Excellent camera, screenwriter and art work spoiled the selection of actors, their play and lack of a good consultant.
Perhaps this is my preconceived opinion, because before this film I once again watched the immortal film of the same name in 1968. Perhaps my impression was influenced by all modern adaptations of classics with a Siberian theme, because I am a Siberian from the very, very wilderness.
But, starting with the death of Danila’s grandfather (Nazarov), the film turns into a farce, where Peresild tries to play a fatal beauty in makeup and without makeup, and is better suited for cheap modern TV series and does not look like a strong body, spirit and aspiration of the character, the actor tries to play a loving, fervent and strong-willed Prokhor. . .
Just a couple of examples of, sorry, idiocy in this film.
The character wades into a fast river, at each step taking the next leg completely out of the water. Such a river is crossed, leaving your feet under water, groping your foot with the next slippery stone, otherwise the water will immediately blow you away, who was at least for a moment on one leg.
The second example. At the very beginning of the film, an elderly man (Danila’s grandfather), barefoot and frozen, running into the plague to the Evenks, rushes to the hearth and warms his obviously frostbitten hands. It is absolutely certain that he did not live in those places, the Evenks did not live in those places, if this is allowed. Instantly, the skin, and perhaps the meat, would have come off his hands.
Well, we would invite a normal Siberian, Yakut, Evenki consultant, we have a lot of them in cities, towns, villages.
In short, the film is made in relation to Siberian life so, sorry, stupid and not authentic that
2 out of 10
It is very difficult to write a review of the series, when you are familiar with the source, so involuntarily I compared the plot and characters of the series and books, but still try to evaluate this series as unbiased as possible.
The series turned out to be long in terms of the adaptation of the novel, usually federal television makes shorter series, but this time it was good that it happened, it was a justified move, since the authors tried to accommodate the main plot points that were in the book, for this, of course, a plus. But the characters, their behavior, some plot ideas distorted the reality described in the book and instead offered something more primitive, modern, and with the ending so incomprehensible. This was most upsetting, since the book Uglyum River is atmospheric, with a Siberian light, bright characters and the tragic story of Prokhor Gromov, which, as if a parable, tells what people like the main character are ready to achieve their goals and how they are then responsible for their actions and how they are corrupted by their own money, power and pride. The book is really interesting and deserves a high-quality film adaptation, and this is the case when it would be better not to contribute something to the author’s plan, but to do as written. Moreover, the author quite clearly described his characters through their actions and dialogues, made the images understandable, recognizable, so the reasons for the changes in the plot and features of the characters are not clear to me, it did not get better, but only worse. What caught my eye was the distortion of female characters in the direction of more lustful, mature, feminist and angry. Nina Kupriyanova only vaguely resembled a religious woman with family values with idealistic views of the world and society, as I saw her in the book. Serial Nina her first intimate meetings with her husband and lover (in the book she is faithful to her husband) initiates herself, as if this is not a novelty for her, gives false testimony in court on an innocent person and most importantly, she does not have this Christian sacrifice because of which she exchanged love for loyalty to her family and because of which in many ways she led to the collapse of business. The image of Nina I consider one of the failures, and she did not cause me an internal response, although the novel her image was bright, kind, but the series did not understand how she wanted to create the author and most importantly why. Anfisa has also been made more mature and licentious, she is ready to lie for her own benefit and does not mind selling herself more expensive. Katie is generally the fear of God, how lustful she was made, and also talked to her doll as a mentally unstable person, with whom you do not really want to meet in a dark alley. It turned out disgusting, I doubt that Shishkov in the book achieved such an effect, yet the book Kitty evoked more sympathy and understanding of the motives of her behavior. For male characters, I did not see a strong contradiction, even the main character in general looked like a mature Gromov, but not very young. The serial version did not show the fall of the main character, that is, we will not see a green naive young man with burning eyes, thinking that the whole world is at his feet and he will overcome everything alone, instead, the 18-year-old was shown 30-year-old and externally and in the brain, the difference between the young and mature Prokhor I did not particularly see, although this is a very important plot point. In my opinion, the creators of the series were very poorly acquainted with the original source, perhaps read the summary and understood only that you need to create an overzealous owner, who considered himself better than others, and everything else to sculpt approximately according to the plot, without much going into details.
Despite the shoals, even such an option could be accepted and left the review gray, as there were pluses of the picture, but the ending just crossed out everything, that's just everything, it's such nonsense that I involuntarily wondered if I was so short-sighted that I did not understand the creative plan of the author of the series, or I was fed what does not sink. I hope the first, but I think the second.
And now on the pluses and a little in defense of the series. I believe that the actors were selected successful, they all know how to play and the images themselves were caught as best they could within the framework of what they had to say and portray. Even in Sophia Ernst I see a book Nina, and if her image was not purposefully changed, the actress (or what to call her) would be like the same book Nina, all the same can be said about other unsuccessful characters. By the way, there were also successful ones that turned out not to be one hundred percent hit, but looked organic, these are Ibrahim-ogly, Marya Kirillovna, and perhaps Peter Gromov. And of course, it is worth noting the beautiful local views that gave the right entourage to what is happening and added the flavor of Siberia.
