The Master and Margarita (2023) User Reviews

A Fresh Take on Bulgakov's Masterpiece - Review of the New "Master and Margarita" Film

[mxdpn · 9/10 · 28 January 2024]

The latest cinematic rendition of Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" is a compelling and artistically rich adaptation that both honors and reinterprets the classic novel. Differing from the beloved 2005 series starring Oleg Basilashvili, this new version presents a fresh perspective on the timeless story, offering a unique visual and narrative experience.

At its core, the film remains faithful to Bulgakov's narrative, weaving the parallel tales of the Master, a writer persecuted for his work, Margarita, his devoted lover, and the fantastical events surrounding the devil's visit to Moscow. However, the director's approach infuses the story with a distinct contemporary flair, setting it apart from previous adaptations.

Visually, the film is a feast for the eyes, combining stunning cinematography with imaginative special effects that bring the mystical elements of the story to life. The portrayal of Woland's entourage is particularly noteworthy, capturing their eerie and whimsical nature.

The performances are exceptional, with each actor bringing depth and nuance to their characters. The chemistry between the Master and Margarita is palpable, adding an emotional weight to their tragic romance.

The film's pacing and tone do justice to Bulgakov's complex narrative, balancing the dark, satirical elements with moments of profound emotion. The modern touch to the story's presentation may divide traditionalists but is sure to captivate a new generation of viewers.

In conclusion, this new adaptation of "Master and Margarita" is a daring and visually stunning film that breathes new life into Bulgakov's masterpiece. It is a must-watch for fans of the novel and for those seeking a thought-provoking and beautifully crafted cinematic experience.

THE MASTERPIECE and (THE PRETTIEST) MARGARITA

[SqueakyLovesGeorgeSpahn · 10/10 · 9 February 2024]

The Master and Margarita (2023) is simply the best film I've seen released in years, visually stunning, the iconic novel is adapted in the most thought-provoking perspective & grabs your imagination instantly. What I loved the most is that, IS NOT about the political prosecution of the author/protagonist; but about how the love of Margarita totally frees him, more than his muse -he writes for her, aware that the manuscript will probably end up in the fire- is the force that binds the book and his world together. Reality and fantasy are beautifully intertwined, and the writer can't tell what goes on in his mind from the outside world. All actors (incl. The cat Behemoth) are fantastic; particularly Yulia Snigir as Margarita, it is simply impossible not to fall in love with her from the moment she appears on the screen. The Devil / Voland here is also playful & more than perverse brings much needed humour, like a fellow who enjoys taking the piss ruthlessly at any price. So people keep comparing it to the series of 2005, well, i do not compare all love stories to Casablanca or Gone With the Wind, each period has different takes and creative freedom, I like this film more even than the book, which, let's face it, was an unfinished draft assembled by Bulgakov's widow, so let's stop slagging masterly done stuff when the original story wasn't even finished. Do not miss, real cinema lovers!!!!

Rare brilliant Russian film

[ruprogrammist · 10/10 · 9 February 2024]

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.

could be much better

[mista_j · 3/10 · 28 January 2024]

Incongruous storytelling. If you don't know the plot, most likely you won't understand the storyline. So read the book or watch the eponymous series of 2005 by Vladimir Bortko.

The entire movie I was comparing my experience from series of 2005 to this newbie comeout, and leaving all stars to the old one. Sorry, but you can't fit such enormous masterpiece into 2.5 hours movie. A lot of valuable information about characters missing, so you're not really immersed into the plot.

Another bummer is graphic backgrounds of Soviet Era like Atomic Heart game. I guess the whole idea of the Bulgakov novel was to show that the satan lives among us in our reality.

Immortal Bulgakov's book with new interpretation

[fedotovmichael · 10/10 · 9 February 2024]

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!

Self-serving attempt at originality

[w-38153 · 3/10 · 13 April 2024]

For me, as a lifelong devotee of this seminal and unique work of world literature, this was quite painful to watch. I could accept the somewhat courageous interpretation of the story, if it wasn't so brashly ambitious yet inconsistent in execution. A few brilliant moments are dulled down by lacklustre characters and frenzied, but unimaginative scriptwriting, which feels more and more tired and botched-up with each frame at the end. Some of the rearrangements and alterations in the plot seem unjustified if not utterly baffling. The over-the-top, grandiose, phantasmagoric setting and kitschy design is obviously intended as some sort of social critique of the Russian history and maybe current state of affairs, but frankly this obviousness teeters on the verge of banality and dilettantism. Meanwhile the most colourful and personable characters at the heart of the story are inexplicably flattened out to mere caricatures without any voice or flavour, and some are omitted entirely. Sadly, it stomps out much of the charm, ingenuity and delectable complexity of the Bulgakov's original work which, to be fair, has been notoriously resistant at numerous attempts to be put on the big screen or stage.

