Reviews on movie The Last Station (15)

In recent years, Tolstoy immersed himself in existential and philosophical reasoning about higher matters. He practically invented his religion (he perfected the Gospel). Under the influence of his activities, the movement “fatness” arose. Relations with his wife cooled, and Lev Nikolaevich decided to leave Yasnaya Polyana, but on the road he fell ill and died at the little-known Astapovo station.
Impressions. Even with a philological education and interesting literature lessons, I knew little about this part of Tolstoy’s biography (here is almost nothing), so at least it is great that such a film exists at all. You can get interested and start Google the credibility percentage in this movie, which I did. In fact, there are no gross inconsistencies, but artistically there are.
In addition, this “external” look helps to see what will not be told in literature lessons and will not show (God forbid) the Cinema Foundation. Yes, it will have to be cleaned of Hollywood husks, but it is already up to the viewer.

Hollywood actors, no matter how hard they try, make the film Hollywood, and Yasnaya Polyana is turned into Yasnuyu Polyanu.
Already familiar tricks and author's moves look strange in imperial Russia (perhaps only to me). And the film would not have worked if they had not added us a love line of secondary characters, where without it.
Interestingly, in the introductory credits before the film, we are told that Leo Tolstoy was considered practically a saint - if you know anything about it, tell us. Fluent googling didn't work. And in general, the character of Tolstoy seemed to me one-sided and undisclosed, even within the framework of the task of the film, nothing in common with the philosophizing uncle at the end of his life, who daily reflects on death.
On the one hand - informative, but on the other - to get rid of the feeling that this is all foreign fiction I failed for the whole film.
6 out of 10

For me, this film is a disappointment in Tolstoy, whom I respected for trying to articulate life principles, to understand how to live better. I can't understand how much of a documented description there is, and how much fiction. If you believe the film, nothing bright and consistent with the expressed principles of Tolstoy was not. His followers have sex at the second opportunity, but everyone around him is kind of judging. Tolstoy himself relishes his adventures in his youth (although in books he calls for abstinence). He does not know how to negotiate with his wife, everyone speaks only with ready-made slogans and is not even ready to discuss someone else’s position. But if they ask, they will say that it is all out of great love. It would be like a psychologist, yes to communication training: - But perhaps there would not have been great books so accurately describing the depth and absurdity of uncontrollable human relationships.

A biographical film about the genius Leo Tolstoy with such wonderful actors as Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer immediately aroused great interest, and personally I plunged into it with great pleasure and anticipation.

Tolstoy gave the world incredible masterpieces that you can reread and reread, think about them endlessly, analyze everything. He is one of the best writers that were and are, so the responsibility of this film was great, and it was impossible to fall face in the dirt.
American director Michael Hoffman (whom I personally love Autumn films ' Soap Foam' and ' One Beautiful Day');) screens the novel The Last Station by writer Jay Parini from the diaries of Tolstoy himself. The film has a similar title, but Nass in the Russian box office gave it a name as 'The Last Sunday'.

Biographical tape turned out to be informative, curious and full of passions. It describes the last year of Tolstoy’s life. A follower of Lev Nikolaevich - Chertkov implores Tolstoy to bequeath all his novels to the people, and Lev Nikolaevich is very fond of ordinary people and the latter is ready to give to people. Tolstoy’s wife Sophia hates Chertkov and tries to reason with her husband. The new secretary of Lev Nikolaevich becomes a pawn in these cunning games. The last year of the writer’s life becomes like real deep passions, similar to his own novels. . .

39: The most evil person has a blossoming face when they are told they are loved. Therefore, this is happiness...' (c) Leo Tolstoy.

As Martin Scorsese puts it, 90% of a movie’s success depends on the actors’ choices and acting, and he’s damn right. Plummer and Helen Mirren play amazingly well, to break away from their images and play impossible in this film. Both actors were awarded nominations for the popular Oscar, and it is deserved.
Christopher Plummer completely plunged into the character of Lev Nikolaevich, and with such depth of thought, so subtly played him. The film aroused renewed interest in the genius, and new generations should not forget Tolstoy and know his biography.

As for Mirren, if Plummer was the heart of the picture, then she is a certain soul. Her main emotional scene near the river is most remembered and stands before my eyes. When such a wonderful acting, and the film looks doubly enjoyable.
We must not forget about James McAvoy, because it is with his hero (a naive and clean guy, secretary) that the viewer goes through this story and learns everything. He was like an adapter between the main characters. I really liked the choice of Irish actress Kerry Condon, she was most convincing in the role of a Russian girl.

