Il maestro e Margherita

The movie is done really well. It looks great, it's well edited, has great sound design and all the performances are flawless.

The timelines and realities are so convoluted that it would make Nolan scratch his head. However, the movie does a great job at keeping the story comprehensible and engaging.

I usually don't like long movies, but in this case the two and a half hours runtime is well justified and passed by quickly. There's no runtime padding and everything feels essential.

The only reason I subtracted one star is that the humor from the book didn't properly precipitate into this movie (but that's super subjective so take with a grain of salt). Otherwise it's a nearly perfect and innovative adaptation of a good book.

Its quite an impressive result - to squeeze such a book into single movie.

If previous series were dedicated a lot for Jesus (Ganozzi) and Pontius Pilat theme, here we see quite an extensive story of Master.

I really liked that Master is shown not as crazy obsessed by his novel psycho individual, but rather as a normal person who was just killed step by step with his own genius by new Soviet ideology and traitors/slaves of this new era propaganda

You can easily build a parallel with what is happening today in Russia.

I really liked the episode in the end when city is on fire with all the stars symbols on the roof and the most famous sentence and Pontius and how he hates the city which is swallowed by the darkness

That was the epic end!

As someone who read the book extensively before watching the movie, the director did an incredible job adapting Mikhail Bulgakov's book! I adored the spin they put on the story, from the way they adapted the storytelling to how they portrayed Woland. The stylistic choices were top notch and the costume designs were very well done. They left a few scenes from the book out (more than reasonable considering the movie is around 2.5 hours long already), they still had all the major plot points and small changes. I love how they put a nice change to how and why the Master was locked up, and how he created his own world and situations while in the mental facility.

All in all, incredible movie but Gella needed more screen time in my humble opinion. Go watch it!

This film is a cinematic adaptation of famous and brilliant Russian book that was written in 1928-1940 amongst darkest years of Big Terror and banned for many years. Mikhail Bulgakov well knew that his novel won't be ever published but kept writing.and rewriting it as something very personal. The book was never finished but his wife brought his drafts together after he died and they gradually found it's way into emerging Samizdat with people printing copies on typewritters and sharing them. My literature teacher used to tell us story how she read this book overnight since she had to pass copy to the next reader (btw she didn't like it :) but admitted it was a great work nevertheless). Eventually knowing that book became a sign of a well educated and free minded person in USSR and part of a cult following with

But let's get back to the movie. Bulgakov's book was adapted into several films and film series but proved to be exceptionally difficult to maintain book spirit, pretty much like we don't have good adaptations for excellent books of Terry Pratchett. However this film is the very best adaptation that I saw. Unlike some other adaptations it does not try to literally follow the book, but it wonderfully captures it's very essence.

The plot revolves around a writer in Soviet Union who finds himself at odds with new government and left without means to survive amongst rapidly unfolding political terror. Nevertheless he meets a married woman who inspires him to start writing a new book while knowing that it won't be published and might actually.get him jailed. A tragic love story unfolds and helps both to keep going and fighting in a seemingly hopeless environment. The writer starts to add persons from his own life as characters in his book and mystically the story that he wrote starts to influence the actual world where he lives. As an author he can write a happy ending for lovers in his story, but will it become real as well? And are all those mystic events happening around even real at all or just merely his own imagination?

As you might have guessed by now this story is mirroring personal story of Bulgakov life and I was very impressed how well film captured this intertwining between Bulgakov and the book he wrote. It also brilliantly reproduced his harsh satire on Soviet society where words and actions were totally different and it feels very actual for modern day Russia that rapidly follows same steps. It faithfully reproduces most of the key story moments from original book. And God, it's absolutely beautiful visually. Cast is truly excellent too with plenty of memorable characters and while nominally it is pretty long it certainly doesn't feel.so when you watch it.

There are several reasons to dislike this film. The book was significantly shortened - it simply too large to fit everything. Original book had strong and memorable Biblical elements but they were almost removed. Satiric elements are exaggerated visually while original book had them wonderfully written on top of normal, easily recognizable everyday life. I think it was the right decision because an exaggerated fantastic Soviet city is a good showcase of Soviet propaganda of 193x that was all too well known to Bulgakov and his early readers but is largely forgotten now, however I understand why some might disagree with such modification. Finally film tends to often paint it's story with a broad strokes and subtle hints relying on watcher to fill in details and omitted parts. This works wonderfully for people familiar with horrible Russian history of 1930s as well as original book, but it could be confusing for people who never read the book and unfamiliar with that part of Russian history.

Despite all these issues, I think it's a real masterpiece. Book adaptations are always difficult and this is a rare example of very successful adaptation of a complex and allegorical book. Must see for those who.read and loved Master and Margarita or want to better understand Russians and their history. Aside from that it's a good and visually beautiful film.