I think if I watched the series without relying on the original source, it would still not turn out very well, what is happening there did not catch me and the motives of the characters were not very clear. Unfortunately, I don’t know for sure.
In general, I think this film adaptation is unsuccessful.
Enchanting music and unusually rich in beauty nature of Siberia - majestic, as if talking - God exists, he gave you all this beauty, let it into you and be happy! But man has no time to listen to God—the pursuit of gain, pleasure, or simply to survive—and that too can be difficult. And the constant struggle is who will deceive whom, how to use others for their own purposes. And the indicator of success is not spiritual wealth, but material. Therefore, the main characters do not find comfort - they are always not enough. Little money, no matter how much, little female attention. To prove to myself and others that I am God or equal to Him. Overall, the film was successful as a harbinger of revolution. Everyone wants change.
Epic, comedy cinema-poem as a parody of national history
I had a great time here, starting to watch a new, comedic, epic domestic TV series Ugly River. Terribly funny movie. Perhaps this is how ridiculous stories arise about the dynasties of successful prokhindees. Yeah, what to invent? All these glorious stories about the outstanding contribution to the development of nations by the "Rockefeller" family of pirate smugglers and so on. And, the “success” of any enterprise occurred, of course, because of the outstanding talents of the whole dynasty, the dream of the greatness of the homeland, and not at all because of the successful robbery of his grandfather on the high road, piracy, robbery of neighbors and other successful entrepreneurial activities.
A movie, like a TV series, is well made. The script is somewhat exaggerated and the screenwriter worked hard, giving satirical irony to the plot and secondary storylines that give this ironic coloring to the whole story about the outstanding talent of the businessman demonstrated in the performance of the main character. The content of the script, of course, gave the director the opportunity to also show resourcefulness and ingenuity, which is called in modern newspeak called “benchmarking”. Next, I will explain what the director showed a modern vision and how he “realized” this experience in his film.
Due to the fact that halfway through the filming of the series, the director joined the modern cinema - as a result, the film clearly tracks the incessant banter that arose either randomly or intentionally pushed by the director, because of such a reading of the script. The book, based on which the film was created, I did not read, but on the general storyline, I assume that according to the author of the novel, this is a dramatic epic about the life of a fellow entrepreneur, in pursuit of a dream.
According to the script, it turned out that the main character, in general, is a weak-willed and scoundrel of his father, who completely inherited his huge ego, and in the process of dad’s “instructions” acquired an obsession to conquer the world and become the ruler of the Gloomy River, so that his father “does not rot”. Parts of the characters I have already assigned proud conventional names, which I associate in modern realities, with poor thinking, poor education, meanness and arrogance. So that the characters presented in the film are quite interesting and find many examples in our present and life, which lasts now.
The people in the film are very picturesque. And by people I mean not only simple “people”, but also merchants and officials, and gentlemen of noble and noble. All of them, in the film, are characterized by a common set of personality traits - stupidity, selfishness, laziness, and the desire to deceive someone, cheat, or even eliminate physically, for personal gain. Here, almost all the characters of the film, both main and secondary, without exception. Every actor has a personal interest first. The men in the film are mostly stupid and mean. Yes, one character turned out to be a particular idealist, with a set of individual delusions and his own personal code of honor. I called him a samurai. Of course, the great entrepreneur and conqueror of the universe managed to sell the only honest man in his worthless life. Along the way, telling everyone, including himself, that no ... he does all this for the good of the fatherland ..., his own.
The women in the film are mostly either stupid or corrupt. However, romanticism is present in some scenes, and the theme of true, high love is quite fully revealed. The love of parents for their offspring is presented, and the romantic love line, both in the classical “novelistic” understanding (lady’s novels about love), and in the tragic interpretation of thrillers. Perhaps a writer or director, autumn is amorous in real life, and the author of the novel did not stint on describing his romantic dreams. The main character, simple as "showed" in his love adventures. In almost every series, on his long life journey along the Uglyum River, throughout its water area and in every, at least at least some locality, the “heroic companion of the merchants” Prokhor Petrov is experiencing a romantic adventure.
And it's also a very, very funny moment that became clear by about the middle of the series, whether it's an actor or a director, that turned out to be fanatical fans of the popular Vikings series. The facial expressions and gestures of the main character are completely borrowed from the actor of the Viking series, who played the role of Ragnar - also the main character, conqueror of the universe, in the style of Norwegian epics. It’s pretty easy to spot by comparing a few scenes from the middle of Ugly River and also from the middle of the Vikings series – a very modern benchmarking. Probably in the second season of the Vikings – it is quite clear already. Characteristic gestures of the hands and movement of the head and neck of Ragnar from the Vikings, and the main character Ugrum River - "not ragnar" - these gestures are not so pronounced in the domestic series, but quite noticeable. It’s like copying the image, and borrowing the character’s characteristic gestures to give a certain, nervous specificity to the image of the hero of the film. The external type of the actor who played the role of Prokhor is quite similar. Probably, this is the desire and idea of the director, since the cast of the film is still formed by the director. The director decides how the actors represent the characters and personalities.
