Sleepers” should have gone unnoticed for me, if a week ago I did not stumble here on the news about the professional drama directed by Bykov. Became curious. It went over the reviews and became even more curious. I saw it. To put the impression in a nutshell, the most appropriate definition is “What was that???”
It seems to me that the series fell victim to two titanic beginnings - Minaev and Bondarchuk. Minayev apparently wanted to make a film about the difficult choice of the modern Russian middle class between liberal values and spiritual bonds, using the mouse fuss between patriots from the FSB and scum from the CIA as a decorative background. Bondarchuk wanted to do exactly the opposite. What the director Bulls wanted to get into these millstones, I can’t even imagine. But as a result, everything turned into plywood scenery, except the actors themselves, who do not really understand what to do against the background of this wild moral and counterintelligence mess. It is not surprising that the only natural character in the series for me personally was the bomber in the person of Bykov, who was lucky in the plot to be equidistant from both liberals and patriots, and from the FSB with the CIA, and therefore not affected by the tug of the cart between Minayev and Bondarchuk.
It is truly surprising that someone managed to see some kind of propaganda in this work. If the story of how great Russia creakingly tries to sell China a portion of its resources, raising it to the rank of a problem almost the survival of the state, and FSB operatives, leading an important investigation, are ready for several days to wait for some pieces of paper from government officials and can be called propaganda, then this propaganda is clearly not pro-Russian.
The "technical" side of the series is fully characterized by its first 5 minutes. Over Petrenko’s excruciating choice between saving the life of a little girl and an ambassadorial cryptographer, colleagues at work rumbled. In such a situation, a real officer and serviceman would take the grenade next to the ransomware as a gift of fate and a successful solution to the problem. In the future, the creators try to rise above the thrash level in the image of service specifics and they do it well.
That's 3 out of 10. Of these, 2 Petrenko and his sincere pain for the Motherland in the eyes during template dialogues with liberal strikebreakers leave. A 1 director Bykov from the performance of the role of Glory.
P.S. My previous experience of the Russian spy series in the modern setting in the person of “Lector” with the same Bondarchuk on the background of “Sleepers” looks like a real masterpiece.
The series ' Sleepers' watched with her husband in one breath. Very interesting, and most importantly, relevant story. We have long been waiting for such an honest, candid film, where everything is called by its real names. This is a story about love and betrayal. How can you love or betray your family, friends, woman, native country?
And all this is shown without excessive pathos. By the way, the actor Igor Petrenko almost perfectly fell into the image of an honest intelligence officer, a brave and principled person. Liberal critics would like to say right away: yes, imagine that there are decent people in domestic law enforcement agencies who are ready to sacrifice themselves, to save people from criminals and terrorist attacks. . .
They would still Stirlitz began to scold - he, by the way, worked for Stalin.
Judging by the heated criticism of the series ' liberal supporters of democracy ' they recognized themselves in this movie. So the creators got right to the point where they portrayed all sorts of modern traitors.
Writer Sergey Minaev called the series "Sleeping & #39" a political thriller. The plot really keeps in suspense from beginning to end, good acting work - the film turned out spectacular, fascinating, I recommend it to everyone.
We hope to see a continuation of this series soon.
I found out about the series by accident - I heard a howl. Then the bulls apologized for something.
I thought I should see for myself. And then most of the whiners held the position: I did not see myself, but I was told.
Or: I watched it for 5 minutes, this movie is all clear.
No, my friends, I don't understand.
I still have positive emotions from the film. I liked it. No, not all of it.
I thought a little weak and monotonous soundtrack, I noticed it only in moments of some reflection of the characters. Some actors played frankly weak, and as if from the first take, but all were passing characters that flashed in one or another scene.
Other than that. I liked the picture, although the scene of the chase seemed not dynamic enough.
The plot, on the other hand, is very dynamic. I won’t say it’s exciting, but it’s interesting to watch. Additional interest is caused by allegorical interweaving with real persons, organizations, events.
