Master i Margarita (2005) User Reviews

Faithfully made with an authentic feel

[wolandscat · 8/10 · 29 January 2012]

I have read M&M probably 10 times, the Michael Glenny English translation (the others are worthless). This series is a great effort to visualise Bulgakov's grand novel. It is immediately apparent that a series of short films is the best format, so good on the funders and producers for getting that right. Most scenes are just how I pictured them, which really says something for Bulgakov's powers of communication.

I really liked the cast. Initially I was very surprised at the 'old' Pilate (Kirill Lavrov - at 80!), but after 5 minutes of being mesmerised, I realised he must be one of Russia's greats (and indeed he is). Although his age is technically unrealistic for a Roman procurator of Judea, it is a masterclass in acting. Woland (Oleg Basilashvili) is a towering presence, just the right combination of menace and pathos. Kovalchuk certainly looks the part as Margarita - and I am not sure that she could have played her much differently: it is a difficult character to understand from the book, one whose actions but not thoughts are externalised.

Great music. Decent enough special effects & animatronics to cover the magic bits (some younger people will complain about them, but you are forgetting that good actors in a real theatre can make you believe anything, and there the sets are just painted wood). Overall the pace feels right. I think its an excellent overall effort.

Any true M&M fans will appreciate this work, and I am sure find it easy to ignore the small flaws.

'Say at last--who art thou?' 'That Power I serve Which wills forever evil Yet does forever good.' Goethe, Faust

[Galina_movie_fan · 8/10 · 7 September 2006]

"Master and Margarita", the book and the movie:

I have read "Master and Margarita" three times, and I am sure that I will read it again. I was very lucky because all three times I read it in Russian, and even the best translation can not compare to the original. Every time, I found something new in the book; it would turn to me by different facets. "Master and Margarita" is incredibly beautiful, deep, sophisticated yet playful and sparkling book with unforgettable characters. In fact, it is not one novel but three. First, about the adventures of the Devil and his company in 1920's Moscow; second, about Pontius Pilatus and Jesus in Jerusalem of the first century, and the third one, about the Master, the writer who wrote the second novel, and his eternal and true love, Margarita. The story of Master and Margarita is the story of Bulgakov and his wife and muse, Elena. All three stories are interconnected and intertwined. All three end with the exactly same phrase, "...the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the equestrian Pontius Pilatus."

So, what is the book about? Good, evil, betrayal, talent, love, forgiveness? Yes, it is. But it is so much more.

I had a lot of doubts before watching the film because as much as I wanted to see "Master and Margarita" on screen I was not sure that it was possible to adapt it and not to lose anything significant - which is everything.

I am pleasantly surprised - the film is very good. It is respectful, thoughtful and as close to the spirit of the greatest Russian novel of the last century as possible.

The movie is not perfect (and I don't think that the perfect transfer is possible) but the choice of actors, the music score, the visual palette that change as we enter the different eras, places, and dimensions are outstanding. I was initially surprised by some names but almost every actor proved him/herself very capable in bringing to the screen well known and beloved characters. I would say that some of special effects could be ...well, more special - for example, the mischievous talking cat Behemoth could be done more interestingly. I also don't see the exact reason for creating a new character, the man in uniform with the glasses and very recognizable accent who is in charge of investigating the "crimes of the band of powerful hypnotists" - how they call Woland and his entourage. One can argue that the titular couple, the tragic lovers, Master and Margarita are weaker and their story seems pale in the comparison to one of Pilatus

(bravo to 80 year old stage and screen legend, Kirill Lavrov who can be remembered as Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov (1969) and Ieshua Ha-Notsri (incredible performance by the young bright star, Sergei Bezrukov of "Brigada"'s fame, almost unrecognizable as Ieshua). I think no one can deny that Oleg Basilashvili as powerful, cynical and eternally wise Woland, the part of Power " Which wills forever evil Yet does forever good" IS the true Master of the series. My fascination and admiration belong to Alexander Abdulov on whom I as a young girl had a huge crush in his early film "Obyknovennoye Chudo" . For many years he had been the Russian sex symbol but his enormous comical talent found its match in the part of Woland's assistant/ translator, Koroviev. His and Behemoth's adventures in Moscow are screamingly funny. I think that the film is a successful and enjoyable adaptation of the beloved cult novel and I recommend seeing it. I am going to order the sound track. As I mentioned, the music by Igor Kornelyuk is one of the film's treasures.

P.S. I used to work on the street where the last home of Mikhail Bulgakov was. He was taken to the cemetery from there.

