The Idiot (2003– ) User Reviews

Fantastic!

[x_narinka_x · 9/10 · 30 December 2013]

This is the first time ever that after reading a book, I see the film adaptation and (almost) everything is just as I imagined while reading the book! Absolutely amazing!!! The casting is just perfect (excepting one character), the atmosphere, just everything is wonderfully caught on film. The way Evgeny Mironov plays Prince Miushkin, and Olga Budina's acting... just superb!!! Not forgetting Vladimir Mashkov (Rogojin), Inna Churikova (Elizaveta Epanchina) and nearly all the rest of the cast!

Just a few minor points:

• Nastasia Philipovna was not as spectacular as I imagined. Somehow I expected more of her beauty and acting. - The film should have started at the train scene, just as in the book!!! I can't explain why, but I felt like this was essential for the beginning of the story.

But altogether, a wonderful job on this one, thank you Mr. Bortko!

Incredible

[ferdinand1932 · 8/10 · 13 June 2013]

This is so extraordinary that each episode is absorbing and exhausting. It is also cathartic and draining. It has an intensity unknown in almost all TV. This is emotionally intense and almost deranged in the craziness of the characters as they purge each other, destroy the facades of each other, and continue to live as desolate souls.

This is not easy to watch and it follows the book closely. The acting is superb, the direction and overall production style is rather like those films of the 1970s that Bertolucci made in that era, but the intensity is turned up to absolute maximum.

This is really the most powerful piece of TV or film in a long time and shows how the writer shapes the final experiences because this story is utterly wild. It digs deep into the soul and does not relent.

Princely achievement

[hte-trasme · 9/10 · 20 April 2014]

The makers of this TV-serial adaption of Dostoevsky's novel really did a fantastic job, and succeeded, I think, in certain ways that are usually beyond the scope of an adaptation in the first place. As a rule, I usually try if I can to see a film adaptation of a work of literature as a separate work of art from its source. Film and writing are very different media, and things will usually work well in one medium that will not in another.

Importantly, a novel is usually read over several sittings, and a film usually can't encapsulate the totality of it in the length of one movie. Here, director Viktor Bortko really takes advantage of the fact that he is working with a ten-part series one one novel and trusts Dostoevsky as much as he can within those confines. I'd read the book more than a year before, and watching this I really felt as if I were experiencing all the absorption and intense emotional scenes of that once again.

Bortko allows himself to "park," so to speak at many key places of the novel and to allow complex passionate scenes to play out, such that nothing ever drags, the viewer is drawn in, and the characters can truly breathe and become real. In other fiction characters are sometimes criticized for being "unrealistic," but in my view part of what made Dostoevsky such a unique genius was the he could create characters who felt absolutely real but -- like, as we are reminded, our own selves -- act in illogical, contradictory, and self-defeating way. Here we have a chance to see that rather than be told it, and the characters to deliver the ecstatic hear-bearing speeches that Dostoevsky was also so prone to with full intensity and impact.

For that to work, of course, he had to have been -- and was -- blessed with an extraordinary cast. That's so down to even the very small roles, and would be too many to mention. But Mironov as the central role of Knyaz Myshkin is almost unspeakably good and if anything carries the production he does, bringing just the right combination of seemingly- contradictory moral forcefulness, spiritual strength, complete innocence, deep confusion, and joy and sadness at life. Lydia Velezheva and Olga Budina are equally but very differently mesmerizing as the two women who tear him apart -- both terribly attracted by but unable to practically deal with his absolutely unheard-of absolute honesty.

While the focus is on characters and scenes, all the stops have clearly been pulled out on historical accuracy (as far as I could see) and all elements of the production look excellent as well, from the costumes to the appropriately grotty or lavish apartments. Bortko's directs wisely, telling a lot visually when it isn't told verbally, such as with the isolation of Myshkin and Nastastya at the concert near the end, or the disturbing pieta of he and Rogozhin even nearer. Just a success on all levels.