I don't understand why there's so much negativity. Such a wild liberal howl. As if they want to associate themselves with the characters of the series.
And if you think about it, the plot is not so divorced from reality. The events taking place in the film are in fact a mirror and a kind of squeeze out of geopolitics. Why not?
Propaganda? Yeah. Absolutely. So what?
Those who are outraged by this fact are just as outraged when they watch some Western movie/series about the CIA? FBI? The police after all. I guess not. I think they're out there and just watching the movie.
Somehow they can't. That's where they want to spit. Wipe your legs. Pull it in the face, say, look! FSB! We are forced to love the FSB!
What's wrong with that? What are the claims? Is it bad for those who guard our peace? It's weird.
Well, you can, but you don't have to talk too much, you better watch.
In this review, I will not talk about the attempted import substitution of American spy shows. And I will not complain about another attempt to wrap state propaganda in a movie wrapper.
So Russia, 2013. The signing of a major gas contract with China. This fact is very disliked by the Americans, and they decide to activate their network of agents in Russia. Here, the authors of the series make it clear that the height of Russia’s political power is to be a gas station for China. That is, not a multipolar world, not opposition to the hegemony of the West, not the promotion of national culture in the world, but a gas pipeline - this is the pinnacle of our country's national interests.
Officers of the Federal Security Service are trying to prevent the breakdown of the contract. And looking at the FSB in this series, I almost broke my face with a facepalm. One of the most powerful special services in the world is shown by some fools, under whose noses there are murders of witnesses, terrorist attacks, and within the FSB itself there is a mole that leaks information to Western partners. I do not want to believe that the FSB actually acts in this way, otherwise it is not a special service, but some kind of parody of it. Yes, the Americans in their series portray agents of the Russian special services with greater respect and credibility than in the domestic spy series, which is supposed to inspire confidence in the domestic security agencies. In one of the series, the hero of Igor Petrenko with the words 'Please!...' asks the revealed in his department ' Mole' surrender his wards. I look and cry.
We must pay tribute to Sergei Minayev. He was able at the expense of the state to discredit the work of the people that this state protects. This once again demonstrates how carelessly our state acts in matters of patriotism propaganda. Starting with ' Tired by the sun - 2' Mikhalkov, after watching which no patriotism arose, and until today, when the domestic series about the work of domestic special services, which tearfully beg ' moles ' in the FSB to surrender their agents. Apparently, in all these cases, the state customers, whoever they were, did not even bother to read the scripts ' patriotic' films and TV series, the creation of which will be spent by the state money. So to me, the TV series "Sleeping & #39" is a real diversion against the current information agenda of state media.
Despite the script, the actors play well. Igor Petrenko looks good in the role of an FSB officer, although he looks somewhat cardboard. The image of an American, a specialist in color revolutions & #39; also succeeded. The hero of Alexander Rappoport symbolizes the evil that wants to destroy the Fatherland. But, the talented game of actors to pull this series could not.
Review primarily on the fate of director Yuri Bykov.
The irony of fate.
“MGIMOsh party” from “Sleepers” turned out to be the full equivalent of cattle (in a collapsing house) from “Fool” (the same Yuri Bykov). The former, which “kills” the “fool” Yuri Bykov.
Master Yuri Bykov, against the background of the seemingly banal theme of the “propaganda” confrontation between the special services of Russia and the United States, so artistically and honestly highlighted the contradictory underside of “MGIMOSHNY TOUSKO” as a real liberal/creative class of modern Russia that “MGIMOSHNY TEAM” from real life hunted down the real master Yuri Bykov, for his talent, for his skill, for his “accurate mirror” of the artist.
Yes, the negative image of the modern creative elite in the film Sleepers is undoubtedly hyperbolized. But this is the strength of a true master - to be able to honestly carve out his shortcomings, the shortcomings of his class. It is a pity that “theirs” were inert, did not understand, did not forgive, severely persecuted the author.