The famous "Pashkov's House" with the rotunda on the top where Woland and his team gathered together before they left Moscow forever, was in walking distance from my work, and I remember, once, I almost got hit by a car -I walked and looked at that music in stone and could not take my eyes off it.

good adaptation

[mpan2006 · 7/10 · 5 October 2006]

I watched this mini on a DVD so my perception wasn't as fragmented as it perhaps would have been if I watched one episode a day on TV. I read 'Master and Margarita' at least ten times so I know it pretty much by heart. It came as a relief that Bortko followed the original text so closely and didn't turn it in one of Hollywood 'junk' adaptations. There's no point in getting hysterical about the fact that this film is not as good as the book – it could never be. I agree with other comments here that many dialogues are 'still born' because the text was transferred from the book too literally with no dramatic adaptation, particularly when Bulgakov's 'author's' commentaries were used in the dialogues. Abdulov and Basilashvili were the best. To my mind, Basilashvili, in particular, added to my previous perception of Woland and expanded this character if that's at all possible. The main complains are Begemot all of whose personifications failed miserably and Gaft's character who was completely out of context and rather weird. Gaft already played Beria in another movie and his appearance here looked like a piece cut out from that movie and pasted into this one. However this is all minor and generally I enjoyed the film. I was only really disappointed with Bortko's interpretation of the Ball. Having followed the book so maniacally to the last letter he suddenly deviated off track and not in a good way. In Bulgakov's book the Ball is an explosion of colour, light and music with walls of flowers and rainbow fountains. Whether it was a poor budget to blame or inability to use decent special effects but Bortko created some grey depressing place in the middle of nowhere which looked rather bizarre. Bulgakov featured Margarita flying through the ball halls in shoes made of rose petals and wearing nothing except heavy pendant over her neck whereas Bortko dressed her in torture chains and pinned her to the ground. It all looked a bit sado-masochistic and I doubt Bulgakov saw it that way. I'm surprised no one here commented on it. All in all I think it's not a bad attempt, certainly for a mini. I was expecting something much worse having seem some of the rubbish produced my Russian movie makers these days. To those who say it's awful, I think you should calm down and accept that Bulgakov's book and this movie are completely separate entities and the film can't be as deep because it can't reproduce all the philosophical richness of the literary work. It could try but then it won't appeal to a wider audience which prefers easily digestible adaptations.

Magic on the screen

[eugenep13 · 10/10 · 6 February 2006]

"Master and Margareth" has always been my favorite book. I have read a lot of books, and none of them had captivated and haunted me in such a way that I would read it again and again and again. It is one of the most unusual and mysterious books ever written in the 20th century. And, finally, there is a movie which is as close to the original as possible. To be honest, there is a lot of really bad movies made in Russia, and most of them are so dreadful that it should be made illegal to pocess them! "Master and Margareth" is a pleasant and distinguished exemption from the endless flood of utterly horrible junk which is called Russian film-making. I really loved the movie. The actors are great, digital photography and the special effects aren't so bad either. Of course, it could have always been better but Russian films never have the same budget as an average Hollywood flick. I enjoyed the way the movie turns from B&W to color and opposite. And the soundtrack is amazing. They should release it separately on a CD.

This long awaited version does not mean that you don't need to read the book. No matter how perfect the adaptation is (it is far above excellent in this case), it can never replace the original. If you've never read it, do yourself a favor and do it as soon as possible. If you had read it before, it is really worth giving it another go. If you do it once every 5-10 years, you will definitely find something new in it.

Finally, it has been released with English subtitles. It would not be really fair to all English speaking scholars, researchers and Bulgakov's lovers who otherwise wouldn't have been able to watch this masterpiece.

Excellent tribute to the book by Bulgakov

[Novirasputin · 10/10 · 24 May 2006]

OK i read this book and was curious to see the movie to see what they would.

I had seen many Russian series before this and was generally unimpressed as i think they spent all the money on the cars and not anything else.

Furthermore Goblin and a few other reviewers and critics i read were generally so so on it.

So i was incredibly surprised to find how well they pulled this off. Its not an issue of "accuracy" (even though an acquaintances mother who is a teacher of literature in Russia and read this 20 times cover to cover was very satisfied) it is an issue of originality. The black and white to color switches, the acting, the actors, the music i found it really well done as well it should be since it is so well loved in Russia.

Really they put in the effort and i was generally pleased with the result. Again not due to "accuracy" or inaccuracy, as that is impossible to do with certain films but with the originality and what i thought was quality film making.

Btw, when Kot Begemot turned into the guy who plays Stira in ShtrafBat, my jaw dropped seeing as that was the person with the "cat eyes" who i pictured when i read Master and Bulgakov described him.

