In my opinion, it is obvious that the present is a line with a grandfather with cancer, and all other stories are the past. How can you get confused here
@Pitriodi: I think what is meant is that inside the past, two time lines also begin to lead (so some parts repeat), and these two lines are not always quickly distinguishable, because in them the characters look exactly the same (there is a difference in days or even hours).
@lanehaz08: Apparently the orderlies were maniacs, dismembering people. Then they slammed the prostitute, her brother, a former military man, recognized her, but hid it from the investigation. And then he killed and dismembered the orderlies in turn. Well, at the moment there are only 2
@annabiozzz: at first they killed only prostitutes, but then they decided to "eat fresh good meat", killed the Afghan's sister and he somehow came out on them and killed everyone. His sister wasn't a prostitute.
I didn't understand who was shown at the beginning of this series, the Kazakh who took knives out of the bedside table? He had long hair and didn't seem to be the brother of this murdered girl...Can someone explain what I missed?
The strongest series at the moment! Yes, at first there was a mess in my head - then everything fell into place. The only unclear point is how did the Afghan find the killers? 🤔🤔🤔
@00rainbow00: Oh, no, in the wake.The parts showed that it was the victim's boyfriend, not the pimp. I was wrong. the series has a strangely sliced timeline. and the choice of recurring episodes is strange.
It's unfair (the man should have been given a reward for the fact that the world got rid of three moral freaks (and he was imprisoned for life(((I was very worried about him and hoped that he would be allowed to escape.
@Biopic: Unfortunately fair enough. You can't just kill people like that, otherwise the world will slide into the Middle Ages and even worse. Once he found them, he could hand them over to the cops, you can philosophize for a long time about the work of law enforcement agencies and the system, but lynching is much worse. He could have made a mistake and killed the wrong people... And there are quite a few such cases in history.
What makes you think that? I didn't see anything like this in the previous comment. the person says that within the framework of modern society, these actions are unacceptable. her brother could have come to the police, they would have been taken immediately (especially since there is just a bunch of evidence in the house), there would have been a court and most likely they would have been sentenced to death anyway (even if not, they would have had a hard time in prison with their articles). and it would have been a fair trial. and so he did not help his sister anymore, only ruined his life for life. Was this revenge worth it? the question, to me, is rhetorical.
It's very interesting, but nothing is clear, I'm completely confused in the middle