For a long time I did not take it seriously - I read somewhere in the Internet that this is a low-budget thrash, 100 times worse than the Netflix adaptation. Well, I dare say that it is not - it is quite lamp and watchable, especially for fans of the universe, to whom I can assure you, I belong.
The series is based on the first two books, The Last Wish and The Sword of Destiny. Well, that's how it is. In some places, individual stories are conveyed quite accurately, but, having combined into a single plot, they received a bunch of cutaways. Although, I must admit, the screenwriters got smart and the internal logic there does not lame, but this is no longer a film adaptation, it is “based on motives”.
Caste... let’s say, in some places controversial. Geralt is very good, although it looks young and because of this inappropriately luscious. Jenifer is just Jenifer as she is. To be honest, while this role is normal, no one has yet revealed either in the old or in the new film adaptation. Ciri is nothing, just an object of search and fight with everyone. She's no longer the Child of Elder Blood, but rather the Child of Geralt's Destination, because of the accents and such an expressionless play. Buttercup plays well, but looks like an alcoholic neighbor from a bodun - couldn't you find an actor more poetic?
The scenery is very good. Everything was filmed in real historical castles and monasteries, so the atmosphere of the Middle Ages is conveyed wonderfully. You will not see the painted majestic minastirites and royal harbors, everything will be in medieval harsh and atmospheric. Add wonderful landscapes, from which sometimes just breathtaking.
Props and costumes are beyond praise. Everything is made simple, but authentic and very appropriate for the harsh medieval world. By the way, I liked Geralt’s costumes here much more than his ridiculous sato-maso armor from the Netflix version.
AAA graphics and monsters!! It makes you want to cry, it's the biggest failure in the film, even for 2002 and a modest budget. To prevent it from burning like this, they were cut in quick shots and not shown close-ups, but their eyes still bleed. However, monsters and magic here will not be so much, the series is more about the relationship of people and other red people.
The fighting is very good. There are no big makhachs, but the fights are made drively and quite spectacular, there will be no shame.
There are a number of original, interesting, but controversial findings. The witches of Kaer-Morchen were endowed with pronounced oriental traits - their training, costumes, fighting techniques - in all this a kind of Shaolin passes through. Elves became a little Indian, apparently, the directors decided to draw parallels between the displacement of elves in the wastelands and mountains and the fate of the North American Indians. Well, the attempt is counted.
In general, it turned out a series that tried to make as good as possible in the absence of appropriate funds. And the crew, and the actors tried, and not their fault that Hollywood blockbuster did not work. Which does not negate the undoubted merits of the series.
Don't ask me about the movie! Now the post is a Polish Catholic, a gentryman, can not speak mat. Do not use mat in the post! Andrzej Sapkowski
The universe of books by Andrzej Sapkowski about the witch Geralt from Rivia, although it originated already in the distant 1986, but for a long time remained the lot of mainly fantasy fans and received truly world fame already at the turn of zero and tenth, with the release of games studio CD Projekt RED. However, back in 2002, the Polish TV series The Witcher was released, which stalled on the first season and was coolly received by many critics and by Mr. Sapkowski himself.
However, is it really so bad old TV series, shot by Poles for three pennies? On the one hand, he has many drawbacks: at the request of the left heel of the screenwriter, a frank bratty was crammed there like a dubious line with Geralt’s childhood and youth, as well as a confrontation with Count Falvik, turned from a secondary character into the main antagonist. Part of the storylines (fortunately, there are few of them) was simply merged; in addition, almost all the special effects in the series look frankly cheap, which, however, is explained by a small budget - it is difficult to expect from TVcasters from an Eastern European country, and even at the beginning of the zero, something of the Lord of the Rings level.
At the same time, despite all this, to call the Polish "The Witcher" a bad or even mediocre series does not turn the tongue. The main advantage of this filmmaking can be called the fact that Polish television producers perfectly conveyed the atmosphere of the world of Sapkowski – both the beauty of the fantasy universe and the lead abominations of the Middle Ages. Magnificent landscapes please the eye, scenery, costumes, armor and castles look very authentic. The staging of the fights is also pleasing for the most part; it is noteworthy that Michal Zhebrowski, who played the role of Gwinblade, himself knows how to fence well. The plot of the series is a single whole, and all non-canonical moments are organically woven into the inner canon of the series - thanks to this, it can be safely watched by the viewer who is not familiar with the plot of the books. The acting is very good, and sometimes great: it is clear that the actors who played the roles of the main characters, especially Geralt and Buttercup, not only played, but “lived” these roles. Finally, it is worth noting the beautiful soundtrack - and yes, in my deep conviction, the song of the Buttercup from the Polish series is a hundred times better than any songs about the minted coin.
The verdict is a warm lamp series, which, although there are not enough stars from the sky, but at the same time looks easy and bribes with its soulfulness.
A logical scenario. The atmosphere, the natural play of the actors, realistic nature and scenery. Fights and fights look real. As Stanislavsky would say, “I believe!”
I watched and watched the series several times. I used to just think he was good. Now that there is something to compare, I understand that the old series is simply magnificent.
You believe what's happening on the screen! A butterfly, a relationship between two friends, Geralt's fatherly feelings ... and even a relationship with Jenifer.