' The Last Station' an informative and atmospheric film that was intriguing to watch. Oddly enough, there was no sense of falsehood and pretense, and it was nice to emphasize. The film is both subtle and deep, like the famous writer himself.
'Last Sunday' - biographical drama of 2009. The costume film is full of surprises and shot quite decently. There are a number of reasons to watch this movie, and I personally feel positive about it. Thank you very much.

': Life is easier without love. But without it there is no sense.' (c) Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy.

7 out of 10

You can find fault with a lot, close your eyes to a lot, but the film is good. It really conveys the Russian atmosphere of the early 20th century, and most importantly, the image of the great writer. About Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy you can have a different opinion, no matter what he really thinks genius of literary work, who gave the world immortal works.

Christopher Plummer was able to fully convey the character of the writer, his philosophy, his gift, his love, and I am truly sorry that I did not win the Oscar. I can’t say the same about other actors. Hellen Mirren, an amazing acting, everything was perfect, but she did not have the spirit of a Russian woman, mother, wife. But the essence of their contradictions was clear. James McAvoy is undoubtedly a good actor, with the ability to get to the point, but as if in some places he flew out of this time. Paul Giamatti didn’t exactly match the Russian man, although the game was strong and conveyed the image of the hero. Kerry Condon, I don't know why her character is here. It is possible as the introduction into the plot of the image of a strong, independent woman, the image of love and passion. Anne-Mary Duff perfectly conveyed this affection for her father, a devoted follower of ideology.

In general, the atmosphere and the plot are very exciting. Especially the love of Lev Nikolayevich and Sophia Andreevna, whose feelings, despite different thoughts, different views, are not killed, and through the years, shine as sincerely and brightly as at the beginning of the journey. It's just incredibly sincere, incredibly sweet, and soulful.
Of course, this movie is worth watching to understand that there is sincerity, devotion, love, and most importantly, that there was such a person, although everyone who was even slightly interested in literature at school is familiar with his works.
9 out of 10

Sometimes people create idols and do not avoid them. Just constantly telling a genius that he is a genius does not affect his perception of the world very favorably. But he helps to manipulate him, because he is no longer just a writer, but a light of the people, and must do everything for people. But who are these people and what exactly should he do for them? But it is known that he has a family and has a wife who will not allow anyone to abuse the kindness of his spouse.
There is something strange on the one hand, and on the other there is something charming in those foreign-language films, especially with British actors, where the stories of Russian writers or Russian writers are recreated. So Michael Hoffman set about retelling one small, but very important and eventful part of the life of the writer Leo Tolstoy, which he shot in the European spirit, but with notes of the very mysterious soul of the Russian.

We are introduced to the great writer already in his later years and, as the name of the film hints, on the eve of his death. Tolstoy is an old and sick man, only his spirit is still young and cheerful. It would seem that he has already written his masterpieces, the best years are already behind him, but serious intrigues begin to weave around this tired man and his will. Unsurprisingly, this leads Tolstoy to want to escape the scandals of his wife, who cannot reach him. Don’t think he’s stopped loving her. Their love in this film is even more tangible than all his work and fame, a heavy burden placed on these senile shoulders.
The role of the writer was very dramatically performed by Christopher Plummer, his Tolstoy with the devils flashing in his eyes fell to my liking. The actor seems to have made him more enjoyable in every sense, especially when compared to the harsh portraits of the writer. Helen Mirren is gorgeous as a princess. No wonder Mirren was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actress, while Plummer received a nomination only for Best Supporting Actor. The relationship they show with all their difficulties is as fascinating as anyone who has been married for nearly half a century. Mirren overshadows everyone and everything, fully confirming the expression that behind every great man there is a great woman. The actress in this movie is just a hurricane knocking her down. Sophia Andreevna fights for her husband and his legacy, which is their common heritage. This is my favorite role now.

