source: Buddha's Little Finger

I had read Chapayev and Void in the original a few years ago and it's one of my favorite books so far. I was really excited to start watching this movie. However, all I can say after it is that the Buddha's Little Finger is truly weak attempt to depict all the depth of the novel's gist and interestingness of the narrative move. If we put the content of the Pelevin's novel aside and try to evaluate the movie plot as the independent story, it still remains infirm. All you can find there is simplified scenes content and dim relation between presented parts of the story. 2/10. Period.

Pelevin is, in fact, a rather boring author. What makes him great are streaks of brilliance here and there. All of his books consist of 90% boredom and 10% of genius which more than compensates. He is a master of aphorisms, irony, and, if he gets lucky, dialogue. Reading Pelevin is like panning for gold. Mud, mud, mud, mud, nugget! I like him a lot, to be clear. These guys managed to flush all the nuggets contained in the original book, which are numerous, down the drain, and keep the mud.

This is the very good and precise screen adaptation (especially taking into account that it is made not by Russian team) of the great Russian book "Chapayev and Emptiness" by famous modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin, published in 1996. It is a fantastic story about a guy named Pyotr who is a poet and in his dreams takes part in two Russian revolutions at the same time: 1917 and 1991, and his romantic story with a girl Anna. Chapayev was a real Soviet army commander. The depiction of Russia is very true. The story has a lot of interesting philosophic ideas and conclusions. Recommended for the art-house lovers.

It's a good overall movie but it has nothing in common with great Pelevin's novel. Simplified and adapted to the ordinary audience.

Buddha's Little Finger