Vsadnik po imeni Smert

for me, its basic virtue is to be a window to the Dostoyevsky universe. Andrey Panin remembering The Demons, Artyom Semakin in a role remembering Rodion Raskolnikov, Ksenya Rappaport as new version of Sonya Marmeladova. and, sure, the streets, the dialogues, the confessions.the second good point remains the trip in the terrorist circle of the first decade of Russian XX century, especially the assassination of Great Duke Sergey Alexandrovich. support for reflection, it is an essay about power. its force, its legitimacy, its limits. and its gray solitude.

Historical drama. The film adaptation (the second, to be exact) of the story of the famous terrorist Boris Savinkov "Pale Horse", and also some moments of another story "Memories of a terrorist" were included in the script. We haven't read the original book sources (but we've learned about them in general terms, so to speak), so we'll evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. We watched this picture as children, and we only remembered the scene in the theater almost at the end, and nothing else. Russian Russian and foreign films were shown on Channel One, and Russian actors were still playing at the time (yes, imagine, it was, and relatively recently). And we recently decided to review this picture and properly understand it, and the result was somewhat saddening. And here's a brief opinion - A boring film adaptation of Boris Savinkov's novel. The picture has both advantages (which deserve to be mentioned) and disadvantages (without which there is no escape). Therefore, we conclude this introduction and proceed to the analysis.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario is the central story of the "militant organization" of the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRS) under the leadership of Georges (Boris Savinkov), who want to make an attempt not on some tsarist official, but on the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich himself, the governor-General of Moscow. There are several people in the group who joined the organization for ideological reasons. Several assassination attempts fail. Almost the entire group perishes, leaving only Georges, for whom this assignment by the Central Committee of the Party becomes a personal matter. Add Georges' promiscuous sex life, the well-revealed characters of the organization's members, plus a good primary source, and the result is a fairly good script. Which, of course, you won't want to watch, but you can definitely listen to the background. Well, at least this time the scriptwriters bothered to logically complete the story and told about the further fate of its participants. You especially feel for Fedor, one of the most interesting characters here.

2. Costumes and sets - it was Mosfilm, so the sets were pretty good. And the costumes, too. It was quite pleasant to look at both the first and the second. We didn't notice any special problems or errors. But if they were, then let the historians write about it in the comments. We will read them carefully.

3. Acting - it's not often that we get this point, especially regarding modern Russian cinema, but nevertheless. Andrey Panin, Ksenia Rappoport, Anastasia Makeeva, Rostislav Bershauer, Dmitry Dyuzhev and others looked organic here, and they worked with dialogues, so it's even interesting to listen to them. And we are not talking about philosophy, which is enough here. Back in 2004, Russian actors were still playing. No one is demanding this from them now (and they don't know how to do it themselves, and they don't want to).

So, the disadvantages: 1. Historical mistakes - Sergei Alexandrovich was killed by a terrorist Ivan Kalyaev with a bomb (after the assassination attempt, he was tried and then hanged), but in the picture his bomb did not reach its target (and he also died), and in the picture the prince dies at the hands of Georges. We don't know anything about the relationship between Savinkov and Dora Brilliant (in Erna's painting), so this connection is questionable. The fate of Lev Sikorsky (Henry in the picture) was completely different. And these are just the biggest mistakes we've made. If you have something to add, then you are welcome to comment.

2. Tedious - you can fall asleep under this historical drama without even taking a sleeping potion, because the picture itself is built in such a way that you will certainly fall asleep while watching it. Here, the music helps a lot, and the narration is very unhurried. And we understand that we are being shown the routine of the terrorist activities of the Socialist Revolutionaries, but even the routine can be presented in an artistic picture, interestingly, which is not observed here. And the atmosphere here is kind of semi-somnolent. Not everyone can stand it and not everyone will like it.

This picture is also interesting because of how calmly and routinely the terror of the Social Revolutionaries was shown, how they calmly carry out their task. There are fears and anxieties here, but there is also the determination with which many of them went to certain death. It is clear to many that individual terror cannot change anything. To achieve changes for the common people, it is necessary to break the entire system, then autocratic-monarchical with nascent capitalism, and now - just capitalism. These people thought differently. To understand their goals and objectives, worldview, this picture can be viewed. She will give you a general idea of them. Well, if you want to learn more about this - there are many books written on this topic, you can start with Boris Savinkov himself. As it is, we think the picture will be interesting to many, but be prepared for the drudgery.

Our rating is 6 out of 10 and recommended for viewing!

By directing "Vsadnik Po Imeni Smert",Mosfilm studio chief Russian director Karen Shaknazarov has made a very different type of film.This is the second time in his cinematographic career that he has chosen history as a theme for his film."Poisons or the World History of Poisoning" was his first film which dealt with a seemingly difficult theme of history in Russian cinema.His earlier films were musical tales and dramas about irrational universes.History is presented in a faithful manner in this film and it is amazing how old worldly charm of Russian capital Moscow has been truthfully delineated especially in the scenes involving crowds.This film is based on a book by famous Russian revolutionary/terrorist Boris Savinkov who was given the title "General of terror" as he made up his mind to eliminate high officials in Russia who were responsible for poor people's miseries.It is true that "The rider named death" has a simplistic theme yet it remains a gripping film as there is a brilliant game of cat and mouse between life and death.The portrayal of women characters essential to the film's progress is little weak as they have been denied enough screen space. This is something which might bother feminine audience of this film. According to Mr.Shaknazarov in the past terrorists killed high officials not ordinary folks but today's terrorists kill ordinary folks.This film was presented at 13th International Film Festival of Kerala,India 2008 where a retrospective of his films was held.

"A Rider Named Death", is one of those foreign Art-House films that very few people will ever see. It's too bad!. It's actually a well made simple straightforward tale of the roots of a terror cell in the period before WW1 in Russia. No fancy Hollywood production here, (thank you), but a visually satisfying experience none-the-less. High production values, and great cinematography and composition. An intellectual look at the heart and mind of a obsessed political killer. What makes it so good, is that the camera goes beyond the deeds acted out, and captures the soulless, godless, inner conflicts of the main character. It ends as one would expect, but the ride to get there is worthy of an 8 out of 10.

"A Rider Named Death" is a political thriller focusing on a small terror cell in 1905 Russia.

The film is certainly interesting, as it examines the nihilism that lies beneath the bombers' "principled" violence. However, it suffers from an reluctance to probe these motives too deeply. Character development is neglected in favor of building atmosphere. Of the film's characters, only George and Vanya are three-dimensional. Vanya in particular is one of the film's highlights, a contradictory figure whose fervor for revolution is tempered by his Christian values of love and peace.

However, this atmosphere is one of the film's great joys. It depicts late Czarist Russia as a nonstop carnival for the wealthy and nonstop drudgery for the poor. It is a shame that the filmmakers did not spend enough time developing it.