What is happening is shown mainly through the eyes of a Tolstoy, who was perfectly embodied by James McAvoy. His naive and unsophisticated guy with pink dreams enters the real world, far from the imaginary idyll. The contrasting character in this whole family war is Vladimir Chertkov, a good friend of Tolstoy. Only Paul Giamatti is not credible in this image, and his altruism seems false. Perhaps Chertkov wanted the best, but it turned out as always. But the necessary liveliness, sincerity and energy added to the narrative Kerry Condon. She is charming in those scenes where she flirts with the hero of McAvoy.
Despite its prestigious nominations, the film was little noticed, because in that year there were many high-profile competitors. But the plot itself, and moreover, its talented actors are an excellent reason to go on a journey through the last days of Tolstoy’s life, in his picturesque Yasnaya Polyana. Intrigues, clashes and true love that passed through the decades - the finale of his path was filled with different events, watching which is more exciting than the characters he invented, which became classics.
So, you start watching a film about a great writer, whom you respect, although you are not a big fan of his work, and you end up with the drama of a whole family that hurts at the very heart.
The writer. Genius. Husband. Father. For all mankind, he became a kind of myth in simple clothes and with a long beard. But for Sophia Andreevna, he was everything, from beginning to end.

Such paintings shot abroad are a kind of compliment to Russian culture, so the very fact of their existence pleases and warms. But here, in Russia, the attitude towards them is much more zealous than in the rest of Europe, and it is quite clear why – if for the filmmakers Tolstoy is a phenomenon “from the outside”, then for us he is something of his own, native and incomparably closer. And that’s probably why Russian reviews of “The Last Sunday” are much more controversial.
I really like that the cinema – at least for the unsophisticated viewer – clearly follows real events without inventing anything from itself. The reverse side of the coin is the predictability of the plot, which is included in the school curriculum in literature and therefore is clear to any little educated person, and its brief description is even somehow inappropriate to consider a spoiler. Yes, everyone knows that Tolstoy will leave the family. Yes, everyone knows that he will find the last night in the remote station Astapovo.
However, the plot does not in any way pretend to be the leader. The film is based on the study of the complex relationship between Tolstoy and his only wife, Sophia Andreevna, about whom contemporaries wrote that her personality deserves to be paired with the personality of Lev Nikolaevich. And the main attention is paid to Sophia Andreevna. So, we can say that this tape is about the great and merciless love of women. And, in order not to spoil the reader's impression of viewing, no more about it.
As a melodrama, as an illustration of the last days of the writer, life in Yasnaya Polyana, as a brief excursion into the main ideas of Tolstoyism, the film is very good. But he clearly lacks depth. Yes, externally there is absolutely nothing to complain about, the picture is fabulously beautiful, and the play of actors is much higher than average. The main claim is the image of Tolstoy. No matter how banal it may sound, but the creators of the film too frivolously, too playfully treated the great personality, turning him into a semi-mad old man who is manipulated by everyone who is not lazy. Perhaps it’s all about my “spoiledness”, but as soon as Lev Nikolaevich appeared in the frame, I invariably recalled Gandalf from “Lord of the Rings”. Christopher Plummer would easily replace McKellen in the magical saga, but to bring the genius of literature to the screen, you need something more than the actor offers.
“Last Sunday” turned out to be a neat, interesting, accessible, but too “pop” film, based on a typical melodramatic story about an unhappy wife suffering from a loss of interest from her husband. However, the time and location promised much more. There was such a great opportunity to develop, cultivate the viewer, and the picture did not use it. As a result, she is unlikely to arouse the desire to understand Tolstoy, to get acquainted with his ideas, to read his books. Quite the opposite. Perhaps someone will think to himself after watching: “Well, Lev Nikolaevich!” You asshole! Your wife loved you so much, and you, fool, didn't leave anything for her, and you ran away from home! A great writer, called ..."

7 out of 10

Well, it is quite difficult for foreigners to convey our “Russian spirit” (in fact, like any other country, it is difficult to make films about others). I can’t say that in this film it was 100%, but at least you can see that they tried.
I learned about the film long before the release of the rental, but by the time of its screening I managed to safely forget and only a couple of days ago I came across it, thanks to the recommendations of “kino search”.
I’ll tell you what I liked:

First of all, it's an acting game. She was certainly on top. Hellen Mirren and Christopher Plummer looked great. The main character in the film was not Tolstoy himself, but his last secretary - Valentin Bulgakov performed by Jaime McAvoy, and with each new film I am amazed at how he gets used to the role.
- secondly, we liked the fact that we (that is, Russians) were shown for all time adequate people, not those who always drink vodka and play the balalaika.
Third, soundtrack. On the background constantly played pleasant music that is not too distracting from viewing, which is good.
I didn't like the sight of a clear line. I live close enough to her - in Tula - therefore, I was there many times and the Yasnaya Polyana that is in the film, the real one did not remind me. It seemed that the Tolstoy family has only a lonely house standing in a dense forest.
I read a few reviews before I wrote my own. A lot of people say it’s a Hollywood movie. Ladies and gentlemen, the UK is NOT Hollywood. The film is not American. By the way, this is probably why he came out so much less close to the truth.
It is a pity that lately the Russians themselves are mostly shooting stupid comedies of the same type.