The main character - Prokhor Petrov, completely "gone" to the finale and even demonstrates some indirect preferences of the "Ragnar type" by the end of the film. And like a real Viking, he prefers to run from responsibility in the taiga, and indulge in his far-fetched mystical beliefs based on fairy tales. No “progressorship” and the great mission of creation of the main character did not work out, judging by the film, but everything turned out as always – nothing outstanding, the main thing – money.
I was storyboarding the series of the season and I think it is appropriate to add a few words about the wonderful work of the entire film crew. Presumably, judging by the type of footage, the shooting was carried out using modern equipment, including drones. Almost all mise-en-scene, shot on real-life views, in difficult shooting conditions. The video series of the picture is distinguished by a genuine picture of landscapes, complex staging tricks, shooting in some cramped spaces when staging scenes in various interiors. Modern techniques of camera work with the frame, successful artistic solutions for the composition of props in the frame and color combinations are used, taking into account not only the costumes of the characters, but also those attributes of props that the actors use in some scenes. Non-trivial angles add emotionality to the viewer's perception. This is one of the few films in which the entire shooting process is completely real, artificial interference in the video series, in the form of additional computer graphics, is minimal. In the artistic sense of creating a video series, the film is absolutely trustworthy and if the characters involved in the film were transferred to real living conditions, then this would be their way of life.
The film looks interesting and some personal stories of the characters are entertaining. Like a long, semi-mystical series, for spending time without tension - quite a good movie. A long story of passion. There is no spectacle in the film, but an attempt is made to play psychology, probably this is the main entertaining element of the whole series. I believe that the film matches its genre affiliation as near a historical movie or movie poem, and, among many other similar series, is worth watching.
I looked at 5 minutes and I have only 1 question - what was the operator under: mushrooms, LSD, phenoburbital, phenibut, hashish, heroin or still tussipi?
First, an old, Soviet 4-series film with G. Epifantsev and L. Chursina was viewed.
I really liked that one.
The new series is very interesting. In addition, the advertising was quite large.
After watching the series, there was a desire to buy a new edition of the novel with a film cover.
Reading the book, from the very beginning, you are convinced that the series is far from the original. Prokhor at first just 'God's dandelion', and in the series Prokhor from the first series runs on girls, etc.
For some reason, they changed the plot lines and motives of the heroes. There's a lot of extra stuff coming up.
There is no change in the character of the main character. In my opinion, the degradation and self-destruction of the individual is not very detailed. The book describes in detail all the horror that happens to Prokhor.
As for Alexander Gorbatov (Prokhor Gromov), at the beginning of the series, was not very impressed. It wasn't until the second half. It feels like he's fully committed, 100%. But something's wrong anyway. There is a lack of some core, some internal tearing emotions. With all the great love and respect for Alexander Gorbatov, a very talented and multifaceted actor.V & #39; Nastye' he is simply chic. With this fingertips, really resembles a brother from the 90s. Many scenes are played less emotionally than in the book.
Sophia Ernst (Nina Yakovlevna Kupriyanova) I want to write a little bit about this actress. Many are not happy with her performance. There are a lot of things to do with it (I know why). That Nina, which Sophia turned out, in my opinion, is similar to the book version. At first, Nina is sarcastic and prickly.
Anfisa Kozyreva (Yulia Peresild) is of course very surprising and not always pleasant.
For some reason, in the series, Anfisa is shown as such a rough and shabby grandmother. Although in the book, she's a young woman (22 years old) keeping an eye on her reputation. Some fatal beauty that all the men go crazy and didn't work out at all.
I did not like how Innokenty Filatych Gruzdev played in the book, a bright, colorful and comic character.
Of course, the finale just finished.
It is very strange that the creators called this series 'The complete adaptation of the novel'. That's not true. It was more correct to write, according to 'motifs of the novel by V.Y. Shishkov'.
The young audience and people who haven’t read the novel will love the series.
Vyacheslav Shishkov wrote the novel “Ugly River” in the first half of the twentieth century, but already during the Soviet Union. The date of the first publication of the novel is 1928.
The fact that in our time it was decided to re-screen this work, remember about it, watch the series, maybe read it for the first time or re-read this novel, think about the problems that it raises, it is good.
The director of this series Yuri Moroz immediately noted that in this adaptation there will be certain differences from the text of the book. . .
In this film adaptation, as in the book, three generations of the Gromov family.