Overall, this is another disappointing try, perhaps only remarkable for the audacity to be made in this day and age. Yet, all the pomp and fizz of the production does not repay the subtlety that was lost in the process. If you've read the book, you won't loose out never watching this. If you have not, this can ruin the experience if you finally decide to read it.

Magnificent read. Great film adaptation.

[sashafaershtein · 9/10 · 14 February 2024]

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.

We've been waiting for this for two years and now it's finally here!

[luxasthma · 9/10 · 5 March 2024]

The non-linear branch of the narrative unfolds events through the writer's memories in a psychiatric clinic, where memories are mixed with elements of fiction.

Between the biblical passages of another novel about Pontius Pilate, the plot is transferred to Moscow in the 1930s, in the midst of social upheaval and construction excitement. The playwright (Evgeny Tsyganov) wrote a play about Pilate, which was rejected by the Writers' Council for inconsistency with Soviet ideals. Despite his desire to protest, his efforts only lead to trouble. He is blacklisted and excluded from the Council. In his despair, amid the splendor of the May Day holidays, he meets Margarita (Julia Snigir), with whom he instantly falls in love. Their novel inspires him to write The Master and Margarita, which echoes Mikhail Bulgakov's own experience in the Council. There is no point in summarizing the novel further, readers already know the sequel.

The casting of Aguste Diehl for the role of Woland was successful (Although I would not mind looking at Mads Mikkelsen in this role). His image radiated a cold, piercing charisma, diluting the caricature of Azazello-Rosin and Koroviev-Kolokolnikov. The image of the actor Tsyganov fails to convey the nervous and broken behavior of the Master, he seems rather indifferent throughout.

It is impossible to evaluate the work of the entire film crew. Such inconspicuous but important details flash by every now and then in the film. Separately, the authors of the painting refer to Bulgakov himself, for example, morphine that was injected into the Master in the clinic or the change of the Master's voice to Margarita after the writer's suicide. And how many strong scenes there are in the film! I really remember the crucifixion in the Lubyanka courtyard and the frame with the reflection of the letter M in a puddle (M - Moscow, Metro) turns into W (W - Woland), as if showing who really rules this city. Berlioz, falling, scatters coins, a reference to the betrayal of Judas (30 silver pieces).

References can be listed endlessly.

In the film, preference is given to melodrama rather than satire, which is very sad, but does not become a significant disadvantage of the tape at all. The cinematography and computer graphics are outstanding, they convey the play of light and shadow with amazing accuracy. Anna Drubich's memorable musical score enhances the overall atmosphere, immersing the audience in the atmosphere of that era. The color scheme with a predominance of wine red, gold and noble black gives the Hollywood budget of the film.

As a person who has almost given his life to architecture and construction, it was especially pleasant for me to enjoy the majestic buildings of the Stalinist Empire. The film embodies dreams of the future that never materialized. With a touch of cinematic magic, grandiose plans are rethought in it: the Aeroflot House, the building of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry and the Palace of Soviets. These architectural fantasies are artfully resurrected, painting a vivid picture of an alternative reality. I want to note that architecture is an active character in the film, an integral element of it. The National Library in St. Petersburg has been transformed into a psychiatric clinic, which is a grandiose, bright and majestic building. All this in a common compartment visually complements the theme of a new country and a new person. Moscow has changed, people have remained the same.

An interesting detail was the director's decision at the end of the tape. He changes the architectural style of Moscow from the Stalinist Empire to another, but I just can't determine what it looks like... I suppose it's something between brutalism, occultism and totalitarianism with a sky shrouded in black smoke from fire. The final shots of the film became one of the strongest, precisely due to the recreation of this atmosphere The costumes of the characters are amazingly selected, with minor changes. Anubis's head on Woland's cane, Margarita's crown, Woland's professorial costume, because he is a professor.

Purely at the level of theories, but I want to point out that the movie was released on (almost) the full moon, on the day of students and knowledge, January 25th. Woland is a fallen angel who descended to people to impart knowledge to them. With the exception of minor flaws, the film is a sensual experience that is best enjoyed in a darkened cinema with powerful sound.