Best 10 Hours Since Decalogue

[moseley-2 · 10/10 · 11 June 2005]

A fantastic achievement! Brilliant acting, especially Mironov and Inna Churikov. Olga Budina (Aglaya), Vladimir Ilyin (Lebedev), Aleksei Petrenko (General Ivolgin), and Vladimir Mashkov (Rogozhin) also give very strong performances. The masterful treatment of even the most minor characters (e.g. Yepanchin's butler) provides an incredibly rich texture for this amazing story. The main difficulty for the non-Russian speaker is the incredibly uneven quality of the English subtitles. As others have stated, the subtitles go from very good to suddenly unintelligible. In parts they annoying lag behind the dialog. The music is weak also, much of it computer-synthesized, and very repetitive. But those quibbles aside, this is a real masterpiece.

Approximatelly 500 out of 10.

[my_real_name · 10/10 · 23 April 2005]

It is just not fair to make films like that. The director discovered hidden visual dynamite in the bottomless text of the dark genius of Dostoevsky. The best actors of the world's oldest acting school perform like there is no tomorrow. Together, they crash on your senses with an impact of a natural disasters rather then a human-made entertainment.

Every episode goes at amazing pace, rich in events, and crafted brilliantly. It never fails to captivate. Every scene has action, intensity, emotion and impact. TV drama format suits it perfectly - viewers need these breaks.

Although the language is a problem for general English-speaking public, the film is strongly recommended to industry professionals and academics. It has material for 10 years of research and following.

P.S. I am not associated with anyone in that film in any way.

captivating, amazing

[kbenko · 10/10 · 5 November 2007]

I did not expect to actually enjoy this. I had heard it was well done, so I thought I ought to force myself to watch at least some of it. Well, I've seen the first three episodes and can't wait to watch the rest. The acting is incredible, the cinematography imaginative, the pacing very good, and the dialog, since it is pure Dostoyevsky, is, of course, stellar. I've read the book (in English) a couple of times, but this movie brings the characters to life for me in a way the book never did. Perhaps the translation I read was not too great, but I think the biggest difference is the wonderful acting and directing in this mini-series. Eye contact, pauses, changes--or lack thereof--in tone of voice, all make such a big difference.

The DVD I am watching, from the Russian company CP Digital, has reasonably good-quality images, but terrible subtitles. For instance, one character told another, "You shouldn't miss this opportunity (to marry a very rich man)," but the subtitle said something like, "Isn't that interesting!" I know enough Russian to be able to tell when the subtitles are inaccurate, but unfortunately, not enough to watch it without subtitles. Perhaps the second or third time through I'll watch with subtitles turned off.

If only we could all have even a drop of Prince Myshkin's humility, compassion, love, honesty, candor.

A jeweler's masterpiece

[Vincentiu · 6 January 2007]

I don't know if it is a good film. But, for certain ,it is a masterpiece.

For Dostoievsky's universe the words are unavailing. The comments are only games of vain ambition, trips in narcissistic nooks. The biography, the verdicts are slices of personal vision and not search of truth.

Dostoievsky is expression of his work. And his books are the territory of a well-organized world.

This film is the exceptions of my remarks. "Idiot" is a jeweler's achievement. Every nuance, every detail is careful polished. It is a example of to restore a masterpiece. A subtle acting, a gorgeous Lev Myshkin, a spectacular script. In fact, the result of a terrible fight between novel and film, between word and image, expression of Bortko's deep respect for a magnificent creation.

It is so remarkable for his art that the beginning of East European pride is made. But this film is not TV product. It is foretaste of a impressive spirituality, of a special refuge, about the price of illusion in Russian space, about the relation with a far Occident.