A grandfather who was dishonest. Father Prokhor Gromov performed by Alexander Baluev majestic, is representative externally. In such a person, experience and physical strength could go entirely to creation. But he likes a drink. And he became confused in his life, in his passions.
Alexander Gorbatov as Peter's son - Prokhor Gromov. One of the most important and complex figures in 'Ugrum River'. At the beginning, A. Gorbatov managed to convey in the image of Prokhor youthful dreaminess, faith in the future, in which he is assigned the role of a transformer.
But Peter and Prokhor are in love with one woman - Anfisa (Julia Peresild). Anfisa is essentially a fatal woman with a tragic fate. That's where the passions begin, the melodrama. Abraham and Ibrahim are on the right path. It’s like the path of life, its awareness, growing up.
In the life of Prokhor there is a new woman - Nina Kupriyanova (Sophia Ernst). Nina is the daughter of the noble merchant Yakov Kupriyanov (Roman Madianov). Nina is an aristocrat by birth, a person from high society. And Sophia Ernst brilliantly played this role, but the image of Nina in the end of the way in this series is different from the book.
R. Madianov managed to convey the image of a successful merchant.
In the second part, the image of Prokhor undergoes changes, as in the book. He is now in the prime of his life. He becomes an entrepreneur. His dream of youth seemed to be coming true. He works in Siberia. His visit to St. Petersburg on business is shown. But the fall is already beginning. A gambling game that is too addictive. Alcohol abuse. But maybe the power, maybe the money, had something to do with Prokhor. From a dreamy young man he becomes a tyrant. He can and has a commercial streak, entrepreneurial talent, pragmatism. However, what he makes a mistake, as an entrepreneur can not say for sure. He makes a mistake, like a man, living on the principle: “Give maximum, give minimum” & #39; When he transfers this to the workers, he makes a cruel mistake. First, ignoring the fact that workers live in uninhabitable conditions, as Nina and Protasov saw, then reduces the wages of workers, increasing the working day. He puts himself above others, above people who depend on him, but form the basis of life, including his well-being. We must not allow these mistakes of Prokhor! We need a sense of equality for all, respect for all. And managers and employees. Everyone matters! That’s what matters today.
In the series, Nina Kupriyanova, as in the book, tells Andrei Protasov that she cannot give her property to people in need. She must live in the rank in which she was placed by the will of God. But according to the book, Nina was a religious person, a philanthropist. She also does charity work in the series, opening schools. But to study in these schools children are hard, hungry. But in the series, Nina is cunning and even insidious. By the end, you know why. She's not like that in the book. And the image of Prokhor from a tyrant acquires the features of a sufferer and a martyr for a different reason than in the book. Even after he cannot find peace and harmony among the elders, because he did not pay attention to his spiritual development, having gone into the material world.
The roles of Andrei Protasov, Ibrahim were perfectly played. I liked Alexander Klyukvin with a fiery speech in court, as well as Alexander Semchev.
All this is tied to such a phenomenon as the Tunguska meteorite.
In general, this is a good adaptation of the work. Both the series and the book itself are important today.
7 out of 10
Yuri Moroz: In our opinion, the basis of the Soviet picture is the theme of the class struggle. Today this topic seems irrelevant to us. . .
Another literary work (another film) of the era of the fracture is spoiled by a new make. “White Guard”, “Quiet Don”, “Walking through the torments”...It remained to disfigure “The Life of Klim Samgin”, “They fought for the Motherland”, “Green Van”...Well, you can take on Rybakov – for Misha, Genka, Slavka from “Kortik”, for Krosh or for the heroes of the “Eternal Call” of the writer Ivanov, or for the heroes of Kataev, Petka and Gavrik.
The order is clear – it is necessary to “modernize” the Soviet literary heritage. The current government cannot offer people a social package of the period of developed socialism, so the symbols of a great country should be defamed by modern filmmakers, since the authorities see the threat of popular protests with socio-economic demands right now.
And the director Moroz, who believes that the theme of the class struggle is no longer relevant, especially with the current wealth stratification of society, is simply a very stupid person or hypocrite.
The introduction of a character not from the original source played by Daria’s daughter looks humiliating... it is necessary to show the people the evil and destructive essence of revolutionaries. If the director Moroz believes (and says this when commenting on the series) that the theme of class struggle is no longer relevant, then why did he film Shishkov, turning the ideology of the novel inside out and what does the revolutionary Daria Sergeevna, performed by Daria Moroz, do in his film? Everything is very simple - the "caught" heroine of the series Daria Sergeevna participates in the class struggle, not the beginning of the 20th century, but the 20th century of the 21st and it is clear on whose side.
Soviet directors had fun re-voicing actors whose voices they didn’t like. It seemed like wild cheating. But twisting Russian and Soviet literary classics to ideologically support the current political nomenklatura is a far more primitive scam.
