For those who voted 8 to 10
Just tell me why.
For the tv-series it's very nice!
Btw, I didn't vote yet because I haven't seen all of the episodes yet, but we'll see...
So far so good.
MovieChat Forums > Master i Margarita (2005) Discussion > For those who voted 8 to 10
I like this movie.
shareand i like it )))
shareand me too! It's very infomative tread! ;)
shareWell, it's you guys simply saying "i like it" without reasoning, who make this thread reeeally informative;)
When I was starting the theme i just wanted to wait with the critics and listen what people have got to say.. seems nothing special. Maybe I'd better switch to another topic then?.. ["crap"] ))
because it is the best filmed "Master and Margarita" out there. Oh wait, it is the only one out there. And it is quite good
shareIt's not, of course, the only screen version of the film. There was at least one, but it hasn't made it to the wide screen. I suppose Bortko's version would be the only one that reached the audiences. Nevertheless, it was a good film. Yes, perhaps Begemot the Cat did not turn out right, but hey, it's not your ordinary Hollywood film, and Hallelujah for that. It is a quality re-telling of the story without crappy misinterpretations and "original" readings of it. "Master i Margarita" is a masterpiece, which, when it comes down to making a screen version of it, should NEVER be interpreted in a purely one-person's vision. You can do that with theatre stagings, but not with filming.
Master, played by Aleksandr Galibin, was superb, in my opinion. He was the picture perfect version of the Master, who gets beaten by the System. Margarita also was cast perfectly. The actress, Anna Kovalchuk, really does have what it takes an actress to play Margarita. Seeing her on the screen in the sabbath scene, I could really believe she had just been liberated from her insipid life and had reinvented herself as a Witch right then and there.
The infernal clique was a dream-cast. Aleksandr Abdulov as Koroviev, I cannot think of anyone better for the role. Filippenko as Azazello and Bashirov as Begemot did very well. I especially liked Azazello as I could really believe it was a demon, behind his attempts at being nice.
Overall, this movie deserves a strong and solid 8.
I'm surprised you all, being such specialists on M&M and don't know about previous versions! Well, let me remind you: in 1971 Polish director Andrzej Wajda made Pilatus and others. In 1972 a Yugoslav director, very good one!, created M&M with Ugo Tognazzi and Mimsy Farmer and then-famous Yugoslav (Serbian) actor Bata Zivojinovic. It was shown all over Europe and in the US, I definitely know it was shown in the Soviet Union too. Critics were mostly good, except in the USSR. In 1988 again a Polish director Machek Woytyshko made a TV seroial in 7 parts. But then, in 1994 the famous Russian director Yuri Kara made M&M with Anastasiya Vertinskaya(brilliant actress!) and Viktor Rakov. Because of some problems with production the film was NEVER shown in public, as far as I am informed, it is nearly impossible to get any version (even illegal!). Some people say it has never been finished actually. And then, maybe finally, a Hungarian director Fekete Ibolya created only 30 min (sic!) "movie" in 2005.
So, gereally speaking, M&M has some international significance. I'll just give you something intersting about the drama, that is still played in Moscow theatres: at least 3 theatres have been playing it constatntly, for years, even from the Soviet times. The famous Yuri Lyubimov version at the theatre of Taganka in Moscow had 1000th performance in 2002 and it's been running from 1977!! Brezhniev times, remeber? And there are constant comparative discussion about who plays better and deeper in Russian cultural papers and literary reviews. I have lived in Moscow for years and you can believe me I saw all those plays but couldn't make to find or see the Yuri Kara movie, as I said. I'm looking forward to see the Bortko version. Bortko picture ->http://www.masterimargarita.ru/p/12.jpg
Voted 8. Agree it is not perfect but honestly I doubt if anyone could do better. Some folks like the cast, some do not – for me actors were very good. Anna Kovalchuk as a witch is just perfect, though conventional Margarita is played slightly worse – but quite good performance still. Galibin is remarkable Master - perhaps the only actor out of question.
In general most of the cast wasn’t like I have imagined from the book, but… I can accomodate to everyone – the director’s vision made them all a good fit.
What must be praised
* excellent music by Korneluk. He somehow found a perfect balance between comic and dramatic intonations switching from one to another
* many director’s findings like changing from color to BW from time to time
* once again – the cast as a whole and as each one of them
What was wrong for me
* Some scenes played cheap – I can’t say poor because obviously it is director’s fault. Like Margarita opening a closet and immediately pulling out a perfume and stockings like she was expecting a dialog with Natasha. These moments are not so important – but they spoils the impression
* Visual effects were sometimes strange – my opinion is that if you can do a thing right - don’t do it at all.
* Behemot – everyone agrees that it should be a better as a cat.
The movie was awsome...and my favourite character was the cat....and to the reason why the cat was planned to be the way shown in the movie is because the cat isn't real...the cat is VOLAND'S helper the cat is also the evil force, the evil itself, and the characterization of the cat having the power to transform into a human and then back into this evil devil talking cat...the idea was freacky and really nicely done. Also if the cat was played by a normal cat, how would the shooting scene between the KGB agents and the cat be shot??? The cat in the 2005 version has a personality of evil and Dark humour.