Hold on, dear Yuri Anatolyevich. You make great movies. Sleeping is a very good movie.
Good modern show. Viewers can get acquainted with the mechanisms that are used in modern political conflicts. Many people do not know how susceptible they are to manipulation and are easily led to the baits of interested persons on the Internet. Swallow the bait and frothy mouths shout imposed slogans or thoughts.
We need a high-quality vaccination against the orange revolutions. The series is perfect for this role. If not many, then at least some will be sobering. It will give an occasion once again to think and evaluate what is happening from the point of view of how everything is arranged, and not from the point of view 'our'-'your'.
It's pretty convincing. There are a number of inconsistencies, but that is forgivable. When you watch fashionable Western series, such mistakes are much more.
Standard Hollywood stamp, where you can pull out of the video what is not there.
Crumpled ending.
The show looks easy. Good dialogues of the characters, where there are a number of claims to this and this world, to our and yours, but no points are put.
Scoundrels are not pure evil - they justify their betrayal. This is true because pure evil does not exist. Even a group of bombers somehow justify their actions and their work.
There are hidden symbols in the series. Like freedom and equality for everyone in a suitcase full of explosives in the square. This is how one of the main anti-heroes sees good and justice for ordinary people.
No sooner had the scandalous triumph of “Crimea” thundered away, as our Ministry of Medinsky rolled out another magnum opus in the genre of patriotic film epic. From the very first frames, the authors make it clear that everything is serious and adult. Each episode, like Hideo Kojima’s spy action films, greets us with a brief message that all the characters are fictional and all coincidences are random. Which, of course, must mean that they are not fictional or accidental.
The main character, Andrei, is literally the embodiment of the knight of the cloak and dagger. Fearless, infinitely patriotic, but lonely and tragic, this image is not entirely convincing. Too serious, really. Take an example from the charming loser Lawrence of Arabia. An agent is an ordinary man of flesh and blood, and not some caricature emotionless superhero. Even Mr. Bond regularly got into ridiculous situations so as not to look ridiculous.
The main message of the film is this: the country is a mess, overzealous officials and businessmen on the hook of the CIA through assets and families in the West. Traitors and informants operate around, the ball is ruled by double standards, comprador, cosmopolitanism and vulgarity. Togo and look enemies will take away from us these beautiful post-industrial metropolises and modern comfortable mansions. To cope with all this, you need a very strong patriotic hand from the only reliable organization – the FSB. Bravo, Mr. Bykov!
The most ridiculous thing is that all the scum is organized by one of the State Department Professor Moriarty, who looks like Mikhail Zadornov. Everyone knows that he came to Russia. Nevertheless, he absolutely calmly conducts any meetings, consultations, audiences, makes calls and correspondence. This is the height of absurdity.
I do not idealize the United States at all, and I am well aware that resources on the planet are limited, and when one decreases, the other increases. And brave cowboys were involved in many creepy and dirty stories, remember at least the project “MK Ultra” and dozens of other projects and examples. But to write off all the problems and failed political decisions for the needs of the fight against sinister Americans is absolutely unacceptable. It is necessary to fight geopolitical competitors through the development of the economy, science and culture, and not by another aggressive antics in which the population of our country is trying to get involved.
Unlike its foolish counterpart in the propaganda shop, the series “Sleepers” is a relatively professional, tough, competitive work. I would even say not stupid. Watching the film is really interesting, and propaganda clichés are presented very competently, with selective truth-telling and recognition of many difficult moments of our society, which bribes. The office is also sympathetic, because it turns out to be modest, intelligent people who are just doing their duty. A very small team confronts an army of liberal trolls and corrupt bloggers. FSB employees are even like some good-natured cranks from Max Fry books. How can you not love them?
Discrediting the “national traitors” is flawlessly built, and real politicians, journalists, oppositionists and bloggers are easily recognized in fictional characters. However, in terms of their arrogance, snobbery and contempt for “bad” the authors of our special series did not even have to invent — the creative elite has long discredited itself in this regard.
