williamfjack-619-266033 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.

hte-trasme 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.

dimitris-maglaras 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.

Galina "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.