10 out of 10

It is worth starting with an important remark: “The Last Sunday” does not stand up to any criticism from the point of view of reliability, but the film does not claim to be the laurels of documentary presentation. This is a free translation of the sunset of the history of the great Russian writer, not flaunting with exact facts, but replete with artistic assumptions for the integrity and beauty of the work. Now, in order.

This is a touching story of the extinction of the life of Leo Tolstoy, a thinker, the author of many prophetic ideas, the object of worship of thousands of supporters. But, of course, everything goes a little deeper than just the tragedy of human death.
First, the problem of idolization of the individual on two ends is indicated: Will it be a thoughtless cult of the individual or the veneration of a person on the highest spiritual level? This path is personified by the deceptively looking from the poster look of Wesley Gibson from “Especially dangerous” McAvoy – almost Bezrukov: plays very sincerely and vividly, perfectly conveying the image to the measure of a fanatical Tolstoy. These are the soul throwing of a young, hot mind, which is tormented by the choice between passion and devotion to ideals.
The second problem is the issue of trust – and here the insidious and unscrupulous Paul Giamatti manages. Of course, the image of Chertkov proposed by the director is a very, very peculiar interpretation of the truth, but we made a mistake to leave these sentiments behind the bracket. So, Paul is a staunch intriguer and a cunning conspirator (so entrenched behind him in the movies). No wonder that this time he managed to embody the insidious opposing side - to the vanity of a greedy public figure, ready to do much to achieve the goal. Is he selfish or pursuing high goals?

In the first place, of course, the cornerstone of Tolstoy’s whole life, his worldview and his only God: love, pure and beautiful love. Of course, this is Hellen Mirren, who has long decorated any film; this man has devoted himself entirely to the art of cinema and, dressed in an image, gives himself entirely to it. So the role of the writer’s wife turned out to be truly soulful, almost speculating on the innermost feelings of the soul. The only reproach in her direction may be that a later role in the biopic “Hitchcock” of 2012, in its idea largely repeating the role of Sophia Andreevna.
This and, of course, Christopher Plummer, who in himself is a very outstanding figure of cinema: in the role of Lev Nikolaevich “caught” sensitively and more than all the others around resembled a Russian person – to that and the speech, and behavior, and qualitatively selected makeup / clothing. The theme of love the actor bears like a baby, growing it from domestic conflicts with his wife to the last date with “his chicken”.
Together, the actors give such a powerful sensual fuse, which brings a film that seems to tend to popular culture to a much deeper level. This is inaccessible to all and every art in its pure form.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest regret that it is the Americans who are making such a contribution to the spread of Russian culture, and not us who are exaggerating the war theme year after year. But at the same time, it can not but rejoice the fact that popularization is still happening, and the whole world now has the opportunity to touch “how it was.”
8 out of 10

I confess that I am extremely skeptical of Hollywood’s attempts to embody the image of a Russian person and Russian life on the screen. And if a director encroaches on great writers like Leo Tolstoy, then write is gone. One can not count on the ability of a brother abroad to reflect the depth of the soul of a Russian person, to feel the tragedy and at the same time the magnificence of his life. That's what I thought until I saw The Last Sunday.
What I saw was a revelation. The picture is stunningly holistic, lively, real, sincere, Russian, if you will! Beginning with a beautiful visual range: how pleasant to look at the endless birch groves, endless green fields, picturesque lakes, high blue sky - not a single dark spot, the picture is exceptionally warm, flooded with sunlight, impregnated with hope and love. Ending with musical accompaniment, not distracting from what is happening, and at the right moments even emphasizing the tragedy of the situation.