And yet, no matter how much the authors tried to follow the trends and keep up with the times, they were still late. All these espionage intrigues, controlled military conflicts, the Ducalis Plans and the fifth columns remained in the twentieth century, even if newspapers were replaced by blogs. It's a paradigm of the past. And this is the main drawback of the idea of the film: it is impossible to fight against those on whose side progress is, whatever scoundrels you make them out to be. Because you're gonna lose anyway. Progress is not stopped or reversed, but political fossils have a place in the museum of history.
It should be noted that Bulls, in spite of everything, absolutely in his repertoire raises painful social themes. And in this regard, the “Sleepers” completely fit into the overall canvas of the director’s work. Moreover, in terms of the severity of the problems (as well as the amount of alcohol poured), this work is, in my opinion, on the same level as “Leviathan” Zvyagintsev. It's a pity that on the other side of the barricades.
In general, I would compare Sleepers not with our famous political talk shows, but with the artistic version of Nikita Mikhalkov’s program Besogon TV. Here, too, in a rather sophisticated, consistent form, only by replacing basic facts with opposite ones, a harmonious picture of justifying everything that evil tongues call lawlessness is being built.
There is a term called Apex Predator. It is a predator that is the top of the food chain in its habitat. This is exactly the position of the Russian security services, if we look at our society from a biological point of view. And the series Sleepers explains why they are entitled to this status. After all, it is they who protect us, sinful mere mortals, from all the horrors of the American military and spies, the moral corruption and temptations of the rotten West. It is they who endlessly pour their blood and sacrifice personal happiness so that we, overgrown, ungrateful philistines, could continue to drink vodka in liters, hang out in taverns and sit pants in social networks. It remains only to come up with their own juche, on which they are now actively working on a number of signs.
The main thing is that another term, Mafia State, does not appear before this in official international law.
P.S. I wonder what Viktor Tsoi would say if he knew that the Chekists would wear T-shirts with his portrait.
On the fingers, with vivid examples, shows the political kitchen, where everything boils and boils. But, unlike other films about terrorist attacks, it shows not just cooks, but the owners of the restaurant chain, rotten vegetables, spitting on plates, poisoned ingredients, human meat, etc.
The allegory is nauseating, but our current youth, galloping on the Maidans for lace cowards and membership in the European Union – a useful pill for the brain.
As they say, your business is to think or not to think.
In the film, there are no Bad Men and Kybalchi, no matter what it seems at first, inexperienced glance. Just methodically, scene by scene, showing who, how and why. Politics is dirty. That's the first. And the second thing that the director was bullied for is that after watching the masses, the idea may accidentally arise that everything is not for nothing. And the masses will not go to the barricades. It's a failure, gentlemen! You shouldn't think! It has to survive.
It’s not about the Good FSB and the Bad CIA. It's not like that. There are enough bastards on both sides. The main thing is the methods and technologies of conducting modern wars. The schemes are banal to the point of idiocy, but in a country with idiots we have order, no arrears, and therefore the schemes continue to work.
Separately, I will tell you about technical inconsistencies and moves that critics like to talk about from the table and popcorn. People, it does not matter whether this or that step of intelligence is shown stupidly or not. Important Principle.
There is no need to discuss the make of a gun or the device of a bomb. Meet the Chief Bosses... It doesn't matter. At all. The movie is not about that, you know?
The Liberals are squabbling, and I understand why.
My word to the director is thank you.
The series is worth watching. The first series may not get too hooked, but then you get involved. It’s nice to see how the screen embodies the vision of many internal and external events that our filmmakers are not fashionable to embody. It’s like seeing your thoughts and thoughts on the screen. Thank you to the writer and director!