The first value of film is the language. Soft, worm, subtle, old, it is the atmosphere of a fascinating time and space, a literature and belief. Is it too little?

the best work of dostoyevsky

[leilamehti · 10/10 · 7 November 2005]

Dostoyevsky, the world master of classic literature, is a psychopathic psychologist. He is the disease and the cure. No one but him can deliver a true Russian character, full of life's passions: love and hatred. Dostoyevski's characters are simultaneously capable of cruelty and compassion. They are sinful and repentant - but never dull. Idiot gives one so much to ponder about the meaning of life. Film's psychedelic characters represent our innerly hidden demons, which can easily surface, when disturbed. The acting is great. I recommend this film to anyone who is a philosopher. It will stimulate your mental energy for a quite some time.

All russians should be actors...all actors should be Russian...

[Numeroligist · 10/10 · 12 October 2006]

For anybody with an interest in the craft of acting, this 10 part mini series could almost be used as a 'how-to' manual - or at least shame anybody who considers themselves an "actor" to go out and get some real training. Theatricality is not the point (although a lot of the main roles are taker by actors from the legendary Moscow Art Theatre of Chekhov, notably the above-superlative genius, Evgeny Mironov as the lion-mouse Prince Myshkin) you have to give credit to the TV based actors too, notably Lidiya Velezheva (who is unfairly and ignorantly trounced in most reviews I have read of this series)as a stunning Nastasia Phillipovna and Aleksanr Lazarev as a wonderful (and VERY original) Ganya. The series itself is compulsive viewing - the direction floats between functional, moody and surprising- the sound track, though repetitive and electronic, is so reminiscent of the last movement of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique and works so well as that... But, essentially, it is all about the acting. Vladimir Mashkov as Rogozhin is a force of nature and gets better each episode until his breakdown, which is itself surprisingly restrained and un-showy, very affecting and generous to his comrade: the perpetually astonishing Mironov - simply the greatest actor I have ever seen.

Fantastic

[shotlandka · 10/10 · 28 March 2005]

Mironov is Myshkin - incredible acting, with or without words, you know exactly what he is thinking and feeling. Absolutely wonderful adaptation of one of my favourite books. Mashkov is also outstanding as Rogozhin, a very scary man indeed! Mashkov does have a very commanding screen presence in everything I've ever seen him in (try Vor), but this was just great. All the lead actresses were great in my view, especially Olga Budina as Aglaya Ivanovna. I do have to echo the comments about the subtitles though! I was really surprised to find them on my DVD (no idea about international availability, bought here), I didn't think that a Russian TV series would have them, but I supposed the International Television Festival attention - and award for Mironov made them necessary. Very sad that a better job wasn't made. I was very glad I didn't need them! Some bits are fine, and others have daft spelling mistakes, and elementary mistakes in grammar and translation. What was going on? It really distracted from the actors' work. The best films with subtitles are those where you forget that you are watching a subtitled film. This cannot happen with these.

Not a masterpiece

[babushkaizpravdy · 7/10 · 18 March 2006]

Having read many comments here i came to a conclusion that this mini is seen as a masterpiece. I can't say that i share such an assessment. In my opinion this mini couldn't be compared with a screen version made by Ivan Pyryev. That one was a genuine masterpiece, that one could boast plentiful actors' performances, excellent directing, music and so on -- all was so nice harmonized. And another thing -- i can't say that Evgeniy Mironov is very persuasive as Prince Myshkin, whereas Yakovlev's performance in the 1958-year version was genuinely splendid and precise. Moreover, it is well known how it is difficult to screen Dostoevsky's novels, and Pyryev managed to find the only possible way how to deal with Dostoevsky. He managed to bring expression and exultation to the screen, without these too things Dostoevsky is not Dostoevsky. And what couldn't pass my eyes and ears is that Pyryev really understood what is a Christian humanism, we can observe it in every shot, every scene of Pyryev's Idiot. And you hardly find all this in Bortko's 2003 version. I found that this recent version of Idiot is uninspired and unoriginal, and it lacks of what makes some work a masterpiece -- it lacks divine strength and spark in it. I give 7 to this mini.If you want to watch a genuine Dostovsky on screen -- look for Ivan Pyryev's (1958) version. I recommend also his version of Karamazoff's brothers.