Director Nikita Mikhalkov also makes films to support the existing political system and even in the Siberian Barber he flashed an evil and primitive revolutionary terrorist played by Yevgeny Dvorzhetsky. But Nikita Sergeevich writes original scripts for his films, so he has some moral barriers to the fact that literary classics can not be treated in the same way as directors Moroz and Snezhkin (with scriptwriters of course), who do not have such barriers.
Any literary critic will tell you that the creative direction of the writer Shishkov is socialist realism and to conduct experiments with his novel in the style of director Frost is like turning, in the finale, the main character of Gorky’s novel “Mother”, Pavel Vlasov into the referent of the Minister of Internal Affairs Stolypin, and the main character of Emil Zola’s novel “Germinal”, Etien Lantier, to portray, at the end of the film, the director or owner of the mine.
Having such a social background, this series hardly deserves its artistic discussion.
Despite all the flaws, I would recommend this series. There are good costumes, quite carefully recreated the spirit of the era and in places a very decent acting. Prokhor Gromov in the performance of Gorbatov at first did not impress, but closer to the middle of the film played out - in gradually flooding his madness you begin to believe, and the look becomes strong and heavy. Yatsenko (the ordering officer of Ilya Sokhatikh) is as good as usual, but Madianov (the merchant Kupriyanov), Okunev (the merchant Gruzdev) and now, unfortunately, the late Koltakov (the investigator of Golubev) played their roles flawlessly. But all the positive aspects of the series are crossed out by one single role - Anfisa Petrovna performed by Julia Peresild.
It's as far past as possible. Anfisa in the first half of the series is the main driving force of the plot, and after plays a very significant role. She is a femme fatale, turning men as she pleases, she has an almost magical influence on the opposite sex, inside her a bright flame that burns everything in its path, a beast that demands more and more. But at the same time, she understands her own sinfulness and viciousness, wants to end it and sees in true love her only chance for salvation.
All this Peresild does not have in mind. She plays either a short-sighted gang litter, or a marquee, or a rural madwoman - anyone, but not a fatal woman. She does not believe a gram, and because all the events of the first half of the series seem sucked out of the finger. For whom do father and son collide for this? Who has caused so many people to quarrel with each other? No, it can't be like that. Open your eyes, what do you find in her?
It destroys the whole narrative and prevents you from believing in what is happening, as well as recommending a series. Look to make up your mind, but I warn you that Peresild's sniffles sometimes make you laugh.
Ugly River 2021 is a good, watchable series. In recent years, one of the most memorable serial films. I am surprised by so many negative reviews on the Internet. Almost everyone watched until the end. So it's something. Many people compare the current version of the film to the last. As you can generally compare, two incomparable in all categories of film adaptation.
The black-and-white version now seems like a naive fairy tale, although at the time, it was probably interesting. But it is not a masterpiece, as well as a new series.
Of the negative today is the rapid development of events at the beginning of the picture, little is told about the youth of the heroes. Hence the illogicality of the narrative often arises. Perhaps in his youth, the main characters had to be played by other actors. In general, throughout the film it seems as if we forgot to tell about something or even decided to cut some stories. But in general, I really want to watch. Actors are not bad either. Anfisa, in a modern way - I like it. And it's good that she's so unusual! Who said you still have to do everything? Life changes, we change and movies have to change, the perception of them, the beauty of the plots, the understanding of people. Re-evaluation of values will always happen.
The main character (Gorbatov) is presented perfectly. Without him, the picture wouldn't look like that. Good guy, especially in the second part. He once again proves his acting skills. The future is a big one.
Little laughter in the picture, but the funny ending compensated for this error. Of course, it was necessary to finish the film as in the book. We should have seen the whole series. But why, the creators wanted to change the ending. Maybe one day I’ll know why...
As a result, I recommend watching. The material needed for today is less well done.
Tungus is not a reader, a Tungus TV viewer and a review writer
This is a review of a 27-year-old viewer who is not familiar with the original source - the novel by Vyacheslav Shishkov, did not watch the Soviet film adaptation with Chursina and before watching this series had no idea what this work is about.
What inspired me to watch this movie? First, there are three Alexanders: Baluev, Gorbatov and Yatsenko. I respect each of them individually. Yatsenko I consider one of my favorite artists of our time, Baluev has long made an image and a name for himself, and Gorbatov in my eyes - the leader of the dark forces from the most brilliant criminal saga of Ursuliak 'Nastye'. At first sight and forever.
And by and large, to immediately close the topic of Gorbatov, here he played absolutely the same role! Here, if you watched - measure: Seryoga Licholetov ('Nastie') and Prokhor Gromov ('Ugly River'). Find N differences. Not even so: if only Sergey Licholetov was born exactly a hundred years earlier! But in reality, in one series the 1890s, in another - the 1990s, and everywhere the character Gorbatov is a hero of his time. How close it is to the book image of Prokhor Gromov, let others judge - for my part, I just compared the two pictures.
