उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.

One of the most excellent movies ever produced in Russia and certainly the best one made during the decline of the USSR. Incredibly clever, hilarious and dramatic at the same time. Superb acting. Overall a masterpiece. Score it 10/10.

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.

One of the best screen versions of a great book I've ever seen. The acting is superb! The film is full of bitter satire on the first years of the communist regime and shows its stupidity and utter cruelty. I hardly believed that Bulgakov could be put on the screen with such a delicacy as to preserve the subtle hints and political/satiric subtext that characterizes many of the cultural masterpieces of the communist era. The casting is fantastic and every actor is irreplaceable. The film has reached the status of a cult movie very quickly and many phrases from it have become a part of the modern Russian language. A must see!

The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.

Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.

And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech.

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!

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.

Superb modern parable from a seditious Russian novel of 1925 by Mikhail Bulgakov that didn't see the light of day until the 1980s. This is cleverly photographed in sepia hues alongside some brilliantly restored and copied archive-footage, but at the same time it feels very contemporary and accessible with great definition close up, haunting polyphonic choral music, excellent comic acting, so it's got pretty much everything right. The Amazon sleeve art was a little off-putting looking rather cheap and amateur which it is neither - quite the opposite - it's clearly lavishly produced, ironically by Leninfilm. Ask anyone in eastern Europe, they've seen this film, but may not have heard of the book of its long history.

The story is a biting satire of Soviet communism and even when it was released it would have packed a punch, in fact it was surely art like this and other cultural dissent, not Ronald Reagan and Gorby that dismissed the regime, just a year later.

The plot involves a slightly uncouth mongrel dog but ever so charming that undergoes an experiment that the Bolshevik-hating professor didn't bargain for.... There's a touch of horror, layer upon layer of contemporaneous & still relevant cultural/political references, but above all it takes the prize for being all this but still extremely funny, and warm and humane. A cracker.

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.

Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!

Jur

No words to describe this movie because it genius and fantastic! I recommend it for everybody! Must see from 10 y.o. and older. Need to read M.A.Bulgakov before. So I don't now what to write more, just cite: Despite its short size, this book has endless layers. On the surface, it is a hilariously sad story about a science experiment gone very wrong in the direction that its creator did not quite anticipate, and all the funny antics of the newly created sorta-human Sharikov. Yes, that includes obsessive and funny cat-chasing even when the dog becomes "human".

On the other level, it is a cautionary warning about what happens when power falls in the hands of those who should not be allowed to yield it, and the dangers and pitfalls of the system that allows that to happen. Yes, that includes an easy step from killing cats to pointing guns at real people, and demanding sex in exchange for keeping a job, and of course the ultimate evil that was to penetrate the fabric of the years to come - writing denunciations for little else than petty personal gains.

There are people and people on this world, of which some, we must agree, are of arguable "pedigree". Like...a dog, let's say. So what is the difference between man and dog? The fact that an animal doesn't aspire to greatness? Or is it that an animal knows, more or less, its limits and man often doesn't? Debatable, but my guess would be something in this direction. And, just one more question: is it the heart or the mind that counts more?

In the "natural" surroundings of the year 1924 in Russia (shortly after the Russian revolution came to an end - the war between the Reds and the Whites) a professor devoted to his science, but not obsessed by it, conducts an experiment on a dog, implanting some gland which, in effect, causes the animal to evolve into a man. It does sound a bit silly, I must say, but it's arguably a thing of evolution which one might consider. The result of the experiment is a human being which adapts amazingly well to the "simple" doctrine of the bolsheviki, while denying any intellectual rights a person might have on the world as it is. The simple man who desires philosophical concepts such as equality without being able to fully comprehend what it'd mean. In a way, this is what communism relied on and too many people relished this utopist dream.

It's a satire, yes, but not to a huge extent. Don't watch the film expecting to see a phenomenal comedic act, as you definitely won't. The cast does deliver some strong performances, although not constantly and I suppose the directing went rather swell. I'd say well shot.

There's not really much to say, given the strange character of the film. Maybe the subject isn't that catchy, but the movie itself has some very interesting strong points dispersed throughout the whole film. It's not Frankenstein, but you have to wonder how close it comes to being the infamous monster.

...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.

(the review contains no spoilers to the actual plot, but I am discussing a few lines from the movie, which while have 0 impact on the plot, but may not be appreciated by everyone).

I think other reviewers have captured the sense of this movie. Amazing story (obviously), amazing acting and dialogue. Great sets and atmosphere, but I wanted to mention something else...

After living in the USA for 20+ years, something made me wonder. The main point of the movie is to critique ussr/communism and the movie done so with implacable detail. One thing that made me wonder is that professor was very serious when he mentioned how they removed rug from main entrance, stole galoshes and such. It's either such veiled acting or the professor is truly ignorant (in this case, it was either done with the sarcasm or not, I think the result in the same). I completely agree with the communism flaws and such (not to go off tangent), but one thing stands out. When 90% of the country is hungry and can't afford to feed/clothes or keep themselves warm, and he comments how he has light goes out twice a day now versus twice before in 20 years, somehow his problems are just not as important to me.

Nevertheless, movie is brilliant in every way.

Fantastic actors deliver perfect performance under perfect directorship. This important film was impossible in Soviet Union, right until end of eighties. Even book was banned and distributed in illegal, handwritten copies. Even though Soviet Union died, questions in relationships between classes as sharp as ever. Patronising upper and ignorant, lazy, temporary empowered lower class in perpetual conflict worldwide with no answer in light. 10 out of 10...

The film is beautiful, it is not subject to disputes and doubts. But, the whole paradox is that it feels the highlight of THAT great and terrible time, which gave birth to a genius writer and a brilliant work. I will not hide, "Heart of a Dog" is my favorite work from all the world classics, but I can speak about the merit of the director without rose-colored glasses. As a big fan of Bulgakov, I read all of his works and was amazed when I realized that this film was made not only based on The Heart of a Dog, but also on many other stories and notes of the great master.