Sobachye serdtse

This magnificent painting by Vladimir Bortko of printed for the first time in the Soviet Union only in 1987, early satirical novel by Mikhail Bulgakov about the fantastic transformation of stray dog ​​ in a typical Soviet citizen Sharikov often show is now on television the anniversary of the October Revolution (by the way, is so-called revolution until the end 20s). And each time it is to be understood as a special treatment with a sobering effect on the revival of historical illusions and delusions (sorry that Bortko himself is now defected to the Communists, and even joined the Communist Party!). Three characters, the key to understanding the uniqueness of the moment has long expired - balls, Shvonder and Professor Preobrazhensky (in excellent, sometimes just virtuoso performance respectively Tolokonnikova Vladimir, Roman and Eugene Evstigneeva Kartseva) - can be said to have become a household figures. And thanks to them, as well as due to finely-crafted direction that does not rush to extremes, and an overlap, following commendable sense of proportion and taste, a pivotal era in the destiny of the country appeared on the screen in capacious, aphoristic form, which is not devoid of bright tragifarsovosti.

A skillful operator (in black and white, but slightly virirovannoy tone) work Yuri Shaygardanova has written the historical and revolutionary fantastic anecdote in stylized retro long sunk into oblivion peace. All this suggests the adaptation of Vladimir Bortko, maybe the best version of Bulgakov's works, which corresponds exactly to the plan of the writer, significant realized by him in the ninth year of the revolution.

It does not come to me a surprise that all positive reviews on this site come from Russian ex-pats, while the single negative one comes from somebody outside.

This movie is based on a classic work by a leading Russian monarchist intellectual. As such, it offers us a rare opportunity to look at the world from point of view of educated, wealthy aristocrat - a being much despised by most today, as he confronts an underprivileged, undereducated and underachieving antagonist, together with multitude of civil rights activists, acting as the latter's allies.

The movie's philosophy can be horrifying (and can be argued to be biased and one sided), but definitely deserves a consideration, offering a refreshingly new (or rediscovered old) prospective on eternal problems of social justice and intellectual hierarchy.

Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history — anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over — for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).

Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.

...Not always from the beginning, though, but every time it goes on TV I am somehow unable to switch channel - dispite knowing all of the scenes by heart! Almost perfect adaptation of a great Bulgakov's novella. I recommend "Heart of a Dog" to every foreign viewer as a hidden gem of soviet cinema.

After having read this incredible book by Mikhail Bulgakov I thought how Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky would look like in real life. Borthko found them! Sharikov and Professor are in the flesh! The satire and allegory of this superb piece of art is 'the cherry top'. I must confess, it's so rare when you see a film on the same pace of the book. The film is a brilliant screen where your fantasy heroes come true. Evstigneev's and Tolokonnikov's talent is irreplaceable! Did the director change anything from the book? God forbid, NO! Borthko has put every detail in this incredible masterpiece! It's that Bulgakov we see and would love to see! 10 out of 10!