Reviews on movie The Captain's Daughter (4)

The film clearly failed as a film adaptation, but as a historical canvas the picture is quite interesting. The book version was “cleaner”, higher, with a romantic note, here everything was reduced to a primitive slut. Even Grinev’s departure is accompanied by gross lust, when Pushkin handed the boy a kite, not a half-naked girl on her lap. As Grinev was, so was Masha, who kindled with passion and hasty desire to surrender.

If the romantic side of the film frankly failed, then Pugachev and his company did not disappoint. The director managed to create a proper atmosphere, where boundless cruelty engendered spectator horror. There was no bloody rampage on the screen, but the musical accompaniment and professionalism of the crew helped to see much more than what floated on the surface (swimming and not drowning – this is about the young).
As for acting, there are no questions about our masters, but the Polish youth clearly failed. Not only did they distort the characters, so even the caricature could not be properly shown. Grinev, like Masha, went through the whole film with the stupidest expression, and Grinev often just fell asleep on the move. Foreign casting was more than a failure.

The film can be recommended for viewing, here the main thing is to die literary righteous anger, be sure to try to enjoy the wonderful acting talent and feel the historical moment of our Motherland.
I wish someone a good viewing experience!!

The film “Russian Riot”, based on the works of A. S. Pushkin in 1999, is dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the writer’s birth.
The role of Peter Grinev is quite well played, in which the idea of A. Pushkin is clearly revealed: “Take care of honor young”, especially when Grinev, under pain of death, makes his choice about the need to swear to E. Pugachev. Schwabrin makes his choice in this situation. Contradictions, throwing, suffering, the negative essence of this image, this role was also well managed to convey the actor S. Makovetsky.
The role of Masha Mironova is very played.

However, the central figure of the film is still Emelyan Pugachev. Vladimir Mashkov managed to convey the complexity and ambiguity of this figure. On the one hand, he raised an insurrection, a revolt in the name of the people, protesting against its oppression, the bondage of serfdom, which during the reign of Catherine the Second reached its heyday. He's the people's protector from that position. Here you need to pay attention to the reaction of Pugachev to the choice of Grinev about the oath to the impostor. Why did Pugachev make such a decision, “singling out” Grinev, not allowing him to share the fate of other “disobedients?” Rabbit toelope. So Pugachev has some principles. There is a certain morality. This idea of Pushkin is conveyed exactly.

But on the other hand, the terrible cruelty with which he dealt with others who refused to swear allegiance to him, recognizing him as Peter the Third, who in fact was already dead. Bloodshed, pain, fear accompanied this rebellion. That should not have been allowed to happen. And here is the terrible sin of Pugachev.
A man is known for his patience and fatalism. But all of a sudden he turns to protest and rebellion. And immediately his fury leads him to terrible crimes, cruel revenge.” Such is the revolt of Emelyan Pugachev and in the pages of Pushkin and in this film.
The film reliably conveys the customs, life of that era. Beautiful landscapes of the winter steppe, the motif of the road, the path - a symbol of the path of the history of Russia, in which there is pain, severity, but it is still majestic. She needs to be remembered. And it is wonderful that there are such masterpieces of literature and beautiful, authentic film adaptations to these great works that help remember history, appreciate it, no matter how ambiguous it is.
9 out of 10

To be honest, I just don’t understand how one can twist the idea of a movie and all the characters in general so much. In this film, no character is correctly revealed. At the very beginning of the film Grinev's horribly filmed dream. I don’t know, if I hadn’t read the book, I wouldn’t know it was a dream. Father Grinev was not revealed at all - we do not see that strict and honest, proud nobleman described in the book, who influenced the whole fate of his son with his character. Peter himself looks like a young whiner, that before Pugachev, that after - he does not see a drop of courage. The whole action is crumpled, important details are missed, but new ones are introduced, for example, the eroticism between Peter and Mary. Yes, the battle scenes are performed at the level, but only because of this the film does not want to praise. And the end? When Mary came to the Empress to ask for Peter. The scene is completely rewritten and twisted. Very annoying is the combination of famous quotes from the book and “fiction”, which of course looks miserable in contrast to the original. In general, there was money, good costumes, scenery - but somehow they did not put their mind. I do not advise students to watch, otherwise you will not correctly understand the idea of the work.

3 out of 10