Masterpiece

[alex_olaen · 10/10 · 3 June 2003]

This picture is really great. Acting is brilliant (especially Mironov's as Prince Myshkin). Script is amazing. Bortko has done impossible: he caught a spirit of the novel. One of the best Russian pictures ever made. Rating: 10/10.

Yes, it covers the entire novel, very well...

[gkbazalo · 4 October 2004]

Vladimir Bortko's Idiot is a faithful translation of Dostoyevsky's novel. I had read the novel again just recently before watching this 10 part, nearly 10 hour miniseries and I don't think that any of the key characters or events are left out, which is quite a feat in itself. All the characters are true to the novel. I found that parts, especially in the second half, were slow, but I found the novel to be slow in those parts as well.

As an American with no knowledge of Russian, I had to rely on the translation, which varied from very good (at least grammatically correct) to nearly incomprehensible. It was as if the translator went occasionally crazy and then recovered. However, it was good enough in all parts to follow although I found myself hitting the pause button to read some of the longer captions. The DVD, as far as I know, is available in the US only at www.rbcmp3.com.

I found myself comparing this version to Kurosawa's. I think the two Russian male leads (Prince M. and Rogozhin) were as good as their Japanese counterparts, which is saying a lot, since Masayuki Mori and Toshiro Mifune were great in those parts. Mironov and Mashkov both capture the essence of their characters, the Prince's innocence and Rogozhin's violent love--hate relationship with Nastassya. I don't think the two female leads were as good as their Japanese counterparts, but it's difficult to beat the great Setsuko Hara. Kurosawa's film, cut down to 166 minutes, could only present a fraction of the novel's events and characters, but did a great job in choosing the ones to include. Only the character of Lebedev was really missed in the Japanese version. Lebedev, by the way, is terrific in this version. The Russian version really lets you get acquainted with the more minor characters like Hippolite and Keller.

Inna Churikova is a standout as Lizaveta Epanchina, a key character in both the films and novel.

Definitely recommended for fans of the novel and anyone who likes to settle into a good ten hour drama.

Still a treat the second time around

[tread-10 · 10/10 · 2 January 2013]

Can't really add much to the many stellar reviews this one truly deserves. Remembering how i was smitten by it almost 10 years ago, I watched it again recently with the kids and it rocked them proper. An amazing novel of rare depth in the first place, and Bortko did a great job of adapting it for the screen. The cast are mostly household names from various eras of Russian theater and movie. It's a pity some reviewers said the English subs are not that good, this film deserves perfect, try to find the best you can. If you like it, here's a couple Russian titles to follow up:

Bortko's Heart of a Dog http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096126/

and

The Return http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/

Awful Awful Awful Subtitles

[praecept0r · 8/10 · 12 March 2009]

I'll join the chorus in singing praises to this version of Dostoyevsky's 'Idiot'. No sense in repeating what others might have said.

One great drawback which can completely ruin the experience is the subtitles. The quality of translation is simply disastrous. I am a native Russian speaker, and I am completely appalled at the total lack of professionalism. It's as if it's done by a semi-literate person with a huge attention deficit disorder. Chunks of the dialog are simply ignored or at best get so simplified, one can only envision how Fyodor Mikhailovich is turning in his grave. Bottom line, the subtitles are a total disgrace. This is nothing new - I have no idea whom they employ these days, I wish I could look them in the eye and tell them everything I think about the job they are doing. It's a shame that a rare cultural gem becomes so dull thanks to the horrible translation. Once again these Russians DVD producers demonstrate that they absolutely don't care about the rest of the world. What can be greater than self-imposed cultural isolation? Even when they care to put subtitles in the DVD release, 90% of the time they are barely comprehensible and the remaining 10% demonstrate a very sloppy translation job.