10 stars is an understatement.

Master i Margarita - Vladimir Bortko - 2005

[jan-559 · 9/10 · 24 May 2007]

This TV-series of 10 episodes, broadcast at the end of 2005 on the Russian Telekanal Rossiia, scored unprecedented ratings.

It was the second attempt of director Vladimir Bortko to film Bulgakov's masterpiece. In 2000 he had already been solicited by the Kino-Most film studio, associated with the competing channel NTV, but at the last moment the company did not succeed to come to an agreement with Sergei Shilovsky, grandson of Bulgakov's third wife, and owner of the copyrights. This time, with Rossiia, it worked. And it did not pass unnoticed.

This TV-epopee of more than 8 hours was heavily criticized, or at least regarded with much skepticism, before it was shown on screen. Sometimes it was sincere and well-grounded concern about the authenticity, but sometimes it seemed as if the Bulgakov die-hards behaved like modern Latunsky's by reproaching a movie they hadn't seen yet with sacrilege. Or maybe it was because of the gigantic publicity campaign that was launched to promote the series, and that could give reasons to fear an ambitious, but superficial Hollywood-ish production. But fortunately it wasn't the case.

In contrast with the earlier screen adaptation of Aleksandar Petrovic in 1972, director Vladimire Bortko (° Moscow, 1946) followed the book meticulously. If you have 10 times 52 minutes available for it, it is of course, easier than when you're supposed to deliver a 90 minutes movie picture. The setting of a TV-series appeared to be an ideal format to elaborate the complicated, multidimensional work with many different characters. Bortko had already shown his talent with his TV-adaptation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot in 2003. Besides, he already filmed another novel of Bulgakov before: "Heart of a Dog", in 1988. He followed the dialogues almost word for word because, so he said, Bulgakov wrote the novel almost like a screenplay.

Ik was skeptical too when I saw the DVD at дом книги (Dom Knigi or "House of Books") in Moscow. But curiosity was stronger than skepticism and, frankly speaking, I was pleasantly surprised from the first images. Woland's meeting with Ivan and Berlioz, and the first confrontation of Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Notsri are not only beautifully portrayed and well performed, but in addition they matched remarkably well with the images that I had in mind when I first read the book.

The three layers of the novel are reflected more than well, with a well manipulated alternation of colour and black-and-white. The actors are casted accurately and they play the characters faithfully to the novel's intentions that even the most convinced skeptics shut their mouths, despite the huge success – on December 29, 2005 more than 80 million people were watching.

Must I find demerits? Well... maybe the depiction of Behemoth then. With the existing technologies it could have been done better, but after all I can only conclude that, even though it is "only" TV, this series doesn't disenchant and its main merit is probably the the fact that Bulgakov now found a much bigger audience than he ever could have had with his books.

Wonderful screen adaptation of Bulgakov's miraculous novel

[herblison-740-436529 · 12 September 2019]

I can't add much to the other reviews already posted here. As someone who loves Bulgakov's novel (in English translation), I was impressed and moved by this very faithful adaption to the screen. I am not sure if someone who had not read the book first would fully appreciate the work and would strongly recommend doing so before seeing the film.

There are a few minor changes from the book, some omissions and a few additions, but nothing that really changes it. The portrait of Jesus (Yeshua Ha-Notzri) and his execution are deeply moving. The major characters of Satan (Woland), the Master, Margarita and Pontius Pilate are wonderfully acted. So also are the minor characters, too numerous to list here.

One thing did puzzle me, the poor quality of the English sub-titles. Again, knowing the book minimizes the problem, but still in 2005, couldn't they have found a better translator, or used the dialog from one of the fine translations of the book?

I must give my thanks to all the people involved in this production who have given new life to Bulgakov's masterpiece.

Must see! A TV masterpiece almost matching the novel.

[dimitris-maglaras · 9/10 · 18 May 2013]

The user review first to pop up when one opens the IMDb page is not only unfair, but IMHO idiotic. This is a masterpiece you MUST see.

As everybody who has read the novel knows (and I have read it at least four times), Master i Margarita is a 20th century masterpiece, perhaps THE 20th century masterpiece as far as novels are concerned. Theoretically, it is impossible to adapt to film. Yet Vladimir Bortko managed in this mini-series to convey to the viewer all the magical beauty, as well as the penetrating political satire, of the novel.