I suspect that a director will be released. Many of the topics are shortened with the feeling that more was filmed. Roman is cramped within the framework of a three-hour film, he needs more. While the first 2 hours immerse the viewer in a richly textured story, the final 40 minutes fly by with such haste that it becomes clear that the work has been cut 9/10. Great.

Beatiful adaptation of a classic work

[alex-la7 · 9/10 · 10 February 2024]

The movie adaptation of the classic book is a rare gem that successfully captures the essence of the story, the tragic lives of the Master and Margarita. The film explores the absurdity of communism, the struggles a creative writer has to endure under a suppressive regime, and features a beautiful love story that adds to the movie's emotional depth. The execution of the film is excellent, with fantastic actors bringing the characters to life, including August Diehl as Woland, Yevgeny Tsyganov as the Master, and Yuliya Snigir as Margarita. In all, I loved the different themes interwoven in this lovely tragedy.

The Master and Margarita: The first Masterpiece of the new Russian Cinematography

[romanrock-48568 · 10/10 · 11 March 2024]

It is worth mentioning at once that I had not read the original book and took the movie as an independent work.

The plot is twisted and multi-layered. Initially, the Master himself, sitting in an asylum, tells his cellmate a story about how he wrote his novel. This story echoes the author's real life and his work, the events and characters of which gradually become real to the narrator.

I have no complaints on any of the points, everything is perfectly balanced and really works. I watched it without tearing myself away, I saw a clear criticism of the Soviet Union, through which one can draw parallels with the present time.

The cast is delightful too, Woland and the Master are my favorites. I am very pleasantly surprised and I hope that in time the cinematography of the Russian Federation will start to make most movies on a level with this one.

10/10.

My compliments!

[breakinggameyt · 10/10 · 29 April 2024]

Great movie!

At times, quotes from the novel are spoken word for word, at times the director changes details, but clearly just to fit everything in - the runtime is already huge.

Voland and the Master are miscast, especially the Master. They confused a melancholic alcoholic with a gothic metrosexual. The cat remains undeveloped. How the actor who played Ivanushka ended up in this movie is a mystery.

But Gella, Margarita, Koroviev, Pilate, and Maigret are good choices.

Stravinsky is very good!

Stepa Likhodeev is brilliantly played, the best role (it's a pity it's not bigger).

All the most important quotes from the book are spoken, but there wasn't enough time for the funniest ones.

The director, praise Satan, didn't fill the movie with funny scenes, although there are plenty in the book, and instead focused on exactly what Bulgakov's novel is about: censorship under a dictator, which drives not only writers but also ordinary citizens insane.

See it. It's way better than the book. And speaks volumes about the world we live in right now.

[mandeli-n · 9/10 · 22 April 2024]

Disclaimer first: this review is written by a Russian speaking person, who both read the book and saw the movie in their original language.

***

I came in just to rate the movie I've just finished watching - an act that makes me feel as though I'm back in the olden days, when Internet actually made sense for me. And by accident I saw a few lines of one of the reviews - claiming the movie to be pointless and stupid.

So do people change? Here's our answer: right there, in that opinion.

As here we are, almost a hundred years after Nazi Germany disaster, Stalin's Gulag, China's events etc: having our latest history in front of us and all means of studying it. And yet someone doesn't even recognise the ideas of this movie, laden in front of them so simply and in such full view. How do we expect people to be able to coherently analize the world around them then? The world that is not only more complex and less cinematographically clear, but also much more real and painfull, full of their own interests, worries and fears, both little and existential?

Spoiler alert now due for the next part:

The movie shows two people fully destroyed by the system so powerfull that the only salvation possible is in their dreams, the dreams one of them creates and the other one escapes to, and even in those dreams the only hope they muster is for the Satan to come and rectify the world himself. If you can not imagine that amount of sorrow and dispair to abondon even faith in God or Gods in the end - good for you, you've been lucky so far. But their context is clear. As is the end they come to.

***

I thought this attempt tells the story better than Bulgakov managed to: the movie opens the story up and makes it raw and painfull, but also obvious and eye-opening. Just as a good movie should.

I had my reasons to believe that: for one, it has had a huge success in Russia both among critics and the crowd, for another - I myself never really got the book, and found the people who did almost exlusively reading it as a fairytale or farce with no further meaning - now I do.

Seeing opinions like that, however, I reailise that even such a strong statement can be so utterely misregarded and misunderstood.

"They're ordinary people, in fact they remind me very much of their predecessors" W.