I PERSONALLY HAVE GIVEN THE MOVIE 10/10 for:
-A great work from the actors.
-Awsome music and special effects.
- A movie that was made really close to the book unlike...the privious version of the movie...and that is to why the 2005 version is so popular.
- For the quality of the movie and how the director has put it together...if bulgakov could see the production i am 100% sure that he would approve it.
the MASTER AND MARGARITA 2005 IS AWSOME! ;) 10/10
KOT BEHEMOTH RULES!!!;)
I voted 9 for this mini series, and I would have given it 10 if it had been a usual movie. You asked why I did it, and I'd say the actors played very well. Bortko embarks upon a rather difficult task of transforming a great book in a movie, and he can only do that by casting the right actors and actresses. Master i Margarita the book was about human souls and not about God or Satan, or religion. So Bulgakov's characters were played with genuine feeling of what was going on in this story.
There is a saying that tastes are not to be discussed, and I personally liked the cat and didn't like Margarita the lover. She could have been a more misterious woman. Pilat was played exceptionally well.
This work of art is way too good to be a mini series, but it's really better than nothing. I think about Tarkovsky's movies; they all are so deep and essential, and I would want to watch several times a two-hour movie based on Bulgakov's novel. I hope we'll see it some day. :)
The value of this movie is not about special effects or action, or the quality of the picture; it could have been created in black-and-white palette and still been attractive by its spirit. Bulgakov showed the life bounded in the mass social norms, but ultimately he achieved the goal of presenting the value of life itself. According to Bulgakov, some ordinary people are the ones who find it hard to live in this world, and they come to realizing the spiritual part of their being. They are rebels and they have a right to come to rest.
Bulgakov has had a brilliant gift to create the characters who were reflecting his rigor, and spirituality along with intelligence. He purposefully created Master i Margarita and this mini series has allowed me to feel what the book was written for.
The movie (mini series, as some people call) may be not absolutely perfect, but
I do not want to call the whole thing a 'junk'. I read the book at the age of 17 (and I am 50 now) and it remains one of my most favorite masterpices of literature (I guess I do not surprise too many :--). Let's remember that it's usually very diffucult to make a good movie based on a good book.
My first inkling after seeing two or three eposides was to criticize the whole thing as a failure, but then I felt that I wanted to see some scenes one more time (I have all 10 series on a DVD) and the more I watched the more I wanted to revisit other scenes and I've been doing this for close to 2 weeks now. And I have to admit that it's not really that bad at all.
Several things I don't get and don't like (but still can live with them):
1) many scenes, which are just hilarious when you read the book do not make you laugh as much (if at all) in the movie
2) Anna Kovalchuk (Margarita) is the worst casting failure in this movie. Her 'best moments' are only when she does not speak, but every line she says sounds so out of place and touch and so un-natural ! (I know there are many people who liked her a lot - I do not intend to offend them)
3) I'd like the move to be 100% in color. Bulgakov's novel is such a bright and brilliant piece left by the epoch, that it needs color. B&W scenes give the movie some kind of depressive flavor.
4) Music is great - you just have to forget that Korneluk stole from Kuriokhin and from the movie 'Omen' (I do not know who composed the music for it).
Of course it could be better, but I agree to be grateful just for what it is.
Why?
Because nobody made a better complete version ever.
It is not a masterpiece of special effects, but I think this was not the purpose.
We liked he story, we need to see it on screen in its very details and russian spirit.
It is a very good film.
Thanks God,Hollyood missed the start:)
Are you kidding me? Well, to begin with, this is my favorite book. I have read it in Russian over 10 times. I know it by memory. So, if I could give the movie 200 points, I would. And I was very picky, since I know this book so well and have imagined every scene and every hero my own way. I was so sceptical that I didn't even want to see the movie, but it turned out to be GREAT, FANTASTIC!!! Appearently, the director imagined it the same way I did. Even the actors looked exactly how I imagined the heroes. Well, maybe except for Berlios, because he doesn't really fit Bulgakov's description. However, he is a great actor and I don't mind him at all. This atmosphere of the life in Moscow in the 1930-s.... It is great that they made some episodes black and white. It really gives us the sense of that time.
But I respect your opinion and am very curious why you disliked it.
It's not flawless, but I was satisfied in general, because it followed the book very closely. The only people I felt a miscast were Varenukha (always imagined him younger and a bit feminine - maybe my mistake, I read it in translation and thought he was a woman at first, my language lacks grammatical gender) and Judas (not handsome enough).
The music is awesome, and the acting was good. It sucked me in from the first scene. The special effects are not the best, but they didn't exactly have the budget of LotR. It's the characters and the story that makes it work.
Pontius Pilate is my favourite - although he's much older than in the book, he convinced me from the beginning. He can say so much with his eyes and face only. Generally the whole Yeshua storyline was spot on - I just realized Afranius is basically the local Varys.
The only weird thing - why didn't Woland have mismatched eyes? Azazello did, so it's not like they couldn't do it.
I think if American Gods is ever made, it should be made in a similar manner - following the book as much as possible. Only with a bigger budget on effects.
____________________
Valar morghulis
I'm sure it's a conspiracy and not because they thought it was really good.
share