Of all the scenes/themes of the novel, only a single one is missed: the hoarders of hard currency locked in a theater for re-education and recanting. It is an inexplicable omission, however it does not affect the value of the mini-series. Then there are matters where one cannot follow Vladimir Bortko, as for instance the (IMHO) inconsistent alteration between BW and color. But just watch the mini-series, and you are lifted into a world of magic - magic realism for that matter. All actors are accomplished theater actors: close your eyes and you can imagine them playing Chechov on stage. The Russian they speak is seductively beautiful. I do not speak the language, and mini-series like this make me regret it: a friend of mine (native speaker) who watched it together with me was constantly laughing or frowning at parts of the video where the English subtitles gave no clue of anything. And, from a male viewer's perspective (Bulgakov was if anything a skirt chaser), you have to watch it even just for the pleasure of voyeurism. Anna Kovalchuk as Margarita is fragile, beautiful, erotic, daemonic: the woman you had always wished you had loved, and be loved by her in return. Dela the witch/vampiress is extremely seductive. And the eroticism of some scenes, most notable the Spring Ball with all these beautiful women clad only in jewelry, feathers and stiletto high-heels is, I think, impossible to beat.

I give it only 9/10, because 10/10 goes to the novel.

I gave 5 stars because the result is not adequate to the original book, which is 10 and is read by everyone in former SU

[konstancij · 5/10 · 3 January 2006]

There is no reason, why anybody who likes the book would not see this mini. Simply because there is no other screen version made. However, i'am disappointed. I gave 5 stars because the result is not adequate to the original book, which is 10 and is read by everyone in former SU. The difference with original, historical mistakes and technical imperfections are least boring by the way. The greatest disappointment is the simplification of most parts, which where so brilliantly "multylayerly" depicted in written version. All dramatic episodes including all in Jerusalem are total failure. In contrast, many of comic and episodic scenes are funny and truly well made. But this cant save 10 series long movie: some of them are entire waste of time, full of long senseless dialogs. Why the same dialogs and scenes are OK in the book? - there is magic, i dare say, that lost in screen version. Another way to justify screen version is to add creative material from filmmaker. May be answer some questions, that left open by writer. For example, many people don't dig why episodes with Jesus are so important to break main storyline. Why? - no answer in movie, even less clear. Now I doubt the line of Master and Margo is needed too. It could be cute film about Satan & co visiting Moscow.

Masterful

[hte-trasme · 9/10 · 10 August 2014]

When I watched "Heart of a Dog," a previous adaptation by Vladimir Bortko of another work of Bulgakov's I liked it very much but I thought it missed some of the humor that was entwined with the bitter tragedy of Bulgakov's original. "The Master and Margarita" has no such problem. The original is such an extraordinary, original, and multifaceted piece of work that a comprehensive adaptation would be a fool's errand. What Bortkodoes instead to translate many incidents from the novel and its intertwining stories in a way that approximates its spirit honorably -- and does not supplant or superannuate the novel in any way because it doesn't attempt to, but compliments it instead.

Instead of reaching for the unreachable in literally filming this elusive book, Bortko produces a very visual adaptation with an enormous scope. And all these visuals are imagined with inspiration. From time to time its evident that the scope of the visual ambition of the serial is almost beyond its financial means, and we can tell that a lot of blue- screen / CSO was used. Somehow, this doesn't bother me, though -- it seems to add to the otherworldly quality of the proceedings.

The cast is really commendable here, above all Oleg Basilashvili as Woland, who does seem to be summoning an infernal power. I've seen him in several different roles now, and it's easy to see this as the crowning achievement of a very skilled actor. And Anna Kovalchuk displays amazing range as the various phases of the eponymous Margarita. Kirill Lavrov seems perfect in the difficult role of Pilate, embodying power gnawed at by weakness, pain, and doubt. I had only seem Vasili Livanov as Sherlock Holmes, and it is great to see him again in a witty performance as Dr Stravinsky.

And the animatronic puppetry that went into the realization of Begemot the Cat may not be an actor per se, but it seemed well-imbued with a sense of the absurd and perfectly suited.

That sound track could be described as repetitive, but it's repetitive in a thoughtful way, and the use of a theme in a particular place is as carefully thought-out and effective as the use of both monochrome and color scenes to indicate when the presence of the diabolical is making itself felt. And its' simple such a good score that I don't mind that it repeats.

"The Master and Margarita" has been called an anti-Stalinist novel, but things are not quite so simple as that (and they are certainly not so simple as to allow us to call it an anti-Communist novel, satirizing as its does the public's vapid enchantment with capitalistic consumer good and raining money). It is rather a work of art (and a great one), and not a work of polemic. And as such it has a deep subtlety in stark contrast to the Socialist Realism endorsed by the state when it was written.

This adaptation has the respect and breadth to carry over that theme honestly -- so show us much and to tell us only that the only sin is cowardice.