The most touching story laid down in the plot of the picture cannot leave indifferent. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy is a man of rare kindness, clarity of mind and great talent. How deep is his inner world, how pure are his thoughts and deeds! His wife, Sophia Andreevna, only at first glance seems a hysterical woman, pulling ropes from her husband, in fact, she loves him with all her heart - as on the very first day of their acquaintance. Chertkov is the main follower of the "Tolstoy" - a person who cares only about the prosperity of the writer's idealology, which the latter needs much less than Mr. Chertkov. Valentin Bulgakov is young, naive, able to sincerely empathize and love. All these people were united by the events taking place in Yasnaya Polyana at the end of Tolstoy’s life.
This is a picture of love that does not lose strength over the years, undergoing any squabbles and litigations, about freedom that no idealogies can provide, about liberation from the shackles by gaining that very freedom and ... about Tolstoy as an ordinary man, with his weaknesses and passions.

What the picture certainly will not deny, so it is in a matchless cast. No image, it's a diamond! Helen Mirren perfectly reflected all the facets of despair of a woman whose life has recently been in turmoil. Christopher Plummer is a little lost on her background, but his Tolstoy is real and sincere. There is no doubt about the talent of James McAvoy: from film to film, this actor demonstrates remarkable abilities, trying on a variety of images.
It is very difficult to stop listing the numerous advantages of the picture, but you will have to not tire the reader (if any). To sum up. Put aside your cynicism and skepticism for a moment, and the Last Resurrection will take over your heart and soul for two hours. Isn't that proof of the magic of cinema?

There were no special expectations from the story about the last days of L. N. Tolstoy's life - they watched exclusively for James McAvoy. And McAvoy lived up to his greatest hopes - everything in him from the shining eyes at the beginning of the film to the frowning wrinkles between his eyebrows at the end was authentic, sincere and very vital. This in general, the film was pleasantly struck - I have not seen such a vital acting game for all actors without exception, as if there is no film crew behind the scenes, and indeed you get to a traditional open-air tea party in Yasnaya Polyana.
The version, as everything could be, proposed by the authors of the Last Station, was very liked - it was painfully flawless from the point of view of psychology they managed to explain everything. That you can love each other and be soulmates so much that you can understand each other without words, and have 13 children and a shared past that is equally dear to both, but when one of the two tries to confine oneself to this and not let anything else in, the question of freedom and the problem of loyalty inevitably arises.

Tolstoy loves his wife and family, but he has a new circle of friends, in which he meets people who can live as he only tries in his thoughts, and these people are very dear to him, and he does not understand how this means betrayal of the family.
Sofia Andreevna loves her husband, but tries to replace him with the rest of the world - to save and preserve in the present that past life, which is equally dear to them both.
V. G. Chertkov idolizes Tolstoy, but is ready to force him to follow the ideas that Tolstoy expounded as a matter of reflection, but they became a guide to action for many followers.

None of them sees the needs and desires of Lev Nikolayevich himself, and a conclusion is always ready about the clouding of reason and incapacity - and this is from the most seemingly loving people. It's shown perfectly. And McEvoy’s character (Tolstoy’s secretary Valentin Bulgakov) quite accurately characterizes Chertkov’s actions: “The image you sculpt from it looks more like you than it.”
The impotence of an intelligent person before the drama unfolding before him is perfectly shown. And where another hero would have long ago taught both warring parties to love each other correctly, the hero of McAvoy is responsible only for himself and leaves each his own conscience, which does not negate spiritual suffering and despair.
And yet they did not ignore the most important thing - that one cannot talk about universal love without making at least one real person happy with love next to him - as he needs it.
And they showed quite brilliantly how with Tolstoy's death the source of destabilization suddenly disappeared - it seemed that there were hotbeds of conflict and boiling around him, but he disappeared - and conflicts disappeared, people became good and peaceful and benevolent to each other. So who was he, the victim of the discord or the cause of it? This thought just scalded with its surprise.

In general, a very high-quality movie, in which I almost did not find any drawbacks (modern semaphores along the railway line boarded up with boards do not count). It was nice to see Russia through the eyes of foreign filmmakers - and without a curved mirror, so you could relax and with them just follow the unfolding story, without fear for the honor and dignity of your native country. For which they are special thanks - in Russia itself rarely filmed so with love.
9 out of 10

1910. Leo Tolstoy (Plummer), a reclusive, vegetarian and deity descended to mortal earth, is about to go to the next world, but there are still many unfinished business. For the publication of his books fight super-emotional wife Sophia (Mirren) and calculating vulture Chertkov (Jamatti), who, feeling the approaching death of his main cash cow, is ready to go for anything. She wants to leave the publishing rights to the family, he wants to transfer the cultural heritage to the people. Tolstoy’s young and naive secretary Valentin Bulgakov (McEvoy) is seduced by one side or another, ultimately deciding to stand aside. At leisure, he writes something hard in his diary and sneezes amusingly. The emancipated peasant Masha (Condon), the owner of progressive views inspired by Lev Nikolayevich, decides to charm the defenseless secretary.