Eh... Not to mention, you haven’t seen it '. And there is indeed Yatsenko in the main role (here - Ilyukha Sohatykh). I won't send it back.
In advance, I trusted Yuri Moroz as the author of film adaptations of Russian classical literature. The cinematic embodiments of Dostoevsky’s novels performed by Frost do not cause any questions or complaints on my part. There is no room for discussion here either.
There are reviews of users who know the book. I didn’t have time to get acquainted with the two-volume from the moment of the first announcement until the premiere of the series. Here, on my example, you can see what impression the film makes on the representative of the modern generation.
Having watched the last series, I am... how to put it more correctly... in bewilderment and confusion! Something tells me: the creators of the series treated the plot of the original source, of course, not barbarously, but very, very willful.
What is there?
There are beautiful pictures of nature, landscapes. There is a colorful Ibrahim. Funny Yatsenko, in their places Baluev and Madianov, Darya Moroz in an unexpected way, beautiful Yuriy Chursin (Stas Shelest from the detectives about Major Cherkasov). There is also an inimitable (kingdom of heaven) Sergei Koltakov.
What's not there?
There is no line Gromov - the oldest - my namesake Danila. I'm sure it's better in the book. There is no history of dating Trials and Ibrahim - I will never believe that it is not described in the book.
I did not arouse contempt, hatred, or compassion in the performance of Peresild. Shaposhnikov performed by Victor Rakov irritated - some kind of snot! I will never believe that in the pages of Shishkov’s book this is the same pathetic image.
I just like to watch Ilyukha Sohatyi except that I really liked to watch. And behind Ibrahim. Filka Shkvoren, by the way, nothing like this - Kishchenko he and in Siberia Kishchenko! Boris Kamorzin is still not bad - the priest. And Duzhnikov smiled.
Sophia Ernst... will not comment on her. Contradictory opinion. I won’t say that it’s bad, but... in drama, the author should be on her side, but the director, it seems, is not very. Or an unsuccessfully selected type ... in short, I won’t talk about her and that’s all. I don't want to.
Leonid Okunev (Innocent) - do you know this artist? There was such a modern film adaptation ' Golden calf' with a rather dubious reputation and no less dubious Menshikov in the title role. So Okunev Panikovsky played there. What I’m writing here is something to compare! A completely different image, a different character. So Leonid Okunev is a good artist. Plus the series goes well.
The Englishman and his letters... how did they play drama? I think it's just a tick, a flag. It was in the book, so it should be there. Or was it not in the book? Do you remember? In any case, it is not clear: so emphasize the viewer’s attention, and for what? Why?
The ending... The last scene of the last series - here, of course, goes too much beyond all the canons. All this shamanism, mysticism, esotericism, Sinilga... At first fascinating, but annoying for 16 episodes. Same coffin, same idol. All this for the sake of the finale, which in the book even from the standpoint of common sense could not be? As the saying goes, don't lie!
I don’t even know if I’d recommend the show or not. If you’ve been watching 'Nastie' and you liked it, it’ll be nice to see the actors! But there are few who have watched both series.
A person who has read a book does not need advice from someone who has not read it. And not the one who read it, but I didn’t read it, did you see my impression?
And yet I didn't stop watching. I was looking forward to the new series with genuine interest. And yet I was lured and captured by the adventures of Prokhor Gromov on the screen in a modern production. Maybe it’s because I like the B/B. Sometimes it’s just nice to watch an actor. I have already explained why I love him.
I'm a reading person. He read all Dostoevsky’s novels, Moroz evaluated the film adaptation with a close look at the primary sources and Soviet versions. Read and 'Naastie' Alexei Ivanov, compared the series with a book - review published. As a child, I watched the film adaptation of the novel by Vasily Aksyonov ' The Moscow Saga' from the same First Channel; and as an adult, I read it. Maybe a decade and a half will pass, I will be over forty, so I will get to the novel by Vyacheslav Shishkov. In the meantime, I’d rather read something else. I will not be enthusiastic about the huge two-volume saga I know of. Judge with all severity - whether me, a negligent reader, or a director who spoiled my appetite.
If they ask me: 'What to watch the series?' then I will remember about 'Ugly River' certainly not in the first place. And not the second. Not even the third. But I don’t regret the time spent on 16 episodes.
From somewhere I got information that with the release of the series in Russia increased the demand for the book Shishkov – the primary source. If this is true, then the series is not in vain.
I would give ' seven with a minus' but I love Gorbatov and Yatsenko. I pull: ' eight with a minus'.
8 out of 10
P.S. And here you answer the question, dear user Kinopoisk, who read the book. How would you wish a resident of Russia, not familiar with the saga about 'Ugrum River': to get acquainted with it through this series or even pass by and remain in the dark? No, answers: ' watch the Soviet film' and ' read the book' not offered or accepted. Otherwise, it would not occur to anyone to shoot a new film adaptation for lack of need.