The book. The film. The book. The film. A continuous confrontation with no winners. In my book (pun intended), with The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov you can't do the film without the book. And this is my major premise in this review. Had I not reacquainted myself with the book prior to the film, I wouldn't have gained either the gist of the latter or the dark satirical wisdom of the novel yet again. Instead, I had done my homework: immersed myself in the book, watched professors of literature on Bulgakov's hidden motives, vicariously walked along Moscow streets with the help of a youtube tour.

One of the crucial things I quarried on this expedition is that Bulgakov spent 12 years writing the masterpiece (between 1928 and 1940). No wonder, this resulted in incredible density of the text: 2-dimension narrative, vividly drawn characters, spellbinding dialogues and descriptions. Every plotline comes packed with loads of profound subtexts. And again, I could only appreciate all this only after my versatile reasearch. Let's take Frida's appearance for example. Seemingly passing, this character alludes to the idea of MERCY and the way Margarita gracefully personifies MERCY. She raises to the challenge of freeing Frida from eternal punishment. This clemency is mirrored by Pilat's reluctance from eternal punishment to extend MERCY to Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth) in Jerusalem setting of the novel.

Methinks, MERCY is the crux of the novel. Methinks, it never shone through in the film though. Having embraced all the landmark events, the director chose to rearrange them in another order under the over-arching story of Master and Margarita's romance. I have to say it for the director, the reshuffled episodes are given in a surprisingly cohesive order. And yet, you can't have it all. If you focus on the love line, you cannot thoroughly cover Professor Woland (the devil) and his retinue's visit to Moscow. The way they challenge moscovites' religious convictions and condemn the behaviour of Massolit's corrupt social climbers and profiteers, Behemoth's whims and Koroviev's vagaries also have to go. Interestingly though, the creators took the risk of adding one more dimension - the author's life, which allegedly parallels Michhail Bulgakov's misfortunes and hardships against the backdrop of heavy criticism for his works and plays.

So, in the production the main character Master is somewhat expanded: not only does he personify the book character, but he also sheds some light on Bulgakov's love-hate relationship with the Soviet authorities. Both personalities were successfully performed by Eugeny Tsyganov. He was really convincing in his role of a distressed and desperate genius. His devoted lover Margarita by Julia Snigir left me cold. Guilty as charged, I couldn't help comparing this cinematic milk-and-water Margarita to that I envisaged when reading. My Margarita came across as a volatile and vibrant woman, let alone her witch's acquired personality. Having turned into a witch, Bulgakov's Margarita completely transformed, became restless, reckless even. Passion unleashed. None of this was played out by Julia. Unluckily, she could not hold her own with August Diehl - Woland (Devil in disguise). The latter, though, is a vital example of how successful directors' decisions can be cast wise. Orchestrating his character, August Diehl demonstrated an ample scope: from playful remarks to devilishly frightening preaches. Hats off!

Another movie character which made an indelible impression on me is Moscow. The city enveils each and every scene. The 3-dimension plot is set in utopian Moscow. Moscow which was in actual fact designed by Stalin's people. Moscow which never happened. These oppressive behemoth buildings hover over the humdrum of Moscow daily life, keep an eye on the citizens, remind them of the ruler. This formidable city could've been drawn with better graphics, but even so the mystique of the narrative rubbed off on me.

Needless to say, this multifarious creation has been getting a relentless onslaught of criticism. The critics' major contention is that this production is nothing more than just another slick "Hollywood-esque" knock off: the romance, the city, the blasts. Without wishing to encroach on culture-vultures' territory, I agree to disagree with this degrading look. Nor do I buy this "the film is based very loosely on the book" stance. Why should it be? We are looking at two different art forms here. Whereas literature is about setting off a reader's reflective judgments and imagining through language, cinematic art abounds in all sorts of technical and creative components: lighting, camera angles, sound design, editing, and acting. All these make a film a coherent and powerful visual tale. And from where I am standing, The Master and Margarita's cinematic adaptation panned out as powerful.

It's been two weeks since I finished reading and went to the cinema. The fact that I keep thinking about both the film and the book is quite telling. Seldom do I indulge in that profound research on cinematic forms. Apparently, both worked for me and triggered the whole gamut of emotions. In my mind palace these two are merging into each other, accomplishing each other. And this is a very complex and ingenious picture. I wouldn't have fathomed the film without a prior reading. Nor would my emotions would be that strong without the rendition. The manifold idea behind both of them makes plain "I liked", "I didn't like" review nigh on impossible. My recommendation is to do both and to make the cogs in your brain turn. Buckle down and enjoy the trip.