From the initial shots (in which, as if by accident, the information that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy is, dear ones, our everything, one of the greatest writers of all times and peoples, the author of Anna Karenina and War and Peace is brewing in the head of the Russian viewer), skepticism ripens, and he, unfortunately, will be quite justified. Everything (literally everything) in “The Last Sunday” seems to say “Yes, this is Russia!”: a panorama of Yasnaya Polyana, an unobtrusive balalaika from Yevtushenko, crowing of roosters. It seems that Plummer and Mirren are about to speak Russian (the latter, by the way, even makes weak attempts – at the climax of the action, she does not cry “Levushka!” with her voice and falls to her knees). And that's the biggest miscalculation. Had Last Resurrection been without roosters, balalaikas and Lyovushkas, it would have been much more convincing, and in its current version, it only resembles a ridiculous caricature of early twentieth-century Russia. The actors seem to play themselves: McAvoy makes cute faces and predictably falls in love with the girl half of the population of the village of Veal. Mirren, eternally young and still sexy, in gusts of passion climbs on the roofs, beats dishes, tears curtains and shoots a pistol into the portrait of Giamatti (the top of the rowdy grand lady - jumping into the lake in one night); Plummer, shaking his beard and clearly not finding a place for himself, runs around the village in a shirt and laughs. It is absolutely unclear, however, why all this beauty was covered up with clumsy erotic scenes (starring the tits of Condon) and forced two outstanding British actors to crow.
5 out of 10

This is another Russian film made by non-Russians. Is it correct to say how accurately artists depicted the era, heroes and events?
A hysterical wife and a mad genius-husband who is torn between his family and his beliefs in the person of Chertkov – that’s what I see in this picture. “The Last Sunday” is a good film and it is worth watching, but you should not draw conclusions about Lev Nikolaevich and Sophia Andreevna and about that difficult period for the Tolstoy family.
Everything is shown very fascinatingly and at the same time accurately: the comic and tragedy of the whole situation has its own measure. Sophia Andreevna’s tantrums are quite understandable: her husband has become the closest person to her; he, after all, is the father of those 13 children (just think how many years she went pregnant!), and she does not want to lose this close person; her desire to preserve the inheritance for her children is justified. And Lev Nikolaevich is exactly what I see him: both good and bad.
There are some things that have fascinated me:

Why is so much attention paid to Bulgakov and Masha? It seems that the main characters of the film are they, and Tolstoy here is the circumstance of their acquaintance.
What was the real American love scene? To win the sympathy of the viewer? Is that the way to conquer it? About how the boy had the first time, and therefore he finished very quickly, so much has been shown and told. What does this have to do with the greatest Russian writer, to depict whose passage of life is the original purpose of this picture?
Could they call each other “you are my chicken”, “you are my cockerel”?
My mind protests against the angle from which everything is depicted here, but I understand perfectly well that everyone has their own opinion, each nation has its own mentality, its own perception, and it is wrong to judge the creators of the film for not shooting everything as we imagine it.
If you think of this movie as Hollywood, then
9 out of 10

Z. Y.: “In my heart I have indulged in copulation many times, but I have experienced love only with you” (Valentyn Fedorovich Bulgakov).

“Last Sunday” in terms of form – the film is quite ordinary. Here are not used techniques that artificially complicate perception, not so many storylines and unpredictable turns; easily stand out the set, climax, denouement. It would seem that nothing prevents you from watching such a film in a cozy chair, washing down the easily digestible plot with delicious tea. But if you are not ready for a sudden loading of the operating system (read "brain"), I advise you to refrain from watching, because the thoughts that arise after, do not contribute to good digestion, which removes the tape from the category of "film fiction". Explain! There are two types of films (possibly more, but let’s conventionally, for ease of comparison, there will be two), differing in the nature of the problem underlying the plot (in short, “what’s in the mix”). At the heart of the “light” film is a “light” problem, often requiring no activity from the viewer except chewing. For example, at the beginning of the story, bad uncles hurt the good ones. Such a “mix” does not suggest any alternative ways, except for textbook revenge – a chain of heroic actions that form a rich plot – filled with special effects and wonders of acrobatics action, designed to create the “volume” of the film and compensate for the “poverty” of the semantic core.
It’s the other way around: the best inside. They do not speak openly about it, they lead to it. Failing and... And the film ends, and the viewer was left alone, and did not receive the answer “who to love, who to believe.” Only a gourmet can fully appreciate such a dish. Precisely because it can not be taken with his hands, as appetizingly crispy, but painfully prosaic fries from fast food, i.e. it cannot be said that the good Lev Nikolaevich had an angry and greedy wife, which prevented him from urgently making mankind happy.