For critics to blaspheme all new interpretations of old TV series - don't feed bread. Right on the template - and borscht tastes better and the sun is brighter... However, the new film masterpiece from Yuri Moroz is valuable because it raised such a noise around itself. One can argue endlessly who played better - Chursina or Peresild, the new Ibrahim or the old, and in general, which cast was better and which version of the films is closer to the text and heart? But that's not the point. It's different. The series has been waiting and waiting for a long time. Second, the series is about our lives, although the novel takes place more than 100 years ago. But nothing has changed in the yard. And surely many of those who watch it recognize themselves - from oligarchs to ordinary workers. Many heroes are not shown on the best side. So they criticize all the series because it catches like a splinter and touches the living. In Soviet times, such criticism probably would not have existed, because society did not live under savage capitalism, as it does now. Naturally, the new 16-episode series is much more informative, as it shows much that remains behind the scenes of the 4-episode old version. Naturally beautiful acting of the actors, as well as nature, are fascinating and naturally the rating of the series is very high on KinoPoisk despite the sullen rivers of criticism. In the end, I recommend watching. Definitely not wasting time.
Honor and praise to the creators of the new series 'Ugly River'. And this at a time when the classic film is not profitable. They don't, they don't, they don't. And it is better to shoot another series about cops and bandits than to swing at the great and big. The book by Vyacheslav Shishkov 'Ugly River', which is worthy of film adaptations, was last staged as early as 1968 ' rags' the year - and it is infinitely outdated - cinematic handwriting is also aging, no matter who thought the opposite and nodded back - but in Soviet times could. We could, but not like today. We need modern readings of the classics. Very needed.
Yes, the new series is obviously made quite cheap. Because 16 episodes. Theatrical activity climbs - in the bad sense of the word, when the locations are minimal, the scene is extremely narrowed. You will not seriously consider beautiful flights on a quadcopter over rivers and forests as something unusual for modern cinema - such shots are given by any video blogger-traveler on Youtube. The fact that money was spent still little, reads literally in everything - in the frame there is not even a solid extra, although in the novel Shishkov sometimes has. But it's done very carefully. The director cost little money. Which is difficult, given the format of 16 episodes.
The main flaws in the selection of actors - Julia Peresild - Anfisa Kozyrev. But what can we do?! There are no fatal women not only in Russian cinema. In general, in cinema and in the modern world of almost feminism, femme fatale has disappeared as a class. Have women forgotten how to be women in the full sense of the word and drive men crazy? Actresses simply lack charisma. Well, even in Hollywood could play this image - anyone would lack either beauty or talent. Peresild is a talented actress. But what can drive you crazy so that father, son and other men are ready to bite each other’s throats and accept death for her, I can’t believe at all. But this is the plot - such were passions, Shishkov described the real intrigue in the merchant family, where his grandfather was a natural robber.
The selection of actors is excellent. Taking into account what complex characters Shishkov shows - and this is not a Saltykovo-Shchedrin or Gogol grotesque, there are even real prototypes of the heroes. Baluev as Peter Gromov is great. Whoever said otherwise. The son of a robber, who made capital with a strong hand, and then lost his will, drinking a lot, going against his own son for the sake of a woman, is far from the Soviet image of the Siberian landowner Georgy Epifantsev (smoking a pipe) - but much closer to the real image. Alexander Gorbatov generally perfectly fit into the image. Very few young actors are able to embody this simple image of a strong Russian man. Look for the type offhand - not muscles, but charisma - hard and bright character. Degenerate too?! And Gorbatov, already noticeable, and in 'Naastie' according to Alexei Ivanov, he is one of the most notable characters, very good. An educated convict performed by Viktor Rakov, Daria Moroz is a Siberian emancipe, Roman Madianov is a merchant breed, Alexander Yatsenko is a clerk, spineless, cunning, frantic and stupid, and Yuri Mirontsev in the role of Circassian Ibrahim looks not caricatured, although before us - not the most unambiguous and rather complex image. Brilliant and Investigator Golubev, played by the most experienced Sergei Koltakov.
Implausibility, assumptions, theatrical - yes. But I propose to forgive them to the creators of the series on the Russian classics, which is so necessary - and precisely in the modern reading - when the young viewer has even difficulties in imagining that there can be such a fatal beauty of a woman (feminine, magical, alluring), that men will fall at her feet, and will be ready to do anything to give it to anyone, and that a man can be a real man, and not on the advice of a psychologist & #39; to cry out his pain & #39; to admit himself to be weak' that he is able to set ambitious goals and achieve them, not be weak, but are weak in the past, and have such passions and strong roles. For what Shishkov described is still human nature, which cannot be distorted. And in the series on Russian classics, this important point of the writer's prose is shown.
Of course, the series may not like, and of course there is something to complain about. For example, there is no plausibility - after a month in the taiga, clothes are not dirty enough, where are the beards?! Maybe so, but my great-grandfather shaved with a knife on hikes, sharpening him against his belt, and I saw it myself later when he was very old. But, of course, you can always find shortcomings if you try.