Of course, there's plenty of water. What's wrong with the series? Any wives, husbands, lovers, mistresses, sons, all this is boring and boring, but no more than in other similar projects. In 'Homeland' (American) this good was also enough. Failed love line, surprisingly disgusting female character. The finale is somewhat ' disheveled ' but in many series (especially American) the desire to make a cliffhanger manifests itself at times more fiercely. So the shortcomings are typical serial, inherent in series in general. In addition to the unsuccessful love line, which in the series is often a pleasant addition to the main intrigue.
It is not surprising that the brethren, enthusiastically greeting 'Leviathanov', 'Hostages' and 'Citadel' scooped the series. I guess they recognize themselves in the show. And the director should be more confident in his position, not justify.
9 out of 10
It’s funny to hear all this drooling screech of liberal and pseudo-patriotic & #39; public & #39; about this in principle mediocre series, this gentleman, and I mean the director of this miracle, it’s okay that all villains go without gloves at crime scenes, OK, that you can also find out about it and the FSB would do it once. But this meeting of the heads of the intelligence teams generally conquered. God be with her. In the series I liked, in contrast to the American cranberries about Rushnes evildoing this respect for the Americans, I remember the Soviet films, even in these films, the Americans were mean, but never stupid idiots, who like to portray Russians American cranberry cranberry cranberry cliche of cinema. It is a pity that ' the director' so to speak, in slang, merged, he liked the green card and Western funding more.
From the very beginning, it became clear that the creators are not going to shoot at least partially believable spy thriller. Enough of a killer who cuts her victims without even wearing gloves. It is clear that it is just a symbol of the chaos that the authors try to bring into our lives the damned Pindos.
It’s understandable that all investigators have a tough mind – it’s an old movie tradition, but not to the same extent. It is clear that the opera always manages to the scene of events later than the criminals, but here it becomes too intrusive.
Three moles in the SVR-FSB system, and not just selling information, but actually recruited CIA agents (the third Midian, but it is clear that they are also scouts) – again overkill.
Normal logic in the film is off. To brew all this spy holivar with the participation of two countries only to change the head of one state corporation in a third country? This is pure nonsense. Such tasks are solved easier, cheaper and without such scandals.
The characters of the film are schematic and adapted to common types. The main character looks especially dull, he seems to be honest and positive, but at the end of the film he calmly goes on another task, although his beloved is in prison because she was set up.
The main objective of the film is purely political. And it is to cast a shadow on the protest movement in Russia. Anyone protesting against corruption and other negative phenomena in Russia is either a direct accomplice of US intelligence services or an unwitting tool. Sapienti sat, as they say. I can only say that the United States would never have achieved such power if it were not for the constant criticism of the current government by the opposition and fierce political competition.
There is a lot of false pathos in the film, moreover, in most cases inserted very clumsily. For example, an FSB general, in a face-to-face meeting with a CIA chief, tells him: “We perform the same tasks, but with different methods.” But he's not saying all that for print. Why is a gray-haired general messing with his American opponent? Even non-professionals understand that the methods of all intelligence services are the same: provocation, disinformation, recruitment and their various variants, for example, provocation turns into a terrorist attack.
But there are believable moments in the film. For example, when the FSB general tells his subordinates that the contract with the Chinese is super important. The sale of natural gas to the Chinese is a strategy for the development of the Russian economy for at least the next hundred years. No doubt the people who run our country think so. They obviously like to be a raw material appendage of developed countries.
It is also plausible in the film that the FSB general is having some strange talks with the Chinese energy industry. Ideally, this should be done by Gazprom. But Gazprom is almost invisible in the film, and some left-wing firm appears. Which doesn't surprise anyone today. As well as the fact that the main character at the end of the film goes to work in some bank, and the general-Fsbshnik says to him: “You have never worked for us, but we give you such and such a task.”
This series is an important event in the life of the Russian film industry. For a long time I wanted to drink live water from the TV screen and here was the opportunity. The plot reflects the geopolitical reality and its participants. In the disclosure of facts, including in the artistic sphere, all humanity needs in general, and Russian in particular, enough to play along with geopolitical rivals.