One of the worst adaptations you ever see

[prokurator-1 · 2/10 · 26 February 2006]

Unfortunately I have to acknowledge that this movie is horrible. I believe that everyone who ever read the Book will agree that whoever tries to make a movie based on this Book must be of equal talent as writer himself. In this case Bortko who not only directed but also wrote the script is not up to the task. He simply took all (almost all) dialogs from the Book and incorporated them into the script except as everyone already mentioned by adding new character played by Gaft, which is not even natural to the Book. I do sincerely believe that screenwriter and/or director have all rights to adapt book to the screen and there is no way that book can be made into adaptation as simple illustration and regarded as Art. And this is the case in this adaptation, it is mere illustration and is made for people who don't have time to read or simply don't want to read. For those folks this mini series is a heaven. It gave them to hear almost word for word all dialogs from the Book but leaves real philosophical ideas Book raises behind. It is made in bad Hollywood traditions as we can find a lot of really good adaptations made there, more over Russia has reach tradition in movie adaptations especially big philosophical novels such as 'Hamlet' and 'King Lear' by Kozintsev or 'Brothers Karamazov' by Pyryev. There not even single artist up to the task to play characters from the Book, except Abdulov. I also would like to add couple of more things. First is that original music is so resembles music by Carl Orff 'Carmina Burana' it is striking to the heart. It is better if Bortko used it instead of music by Kornelyuk. Second, everyone already mentioned that special effects are lowest points of the movie but how come there are so many talented programmers in Russia and none of them could be invited to make computerized special effects? And the last but now least, incursions made by director by using old black and white newsreels are not providing any good to show up Moscow of the 1930th.

Great adaptation of a great novel

[fourputt · 10/10 · 19 October 2007]

For English speaking viewers: If you can get past the subtitle problems, you're in for a real treat.

The subtitles are 2 or 3 seconds late-synched for the first 65 or so minutes of Disc 1 making it very difficult to watch. After that they come back into synch and are merely bad, a problem with many foreign titles.

Even with the subtitle problems, you'll be thoroughly entertained by a great adaptation of a most engaging novel. The 8-hour length allows Bortko to remain faithful to Bulgakov, and it's amazing to see how the novel works cinematically; decapitations, flying naked witches and crucifixions to name just some of the striking imagery. One can quibble with less-than-optimal special effects, but I'd rather see second-rate CGI in service of a good story than the tens of millions of dollars wasted on overblown blockbuster drivel. And if you see complaints about this or that actor, take it with a grain of salt and realize that Russians especially take characters from their literary heritage as seriously as anyone on earth.

impeccable adaptation

[Kirpianuscus · 15 April 2017]

just a masterpiece. as adaptation of a masterpiece. the key - high loyalty to the book. and the science to resurrect an universe who becomes fascinating in this trip across characters and magnificent images and spectacular artistic options and wise choices for the portrait of each character. more than a masterpiece, it is a refined delight. and this detail did it great. because it reflects the profound respect of Russian cinema for the national literature. and, in same measure, the science to build a fresco.

Not a masterpiece, not even close

[bfrenkel · 10/10 · 14 January 2006]

The series are mediocre. Director's work is just invisible - good actors play well and not-so-good actors play not-so-well. Camera is static, special effects are cheap. The Cat Behemot is just a joke. Rimsky is not supposed to be a clown as shown. New character played by Gaft is added for a very obvious reason - to educate new generations who cannot read between lines in the book. But what is more important - the series are missing Bulgakov's spirit and sour sense of humor. Only scenes that are supposed to be serious and sad look attractive. Clearly the series are made for people who have never read the book. I agree with the previous reviewer - very disappointing.

Good Job!

[ksenia_boitsova · 9/10 · 6 July 2006]

Good job on all accounts. I do agree Kovalchuk was the weakest link in this production - she is just too young and inexperienced to play such a difficult part. Galibin was amazing as Master, his voice and movements are captivating. The rest of the cast was comprised of experienced and great performers, and they all worked very hard on the roles they were entrusted with. Dubbing instead of the recording during the shoot is actually an old technique used by great filmmakers in the past. It is very tedious and hard on actors but it ensures the best tone and intonation the actor can deliver for the particular moment and lines. It has nothing to do with Soviet era movies. If it sounds unnatural, it means the actor is not experienced in this craft and is not a good actor. Unfortunately, Ms. Kovalchuk completely failed that part, her tone and voice sounded very dull and unnatural. Other than that, I enjoyed watching this movie. Even my non-Russian speaking American husband watched the movie with a great deal of interest.