None of the problems exist if you speak Russian. An excellent production on many levels indeed. I understand that even a non-Russian speaker can appreciate this somewhat, and judging by the comments here, many did, but believe me, you were robbed.

This Masterpiece Deserves More Exposure!

[vip-danii · 10/10 · 3 October 2016]

There is nothing that I could say that hasn't already been said about this movie. It is certainly a masterpiece; everything about it is perfect.

I'm into Russian classics, and "The Idiot" has long been my favourite novel. I have read several translations, and seen all the adaptions. This one is, by far, the best.

I see that Lydia Velezheva's Nastasya Filipovna is criticized quite harshly, but, personally, I though her performance was astounding. As a matter of fact, she was my favourite character. I was, however, surprised that they chose to cast an actress that was physically very different from what I'd imagined Dostoevsky's (novel-based) Nastasya to look like. For one, she was supposed to be 25, wasn't she? The actress seemed to be at least 10 years older. Knyaz Myshkin looked much younger than her, too. But this could have been done on purpose, to portray the Knyaz's odd, unlikely obsession with someone, who is totally unsuitable / wrong for him.

Basically, the casting was perfect, except for two characters - the eldest of the Epanchin sisters (Alexandra). Same issue as with Nastasya - far too old for the role. Alexandra was supposed to be 25 as well. The actress appears to be over 40. Moreover, she just looks out of place in general. I don't know why, but this particular actress was a poor choice for this role in my opinion - she doesn't fit in with the rest of the cast for some reason. Then there's Yevgeny Pavlovich Radomsky (Aglaya's suitor) - he just doesn't "look" like Dostoevsky's Radomsky, and I didn't think his acting was on par with the others.

Having seen several Russian classics' adaptions, I couldn't help noticing that Russian actors (even those that aren't top notch) surpass the American / English ones by *miles* in their performance. I wonder why. Are they taught differently, is the selection process done differently, or is it in their nature? Also, in America, it seems that a good actor is defined by how comfortable they are in front of the camera, and their talent is measured by their personal charisma. Take Will Smith for instance. It is commonly agreed upon that he's one of the best American actors, but I am yet to see a movie where he is playing an actual character (in essence, he plays himself in every movie). Perhaps, that is the difference. The Russian actors I've seen *were* actual actors. My definition of a good actor is someone, who can *believably* portray a different character each time and capture the essence of that character, so the viewer only sees the character, and never the actor. Which, by the way, was masterfully done by each one of the actors involved in "The Idiot". Mironov was most impressive as Knyaz Myshkin, and so were all the other characters, even the minor ones.

I cannot even imagine who'd they cast if they ever decided to produce an English version of the movie. There aren't any actors around that could portray Dostoevsky's characters half as well as the cast of Bortko's "The Idiot" did. Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet, and Haley Joel Osment are, perhaps, the three actors that I'd say could possibly pull it off, but no-one else comes to mind really...

Anyway, it goes without saying that this is my favourite movie. I never get tired of it. I just wish they would translate the movie properly, which would provide a greater exposure to the English-speaking world, as it deserves to be seen by a wider audience.

Masterpiece.

[valentinionut · 10/10 · 23 November 2020]

Seen it three times and I always find it beatiful in a heart breaking way. It is how every book should be trated in images. Perfect to the lletter. Highly recomand it. (read Dostoievski in my 20s. I dont think i could read his book again. Something is broken since then.)

Brilliant

[akj-35143 · 10/10 · 17 June 2020]

Dostoyevsky is quite difficult to adapt to video but sticking close to the text and losing the psychological meanings and learnings, the series has done a brilliant job. It was fast moving and yet i longed to hear Myshkin's speeches about what idiotic or rather brilliant insight will he expound on anytime. Kudos ofcourse to the author who even gave life to such a pure character, who we all deep down long to be.

some nitpicking for a change

[mysikot · 9/10 · 3 March 2013]

Acting : Mironov is simply sublime, Mashkin is outstanding, the characters of Lebyedev, generals Ivolgin and Yepanchin, Ganya, most of minor cast, from Hippolit and Kolya to Adelaida Yepanchina are all excellent.

