The movie is done really well. It looks great, it's well edited, has great sound design and all the performances are flawless. The timelines and realities are so convoluted that it would make Nolan scratch his head. However, the movie does a great job at keeping the story comprehensible and engaging. I usually don't like long movies, but in this case the two and a half hours runtime is well justified and passed by quickly. There's no runtime padding and everything feels essential. The only reason I subtracted one star is that the humor from the book didn't properly precipitate into this movie (but that's super subjective so take with a grain of salt). Otherwise it's a nearly perfect and innovative adaptation of a good book.

These days it's tempting to refuse anything Russian, but in this case one has to note that 1) this is adapted from the most celebrated work of Russian fiction in the 20th century, written by a Kiev-born dramatist shortly before his death and forbidden from publication in the Soviet Union until the 1960s, and 2) this was largely financed by an Odessa-born American billionaire who owns the sports network DAZN. Also, principal photography was finished in late 2021, before the invasion of Ukraine. The phantasmagorical plot makes for an extraordinary reading experience because one cannot summarize it. Like all truly great literature, this is not really a story about something, it's a series of bizarre anecdotes set in the framework of forsaken romance in the claustrophobic Stalinist Moscow of the 1930s, where the Devil appears on the pages of a writer in crisis, and then seemingly in reality. German actor August Diehl's performance as Woland is the best of his career and he gives the character a perfect ambivalence which is required in portraying the supernatural. It is quite possible to read into his Satan an allegory of Putin himself, and it is also quite possible to deny it. The hysterical satire of the novel requires high production values which previous adaptations never achieved - this film almost overdoes it, as do many Russian actors. But the leading couple is quite convincing, even if they pale within the impressive imagery. Upon release in Russia, the film was attacked by the Pro-Putin crowd which helped to turn this into the most successful Russian film of the century. It's a miracle it was even released since US-born director Lockshin finished post-production in the States and did not return to Russia after the invasion, which he has frequently condemned. So credit where credit is due, this film is a beacon of creative light in Russia's political darkness.

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.

It's a great film inspired by Bulgakov masterpiece. It's better than any "anti utopian" film. 1) great actors - the fact of such a mix of actors makes it a great play, truly enjoyable by sophisticated characters 2) interesting plot twist (it's not 100% adaptation of book) - makes an interesting viewpoint of the book and in fact I liked it a lot 3) no annoying music - these days most films have this annoying background music to add whatever emotions. Here no music is needed as you are totally into the play and story 4) great visuals - how they designed Moscow and USSR is great 5) absolute must to watch simply due to the fact we are living in a repeated history, what's happening in Russia is pretty much what the book is talking about 6) one of the best films I've watched so far, like fresh air after all identical American movies-blockbusters.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!!!!