A correct and to the letter re-telling of Russia's greatest masterpiece

[scyrlin · 8/10 · 5 January 2006]

They say Bortko has already established himself as a talented re-teller of greatest masterpieces. He has "Idiot" and "Sobachye Serdtse" to his credit, which have received positive critique of the audiences, their statuses notwithstanding. "Master i Margarita", however, is so far the highlight of his directing career. Yes, it is a TV version and one usually does not expect much from TV serials. But tell me - how is one supposed to fit in a masterpiece into two-three hours of screen time? How can one do this when literally every page of the book contains some new information, an unexpected development, an interesting dialog, or a crazy combination of all three? I can only commend Bortko for doing such a great job of bringing to screen the all time classic of Russian literature (and thank him for not doing the same that some of the Western countries do to their own classics).

Now, on to the version itself. The cast was superb and I shall not get tired of stating this. Galibin as Master and Kovalchuk as Margarita match their characters so perfectly it is uncanny even. Galibin truly brings out his talent in this role - the role that is not a very playable one as the character does not go through much action or much visible change. The play here is deeper and had the actor been less talented, the Master would have turned out apathetic and insipid. But that does not happen here and we have a Master we see broken. And we feel his pain, just as well as we feel Margarita's pain and overwhelming desire to do anything to get her life back to happiness it once contained.

Woland. If you expect him to be a stylized and sleek version of evil as some of the movies aestheticizing violence show their villains - you will be disappointed. Basilashvili's Woland is monumental and without a shed of light in him. He is not an entertainer, he does not make lighthearted jokes or give out histrionic retorts. He does not lick his lips or give dirty looks as most of villains are stereotyped to do. Woland in this version is the Master of the novel and the planet. He is slightly tired of people's silliness but behind his seeming exhaustion immense power is hidden. Well, what did you expect - he's the Satan himself. Woland's companions match him perfectly as well. Koroviev is dream come true in Abdulov's interpretation, whereas Azazello shows how demons can try to be nice and come out rather fatherly at that. Unfortunately, the naughtiest of the clique, Begemot, is the only weakness of the TV version. He is voiced by one of the talented actors of the new generation of Russian acting school, but the puppet and the cat costume they use for Begemot most of the time seriously leaves much to be desired.

Overall, this film deserves a strong 8, and had it had a good animated Begemot, I would have given it 9 as well. The only thing that does not allow me to give it a full 10 is the CGI failure of the film. Where the actors play their roles superbly, the special effects threatened to ruin the impression from the film. Thankfully, the actor performances did not allow for getting distracted with the CGI too much. That, already, does say a bit about the level of acting in the film, no?

Dreadfully pedestrian

[Fredegonde · 3/10 · 26 August 2007]

The advertising campaign for this series was something to behold in its own right, and it's about the only thing the people behind this film did right. Allegedly, it had decent budget which is nowhere in evidence. And M&M is the kind of film that requires special effects; in the film they are what you'd call bargain basement if you're feeling generous. Bortko followed the book faithfully enough but still removed some crucial scenes and added a ridiculous character played by Valentin Gaft made up to look like Beria. Bulgakov was never that direct. Also, Bortko shot most of the 1930s Moscow in sepia-like colors to contrast it with Woland's and Master's colorful scenes. I think it was a big mistake but it was unavoidable given that Bortko has no feel for the macabre and the bizarre. He has very a pedestrian imagination. Bulgakov's Moscow was devilish in its own right, and Bortko turned it into a bland depiction of a regular city. In the book, Woland came to the city that felt as if it belonged to him already. Here, he comes on a tour of a gray and uninteresting Moscow with nothing to distinguish it from any other city. Which shows that Bortko also has zero grasp of the philosophical and religious issues of the book.

I wasn't particularly annoyed by most of the casting excluding Margarita. Anna Kovalchuk is beautiful but she couldn't act to save her life. Bortko must be fond of casting people who look right without any regard for their acting abilities (he did the same casting Lidya Velezheva as Nastasya Filippovna in The Idiot). On the whole, 3 out of 10.