But the main female leads are less so. Nastasya, while stunning, is one-dimensional and a bit too old for the part. Aglaya is wooden and - importantly for the sake of the novel - just too plain. Keller is totally miscast. The acting (again apart from Mironov, Mashkin and Ilin) often lacks humor integral to the novel; and at times seems staged and/or rushed. The only brief smile by Elizaveta is at the poignant end.

Directing : The tête-à-tête scenes (Myshkin visit to Rogozhyn's house, the intro meeting on the train, the final) are excellent; however some crucial group ones : Nastasya's birthday party, the scene at the Pavlovsk concert, are rather poorly designed and edited. Most group scenes lack well-though-out mise-en-scene to give the adaptation the breadth it deserved.

Score is just god-awful.

Having said all that (and I've seen probably all the adaptations, including Pyryev's, Kurosawa's and Lampin's), it is by far the best effort, with good balance of material left from the novel.

A little more care and effort would've made it gold-standard masterpiece.

Great cast

[int32 · 31 January 2004]

The director's daring quest to film a script as close as possible to the book is also the movie's greatest weakness. The second half of the book, and hence of the movie, is emotionally much less active than the first half, so the contrast is naturally emphasized due the movie time format. The result is that the second half of the movie is plain boring.

Everything else is a success - photography, music, cast ( a brilliant cast, except an overly hysteric and non-charming Nastasya ), costumes, the very atmosphere of the dark and psychotic Petersburg of Dostoyevsky are meticulously combined into a theatrical, even intimate, show. The Prince's protagonist Parfion gives energetic, raw-power perfomance ( too bad he wears same black suit through the whole movie, a bit pathetic ). The Prince's best parts are his thralling monologues, when one can almost physically sense how the others' cynicism is extinguished by his naive sincerity.

The movie should appeal to the fans of 'psychological' genre, as special effects and action are obviously absent here.

Great adaptation, even if you don't plan to read the novel

[jjshepherd-86542 · 9/10 · 29 May 2022]

When I read Dostoevsky's "The Idiot," I was comparatively underwhelmed by it. That not to say I didn't like it, long stretches of the novel were fantastic, but I was not impressed by it as much as "Crime and Punishment," and no where near as much as when I read Dostoevsky's two latest novels "The Karamazov Brothers" and "Devils". Depending on who you are (like whether you know you're a fan of Dostoevsky or not), this series is probably an easier and better way to get yourself familiarized with the story of Prince Myshkin, if you're unsure if you want to read the novel.

This series follows the events on the novel very closely, changing very little, but with a lot less of the verbiage that is present with the novel, yet keeping the best of the story there. The lead actor Evgeny Mironov did his role as the protagonist very well, coming off as every bit a selfless and compassionate as he did in the novel. His peer, Parfyon Rogozhin, portrayed by Vladimir Mashkov, did a good job as Myshkin's unstable and emotional opposite of the story. The two man women were also depicted very well wit Lidiya Velezheva as Nastasya Filipovna and Olga Budina as Aglaya Ivanovna.

Overall, really good adaptation, especially recommended for those who are unsure whether they want to read the novel, but want to the story is similar detail, they need look no further.

an experience

[Kirpianuscus · 20 November 2016]

it is more than a good adaptation. it is a masterpiece, result of a terrible clash between word and image. all seems be perfect - the cast, the dialogues, the atmosphere who, at the first sigh, reminds another Russian adaptations. but it has the rare gift to examine the essence of a great novel who becomes not only alive or seductive but real. the old lines , the well - known meets, the characters - one of the most impressive prince Myshkin - are, out of doubt, near you. and this does it an experience. aesthetically, emotional, cultural. because not only an universe is resurrected but an entire period. so, one of the series who must see. not for forms of delight or entertainment. but for discover one of the useful experiences who gives a better perception of yourself and society.