The film touches on the eternal questions: what is good? Could it be one for everyone? What does a person need for happiness? And so on. Here, Kagbe, shows one of the many possible ways - Tolstoyism, but the film, in fact, is built on revealing the hidden and sharpening the obvious contradictions of this system. L.N. himself is depicted here as such a mythologem of a wise elder. But his wisdom lies in the fact that he knows exactly when to deviate from his rules, making him look human from beginning to end. Tolstoy perfectly sees the contradictions of the doctrine he created, and when they, manifesting themselves in the scandals and discord of the Tolstoy house, jeopardize the existence of the very idea of Tolstoyism, L. N., unable to resolve them, acting within the framework of his chosen system, leaves the family. You can see the fault of the wife, but is it really true? We abstract from the question of inheritance, because not only it becomes the cause of its sometimes theatrical, but often sincere hysteria. If she found out about her husband's bankruptcy, wouldn't she share all the hardships with him? But Sophia did not want to share Tolstoy with anyone! He and others like him see him as a treasure. If you haven’t fully felt what Sophia Tolstoy is like, just imagine that you live in a house-museum where nothing really belongs to you, and everyone who walks in has the right to drink from your cup, sleep in your bed, try on your underwear. Your husband now belongs to humanity and, please, do not distract him. And if you want to talk to him, then Chertkov or some other Ivanov will decide whether you have enough grounds for this.

I am not going to fully analyze the image system “PV” here. As for Valentine, I will only say that he is needed in the film primarily as a lineman who came “from the outside”, who can measure fatness as it is depicted in “PV”. This is, of course, a very simplified understanding of the image. Where Valentine does not fit into it, as in the “Procrustean bed”, therefore, one must look for a flaw in the system. To be fair, this “lodge” for various parameters does not fit any hero at all, which I personally tend to interpret as a clear antinomy of the boundlessness of human nature, in the end, life in general and the limitations of any idea designed to order and comb it, driving it into a harmonious system of rules and norms.
In short, the film deserves to be seen. Think!!!

10 out of 10

The film is about the last days of the great writer, the difficult relationship with his wife and the fashionable movement in the early 20th century, which today could be called the word “trend”.
Yes, and look at events not only through the prism of time, but also through the seas-oceans. I mean, "everything is not Russian." Not domestic, not native. And the picture is exceptionally clean and orderly. And the sun is frying, despite the historical egregiousness of the artist’s death from pneumonia in the most depressing October. They say that during the filming (and they took place in Germany) from the evening the group threw a little garbage to Russei smelled, but meticulous burghers got up at 4 a.m. and scraped everything carefully. And the weather didn't wait either. And there was not enough money to get to Russia.

The rest of the film turned out quite well. It's no shame to watch. And the actors are clever. In my opinion, one role is better than another. Maybe there are some claims to the image of Tolstoy, but Alexei Petrenko’s voiceover was enough. You just need to hear it.

There are drawbacks, too. First, there are problems with the motivation of Lev Nikolaevich. It is difficult to accept the impossibility of his further life in Yasnaya Polyana. If only by reason and memory. Second, the final. The authors tried to make as tearful as possible, but the cynically educated viewer has crocodile tears: well, the writer died and died. We've known. Since October 28, 1910. The third is the image of Chertkov, brilliantly played by Paul Giamatti. If he's such an underbelly, where did Lev Nikolaevich look? True, if not to the writers, then to the writer himself.
The main thing is still love. And in the trend or in the “driver”, if you use modern terminology – it is the same, plus freedom. And in the personality of the writer who became a Russian brand. Let love be resolved in the finale somewhat melodramatically, it is still love. Convincingly embodied on the screen Helen Mirren.

But Lev Nikolaevich in old age turned out to be a monster.

But that's a different story.

Good movie. It is one of the rare cases when “from there” we were told about our own words and not worse than us.