One of the best

[Swetushka · 9/10 · 2 January 2006]

I love the book, Master and Margarita by Michail Bulgakov, and I was pleased to see that this series did not spoil the spirit of the book. The actors are brilliant. Anna Kovalchuk performed very well. The part of Margarita is a very difficult to play. Vladimir Bortko again showed himself as a very talented director. Everybody expected a lot from him after his last brilliant work on the Idiot by Dostoevsky (his previous miniseries). What I did not particularly like was the cat, Begemot. I wish they could do better. The same could be said about some of the special effects which looked very primitive. But, in general, very good job!

very disappointing

[catsoup · 3/10 · 26 December 2005]

Most actors act horribly, the entire satire and humour from the book have been cut. It is blasphemy to make movie from a masterpiece like Bulgakov's m&m like this. The computer effects are even present when they are absolutely not necessary and look terribly. Behemot, the cat, as if it was from some kindergraden theatre, Lavrov is too old for Bulgakov's procurator, Abdulov (Koroviev), the oh-so-expensive-superstar seemingly just reads his text down without playing anything. This all is surprising, since the budget present was high. However, Basilashvili, Alexander Galibin and Filipenko (Azazello, master and Voland) are playing surprisingly good. These are the only ones. Do not watch this piece of junk before reading the book!

I am here!

[darksong-1 · 6 March 2008]

I really enjoyed watching this mini-series in parts on You-tube. In ten parts and each having 1-5 10 mins video time. First i read the book from chapter one to chapter 7 and while still not from beginning to end i decided to watch this film too before the end of book!!! warning to all about how this can result into a split imaginary thinking when returning to the book. The way i imagined the characters to be was somewhat different to what i read but found the film to be of great comparison. It was fun to fill in with my memory all the details of the weather and settings and recalling beforehand what would be said next etc. i found the acting to be wonderful by all the cast. lively and extravagant in bringing to life all the mad players. Theatrical in dramatics. I was impressed with the CGI and special effects and myself found it them all to be great in bringing to life such beautiful scenes and characters. overall- i'd like to rewatch the whole series after book completion so i can enjoy it again.

Masterpiece!

[golszewska · 10/10 · 6 April 2007]

I recommend the series to everyone interested in Russian culture and literature. Myself I have been waiting for such a masterpiece for a long time! The characters and the atmosphere created exactly like in the book -exactly how I wanted to see them! Apart from everything visible you can read more between the lines, specially if you are familiar with Russian history and the social relations in the past.Reality is not shown too clearly - but it is all on purpose because the author's and the director's idea was to show a grotesque,rather than a document. Every detail has a meaning here,so...open your mind!

It is a great movie, and its Director Vladimir Bortko was able to transform one art work into another with mastery.

[lighton · 9/10 · 3 January 2006]

I have given the 9 to this series, and I think I would vote with the 10 in case it was a traditional movie. On the day of the Russian TV release of "Master i Margarita" I watched a talk show with the director Vladimir Bortko who commented on this film saying it was a life necessity to create mini series rather than movie. The work is all too good to be mini, though.

As has already been said, the plot summary for this movie is so oversimplified that it appears to be missing the essence of both the book by Bulgakov and the efforts of Bortko. Master and his passionately loved one, Margarita, have found what I would not call "the love." Their relationship, depicted by Bulgakov with his brilliant talent, broke the social borders, and so these people stood in line with "Woland's evil." They say that Master and Margarita are Faustian alter ego.

The story told in this movie shows how those who are in love, who are free, and who are spiritual are able to (no matter with the help of Satan or not) see the "light." The idea of the light and the "rest" is a central point in the movie. Master and Margarita were in fact killed by a Woland's ally Azazello, and they were given the rest, but not in paradise... Bulgakov did not give them the light, but it was impossible for them to live in this world too. To me, it was rather painful to follow the love story of the two beloved through the series. Bulgakov is a brilliant dramatist.

What about the characters? I liked all characters and I liked Begemot. Speaking about Margarita, I feel that Kovalchuk played not very well.

The computer generated effects were very simple. :)

In the end, I just want to add that if that mini series was a movie, the impression from it would be deeper. "Master i Margarita" is for everyone to watch. It is even more to be discussed by everyone.

A great blessing with a few flaws, but what in art or in life is not flawed?

[williamfjack-619-266033 · 10/10 · 7 April 2018]

Transferring a work of art from one medium to another is a massive challenge, especially because each medium offers its own jewels but has its own limitations. To make a film of Bulgakov's masterpiece? Impossible! Why, the novel can't even be translated very well into English! You lose the richness of the original, lose Bulgakov's astounding exploitation of language and his multi-faceted (furious, detached, satiric, funny, dead-serious) depiction of Moscow. And don't forget that the Yeshua scenes are connected tightly with the Moscow scenes, offering yet more facets for Moscow (and vice-versa), as Bulgakov intended.

Vladimir Bortko performed a miracle. The dialog comes from the novel, the acting is superb, the settings magnificent and faithful.

Limitations in transforming the novel to a film? Many. One of them? Conveying the darkness of Stalinism that hangs over the novel. How did Bulgakov do it in his novel?

