this is one of the best movies ever made and nobody knows nothing about it!!!! what a shame!!! people are stuck with hitchcock and kubrick. this film shoul be in the top ten!!! 10/10 a perfect film from a russian master. Eisenstein would say bravo!!!!
share
The movie is great when you remember that the adventures of O. Bender mentioned in "Twelve chairs" are depicted again. Thus the viewer can again enjoy interesting deeds of the main hero once more.
10/10 for an interesting comedy about the manners of the Russian people under the Commmunist rule...
I would not call this movie a straight up "comedy" per se. Although there are some elements of comedy, it portrays a tragic downfall of aristocracy in post-Revolution Russia. A landmark in world cinema. One of those movies that is actually better than the book.
_____________
I have seen through the eyes of a wolf and felt all its pain and loneliness...
A landmark in world cinema. One of those movies that is actually better than the book.Easy about the book. I love the movie, but I still think the book is better (though I disagree with most of Bulgakov's ideas). share
You know what they say, "na vkus i na zvet..." This is one of few times, in my opinion, where short story fails in comparison to the movie. Yevstigneev and Tolokonnikov are ace, especially the early scene with balalayka! At least both of us agree that the movie rocks. As far as Bulgakov goes, the funny thing is, he was Stalin's favorite writer but his books were not published in Russia until Perestroika.
_____________
I have seen through the eyes of a wolf and felt all its pain and loneliness...
I'm not too sure about him being Stalin's favourite writer. I do know that he allowed Bulgakov to put on an anti-Stalin play, but only to demonstrate the west how "free" the nation was.
shareActually it was Stalin's favorite play. I'm not sure about writer, but I do know as playwright, Bulgakov was admired by Stalin.
shareI'll have to agree with xdurakx... the movie follows the book very faithfully, but has better pacing, and the added visual impact from the film (such as in the "newsreel" scene), as well as the music and the acting, makes the film a much more profound experience.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
i, of course, pretty much hate it.
shareI watch movies made from all parts of the world, daily. I must say that this is one of the most clever movies I've ever seen, and I'm only an hour into it. Charecters, storyline, visuals, translation, subtitle clarity, everything, outstanding. Any student of Soviet history will really appreciate this. Dr Zhivago scene of his house becoming "peoples housing" is themed throughout, and its scathing indictment of clumsy socialism is timeless. Up there with the GREATS!
shareMeh, nothing special. The sepia looked oversaturated, the story was fine but lacked directorial flair. Russians apparently view their own films very favourably juddging by the high ratings their (little known to the outside world) classics get on here.
Oh whisky, leave me alone.
Yeah, it works pretty well when it's a satire of Soviet bureaucracy and the New Soviet man; unfortunately that's only a minor part of it. Most of the time is spent on unfunny repartee and irritating caricatures. It's clever when it tries to be, but mostly it's actually just monotonous.
That fact that it is basically a filmed theater play doesn't exactly help either. Apart from the beautiful, gritty opening shots, most of the film takes part in colorless apartment with seemingly no efforts made in mise en scène.
This is the worst use of the potential of the film medium I have seen in a long time. It's unacceptable in post-1930s cinema; more than 60 years after Eisenstein's revolutionary editing masterworks!
And that reminds me, the best parts are those when it emulates Soviet propaganda film. Way to salute the master while at the same time ignoring everything he tried to tell us about film…