Un cavaliere di nome Morte

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.

Indeed, the Russian film industry is not dead! Karen Shakhnazarov's take on the novel by Boris Savinkov, who could be equated with the main-character "Georges", is nearly-flawless! Evoking Moscow during the 1905 Revolution, we are given access to the very secret world of a terrorist-cell. It is unlikely, and Shakhnazarov's film illustrates this, that terrorism has changed much at-all. From the lushness of Tsarist-circles, to the beggars in the alleys of Moscow, it's a vivid recreation of a time that is gone--and yet still alive with Chechen-bombings in Russia. The director notes astutely how minor acts of violence accumulate into a bloodbath. The Revolution of 1917 (February by the Social Democrats, then October by the Bolsheviks) began what would be a civil war that didn't really end until Stalin's consolidation of power in the late-1930s. Tens-of-millions died, and it all began with the Socialist Revolutionary Party. In some respects, the SR's were a party whose members were more reactionary and radical than the Bolsheviks under Lenin, then Stalin. Shakhnazarov's eye for composition is wonderful, and there are sweeping crane-shots, dollies, and a great mixture of static ones too. Most-importantly, however, are the close-shots that capture the intimacy of the cell and its inhabitants. The history of Russian film is on display here, and it is breathtaking.

Sakinov fancied himself a Nietzschean superman, and he played all-sides during the Russian Civil War. As part of the Socialist Revolutionary Party's underground, Georges and his cell anticipate Bolshevik terror, and a complete surrender to nihilism that was common to that period. This philosophy is most-evident in cell leader Georges. While his compatriots have their own reasons, Georges appears to have no other reason for directing his terror-attacks than a desire to kill, to stir Russian-society towards...what? Even Georges seems to be unsure why he does what he does. That is not an uncommon-feeling for terrorists and insurgents, as the Weather Underground amply displayed. In short, a cell leader is responsible for harnessing all these different reasons for why these individuals have "come to the cause." There are so many powerful moments in this film, that you really must watch it to appreciate the scope of what it is saying. It's THAT good. From the rapid-editing in the assassination-attempt scenes, to the incredible atmosphere in the making of the bombs, we're treated to the best of Russian cinema. It appears that no expense was spared in the recreation of early-1900s Tsarist Russia, down to the beggars and the filthy-streets. The acting is of the highest-order here, as well.

It's criminal that this film was not nominated for an Academy Award (TM) for Best Foreign Film, it's absurd. Without the DVD release by Kino in North America, would we even know it exists? Likely, this was the best film of all during 2004! Take-note: in late-2005, American film-chains were threatening to stop-showing ALL Hollywood PRODUCT soon if the industry decides on shortened film-to-DVD windows for release as "sell-through." If that occurs, we may see a wonderful rebirth of indie and World cinema! Especially for film lovers in the USA, this could mean a rebirth of the old "grindhouse" cinemas with their panopoly of genre and World cinema releases. Cross your fingers, we should be watching films like this all the time. With luck, the film industries of Europe and Asia will recover. Even better: new ones will be emboldened. I'd LOVE to see Chavez pull that one off, it would be a treat!

not great, not boring, not impressive. few ingredients of Demons by Dostoievski. crumbs from first part of XX Russian century. lines of different love story, revenge and murders as bricks of new world. faces of profound crisis, pieces of faith, need of life sense and fascination of death. a definition of a soul. soul of some men and sacrifice of a woman. a prey of past and ladder of feelings. innocence and waste of emotions, Stolîpin era and seeds of October Revolution. the assassination of Great Duke Sergey Alexandrovich in different form and shadow of strange Ashaverus.a picture in old nuances about profound fight against world as fight against yourself. the angel is far from battle fight. and the innocence is first brick in a large foundation.

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!