But the show is still good.
Another masterpiece from the producers P. K. Learned to make a beautiful entourage, costumes - but there is no soul. It's just a beautiful, beautiful picture. The actors play without a spark, unlike the Soviet film, from the look of Anfisa or Senilga to the insides. And in the current production, Anfisa is more like a chaste lady, with whom regular fans have relations in turn. And Prokhor Gromov generally resembles some kind of hipster. Directors once again made a bet on the bed and love side of the story, but Shishkov’s book is not about that. But the authors of the film for some reason believe that the modern viewer can only be attracted by bed scenes. Why was it in this case to call the film ' Ugly River', would then be called ' River Separator' or ' All the rivers flow...' because of the original plot there is little left.
In the film there is not only a soul, but also credibility. The director decided not to bother with the details. Thunderbirds wander around the taiga for a month, but they not only have clothes all right, but even vegetation on the face and head does not grow, the beard and mustache remain perfectly trimmed. Disgusting film adaptation!!! Idiot acting!
Cry, Russian cinema, weep, Russian literature - today you were greatly humiliated. The new series 'Ugrum-River' has once again pushed the prospects for the degradation of art and it undoubtedly deserves a special place in Russian culture. When viewing the picture, there was a feeling that the authors of the film were simply ' mastering the budget' and whispering something like: the sooner we finish, the better. Of the positive qualities, only images of exotic landscapes can be noted - here the series is not inferior to nature films from the Air Force. Otherwise, the negligence is blatant. Made without love, the spirit of Shishkov’s work is destroyed. Images are killed, twisted and somehow supplemented. The main character Prokhor Gromov from the very beginning is shown as a vile type, with a dirty mouth in all words and deeds. Why, why this fiction? This alone kills the whole idea of the novel, in which Prochorus is neither black nor white, but a powerful, beautiful and rich character in which darkness only gradually fills the entire personality. His father Peter in the performance of Baluev came out as a caricature, and Anfisa Kozyrev as a character in the film in general was beyond the line of good and evil. This is not a Siberian Venus, a provincial goddess, a fatal woman of incredible beauty (including inner beauty), as described in detail in the novel. In the series, instead of Anfisa, she turned out to be either confused, or half-confused with a local spill, or a selpo saleswoman - in a word, an extremely flabby female character. Actors play bad, ' get off ' as if only they think ' get in line at the box office'.
Cinematography as in the news program, the image is plastic. No graphics, no painting, no depth, no height, in short, what is present in the film adaptation of 1968. Against the background of a new craft, the old series looks like a masterpiece full of fire, light, darkness and fairy tales. And unique in quality drawing images.
Frankly, I was really looking forward to the series. Although already on the trailers was visible obvious miscast and flaws of the script. Famous actors, a good director, scenery and costumes are quite at a decent level. And the volume of 16 episodes inspired hope that the whole work of V.Y. Shishkov, will be more or less covered. But it didn't work out.
First of all, very bad work of the script group. From all the central characters, their characteristic features were taken out, so clearly spelled out in the book. Danila Gromov (grandfather) from an aged robber and murderer, suddenly turns into a quiet bleating elder-divine. The book clearly shows the strength of this man. His son, Peter, is afraid of his father even on his deathbed. And Peter Gromov himself, performed by A. Baluev, looks extremely liquid. He is not the sturdy settler Shishkov paints him to be; he is the alcoholic teetering on the brink of insanity (which he will become later, but not at the very beginning of history). Prokhor Gromov himself, who according to the book is 17 years old, here from the very first frames he drags around the girls and looks thirty years old. This is a shaved hipster, but not the son and grandson of Siberian pioneers. Anfisa Kozyrev (Yulia Peresild), immediately appears as a bandit bedding, which again is the wildest game. Ibrahim-Cherkes is presented to us as the owner of a dens from a modern sleeping area. He mumbles just like the other characters, making a miserable impression. Such could not be exiled to Siberia, such could be imprisoned for ten days for a hooligan.
Siberia and all the Trans-Urals, spelled Shishkov very correctly. This is a Russian frontier, a wild and harsh land. Any of the characters shown to us in the series would not have lasted three days. They're all fluid, loose, devoid of the inner strength of places like this. Having broken the main story arcs of the book, the writers did not build anything in exchange for the worthwhile and integral. The story breaks down from the very first minute.
And no, I'm not going to praise the old film adaptation. Although everything is much better there than in the production of 2021: characters correctly captured by the actors, a sane script. But alas, everything is very weak technically and bypassed a very strong mystical narrative present in Shishkov’s novel from the very first pages.
So, if you recommend something to watch, I would highly recommend the 1968 film adaptation. And the opus of the first channel did not touch even a stick a few meters long. But the best thing is to read the book. Alas, at the moment worthy of film adaptation at 'Ugrum-River' No.