Many have criticized this film for treading too lightly over the horrors of Stalinism as a way to accommodate Putin's Russia. No. Bulgakov also tread over Stalinism lightly, but in extremely dark shadows. The terror is inferred, and that's how it is in the film. One difference in this regard is that the film doesn't show "Nikanor's Dream," but, there are a hundred or so inferences to Stalinism within the film, often just under the surface. To bring the backdrop of terror to the screen, Vladimir Bortko needed to do something else. He created the scenes at the end that comprise contemporaries footage from the 1930s. This was the best that he could do, and he did it well.

He leaves out an awful lot, many say. Well, what movie adaptation of any novel doesn't? Watch the 10-hour film adaptation of "The Brothers Karamazov."

The acting? Many claim that the Margarita and the Master roles come off as bland, one-dimensional. To me, I confess, that's pretty much how they come off in the novel. Sorry. This is a passionate love affair, except that we see little of the passion. This affair consists of two vital characters, but I confess that to me, they aren't very three-dimensional in the novel. Other characters, so richly drawn, demand our attention, both in the novel and the film.

Sure, the roles of Woland and Pilate are performed by actors who are way too old for their parts, but they are absolute masters and so who cares about anything as relatively insignificant as age? Sure, the devil and his retinue aren't as outrageously-appearing as they appear in the novel, but I think that depicting those things accurately and completely in the film would, for many viewers, turn the film too much in the direction of a farce. (The novel is farce, to some degree, of course, but certainly not to an overwhelming degree that cancels out its dozens of other facets.)

For fun (and some kind of edification, I suppose), I've re-read the novel in Russian and in English (all versions) after watching the film many times. As I'm reading any of them, images from the film pop up, out of my control, and they correspond with what I am reading.

In short, this is a job worthy of ten stars.

The plot summery is horrible!

[yulia_bernshtein-1 · 10/10 · 1 January 2006]

This mini series, which is based on the brilliant novel of Bulgakov, is NOTHING like the plot summery! The summery is just a disgrace for the plot! Woland (Satan) and his entourage are not shown as evil beings whose main purpose is to come between the Artists and Margaritas love. On the contrary, their main goal is to put some sense into corrupted human minds. In any case, the book himself is a wonderful book which gives you something to think about. And the series presents the book with wonderful actors and a plot which is one-in-one to the book (except, of course, for the little things that are not according to the book. But what can you do? No movie is exactly what the book says). I give it 10! 10 for the book, and 10 for the series!

Not a bad mini-series but could have been better

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 26 July 2015]

Wanting a 100% faithful adaptation of Master and Margarita is somewhat of a big ask, a truly brilliant and imaginative book but with material so rich and tangible that anyone adapting it is bound to come up short. This mini-series in comparison to the book is a let-down, but while it's disappointing and could have been much better it is also not that bad.

Master and Margarita does benefit from some good performances, with Oleg Basilashvili, Aleksandr Abdulov, Aleksandr Galiban and Karill Lavrov coming out on top. Basilashvili may lack the demonic look, but has the cynical, sarcastically witty and mysterious traits of Woland down pat. Abdulov is exceptional, Galiban pitches Master's reserved and insane traits without a wrong note (true he was dubbed, but quite effectively) and Lavrov plays a hard role with commanding authority. Aleksandr Filippenko similarly excels in his role. In detail, the mini-series is very faithful to the book with all events intact and the dialogue as dialogue on its own is quite literate and clever stuff that really provokes thought.

Had very mixed feelings on the music though. Hearing it it is very well-composed and stirring, and sometimes used cleverly and appropriately. Unfortunately, it is also rather repetitive; one does wish that more than two or three major tunes were used. While there are some good performances in the cast, attractive Anna Kovalchuk lacks the vast emotional range for Margarita and often recited her lines as if she were just reading them out aloud. Valentin Gaft's additional character was unnecessary and discordantly out of place, and Gaft plays him rather obnoxiously. While one has to admire that the mini-series of Master and Margarita tried to remain faithful to the book and the prose, the spirit unfortunately gets lost in translation, everything is here but presented in a bland way with the dialogue losing their kick and becoming rambling. The humour isn't sharp enough (apart from the Behemot and Woland in Moscow scenes), there is a general lack of emotion and ambiance and the macabre, bizarreness and mystery is presented with not very imagination on display.

The mini-series has a drab colourless look to it, even in scenes that were crying out for colour to bring them to life, and the special effects are laughably amateurish. Direction is correct but a little pedestrian at the same time, and Behemot not only looks cheap and has almost everything stripped that was interesting of him as a character but is played in an over-compensated way sometimes. Overall, disappointing but not bad. 5/10 Bethany Cox