The images of traitors in the series are presented quite harshly, but truthfully. It is generally believed that the Russian liberal stratum is Westerners due to circumstances. They say that these are hedonists who have the opportunity to have a good time in the West, so they gravitate towards him. However, “Sleepers” speaks of the ontological hatred that these gentlemen feel towards Russia.
It seems that the series made a huge impression on all those who recognized themselves as “sleeping” and began a terrible public scandal. Apparently, all the accents of the series were as close to the truth as possible.
10 out of 10
The intrigue arose from the first annotations, the product of the cooperation of the screenwriter, who released as a writer, as they say, a book without proofreading and a nugget director, who shot the first film with his own money, was expected. And on channel one, and on spies. Director Yuri Bykov has long been training on social and criminal topics and each time it turns out to be a little bit, not by age and not by experience. On the other hand, he is a modest person and does not make high-profile applications for netlenka.
I do not agree with the rabid criticism of the series and immediately list a number of its obvious advantages: an exciting plot, still relevant political agenda, recognizability of types, the presence of dialogues and even monologues. (Recently, it has become difficult to watch movies on TV in the background, since the plot is not reflected through the speech of the characters, you need to constantly look at the screen to avoid missing key events.) Female roles are spelled out in quite detail and do not cause rejection, from the character of Elena Podkaminskaya even comes quite a strong statement, possibly becoming a turning point for the development of the lyrical storyline. Doubt causes casting for female roles, as a result of which Karina Razumovskaya, incapable of depicting ruthlessness, plays a liquidator, and Natalia Rogozhkina, gilded with freckles, looks like a dried mummy in dark lighting.
The word "Motherland" is forbidden in the modern politically correct lexicon.
This statement by V. A. Nikonov, a deputy of the State Duma of the VI and VII convocations from United Russia, Chairman of the Committee for Education and Science, Doctor of Historical Sciences, sounded in one of the recent issues of “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” could become an epigraph to this review, because ironically the word “Motherland” clearly sounds only from the mouth of the main antagonist and that once gives it an almost sarcastic hue. Other characters are usually limited to the word "country". Well, not "this country" at all.
The monologues performed by Igor Petrenko, like a thorn on the eye, are the same in emotional tone and lack personal content in most episodes, and their texts seem to be rewritten from the speeches in the above-mentioned program.
“I’m patriotic,” as if cheerfully reports the series.
“... and acutely social,” – alludes to the illegal release of the character from the prison.
“... but not without sin,” he pours whiskey without ice every fifteen minutes.
“... but anti-Maidan.” – scares the mythical “the Chinese will not like.”
" And on a typewriter I can, and with a cross ..." - ah, sorry, this is a talking cat.
So we come to the discussion of figs in the pocket. Because they can’t show us a political series in October 2017 without a fig in their pocket. Patriotism in the series turned out to be very thick, which caused a hysterical reaction of a certain segment of the audience, but fig is so thin, you will not notice it immediately. First, in the latest series, we are exposed to the real customer of terrorist attacks, and he is not at all who you thought before the sudden revelation. We were told who to hate in the event of something. Secondly, General Nefyodov’s confessional dialogues with the head of the CIA station in Moscow contrast significantly with the ceremonial exchange of Nefyodov’s parables with a Chinese intelligence official. This, I understand, should demonstrate a civilizational commonality with our geopolitical adversary and a cultural antagonism with our largest geographical neighbor. And finally, a significant proportion of the agents are recruited for ideological reasons, not for money. This means that they “feel such strong personal hostility” to the country of residence, to the people around them, to public institutions, to the “system” in which they received their posts and regalia that poor ham with parmesan does not get into the throat.
I would like to see this series a little different, a little more ascetic or something, without wallowing drunk women on tables, without throwing knives down the throat, without a makhalov with his fists ... because when you fight in a limited space, there is no room for swinging.
7 out of 10