Queen Calante looks and behaves like a strong spirit, rich, noble and power-hungry woman ruling the world of men. Not like the wet fantasies of a female director about an ultra-fighting and narcissistic grandmother on the throne.
Butterfly. The actor, of course, is not handsome, but quite attractive. The relationship with Geralt and the character of the bard - as in the books.
Ciri is lovely. She likes and evokes sympathy from the first frame. You empathize with her. You admire her when she shows strength of character. She's a touch when we're shown her attachment to Geralt. Ciri is emotional. In this film, she is a living character.
Hell or Silvan. Surprisingly, the devil from the 2002 film adaptation looks more realistic than in the 2019 film adaptation. With all the achievements in the field of special effects.
Fights look like they do in real life. With recoil after the blow, with shortness of breath at the end of the fight and with sweat that pours from the fighters hail. We are thoroughly and repeatedly shown how Geralt recovers from his wounds. We can see how he's hurting. How he suffers. We see and feel the destructive effects of elixirs on his body. As a result, every time he gets into battle, we fear and worry for the witcher. It doesn’t feel like he’s Mary Sue or the fucking Terminator that’s going to be okay.
Forests, fields, fortresses, cities... everything looks not like in a fantasy, fairy-tale world, but what such locations would look like in the Middle Ages.
The motivation of the heroes is clear and clear. It is chewed, spoken and shown in as much detail as possible. Sometimes several times. Actors play everything, even the slightest changes in the emotions of the characters. Everything that happens on the screen is logical and stems from what we have already shown.
Well, the final scene of a meeting and a joint trip to the mountains to friends - at each viewing, as for the first time, breaks through on emotions. Unlike, again, the new series from Neflix.
All in all, the burning sense of injustice that the new consumer TV series is famous and popular, and the old quality TV series is dusting in the unknown, made me come here and write the first two reviews of my life.
All the world, friends, and let the sun always shine over your head, and your instincts suggest only high-quality TV series and films!
10 out of 10
"Last Wish" and "Sword of Destiny" - two collections of short stories that are a kind of prologue to the saga of Geralt of Rivia. They are designed to acquaint the reader with the absolute majority of key characters and the universe itself, its features, customs, etc. The series, unfortunately, tried to rework the author's idea into a complete independent work. Frankly speaking, to me, this was not the most successful idea, since the main events of the saga begin where the series already ends.
This ignores a number of the most interesting and important stories for the universe, namely: “The Last Wish” (the acquaintance of Geralt and Yennifer), “A grain of truth” (the story that not all monsters are such – this is a cross-cutting subtext of the whole saga) and “A Little Sacrifice” (the not so important, but incredibly touching story of Essie Daven). Of course, the film is cut down even more – I’m not even interested in checking how much, because it’s impossible to put it all in two hours. In two hours, you can only tell the banal story, which for some reason was completed by the screenwriter.
In fact, the main problem of the project is not even in a very mediocre adaptation of the original, but in what was written by the scriptwriter on his own, without any connection with the original. The first three episodes and a significant part of the last, that is, almost half of the series is not “The Witcher”, but a talentless fan fiction on it. With adaptation, however, also screwed up: Kaer Morchen from an ancient fortress turned into a shelter for homeless hermits; Vesemir from the oldest, but experienced and strong witcher - in the old man who looked just pathetic; and to list less significant errors can take a very long time.
Weak production of combat scenes and cheap special effects are also a problem, but for the beginning of zero, it is not so bad. From a purely technical point of view, I liked the casting (Mikhal Zhebrovsky damn well fit into the image), and the presence of nude scenes (the original has a lot of eroticism, so the series would have been castrated without it), and even full-scale shooting. There are problems, but for Polish television at the turn of the century, they are quite objective and forgivable. In my opinion, even with them it would be possible to shoot an excellent film adaptation if Michal Scherbitz did not begin to engage in amateur activity, but so – this may not be the worst series, but in comparison with the original – only a pathetic similarity and nothing more.
In my distant childhood, long before the appearance of the series of games on the Witcher and the first meeting with the books of Sapkovsky, this series appeared.
I can't remember where I first saw him, but at the time I liked him more or less, there was something so soulful about him. Something from childhood, like low-budget TV shows for children and teenagers.
Much later, after reading a series of books, watching hundreds of hours of fantasy movies of varying quality, I returned to this sermal. And he didn't disappoint me, I just saw his big drawbacks.
The Witcher, as a film adaptation, was ruined not so much by the low budget and bad effects, not so much by the unsuccessful casting of the main and secondary characters, as by an attempt to bring his own into the script and idea. It was not just bad, but bad.
Add the sluggish development of the action, the length of the scenes, nondescript fencing, staging of fights and it would be safe to say the film is bad.
However, there is one undoubted plus in it. Which, if it does not outweigh all the disadvantages, at least allows the series to have the right to exist.
And plus this main character. To be honest, for me for many years there is not and will not exist another Geralt, except Zhebrovskiy. He's a handsome man, not an ounce sweet. He also has fantastic charm. I loved the image he created on the screen. From appearance to character. This is the little thing that is really good.
What can I say about the TV series The Witcher? Cozy, measured, slow. Looking at this uncomplicated masterpiece, you realize that everything is there in its place. Not a canon? Maybe. But the realism that the authors introduced willy-nilly is very useful. And even the accused of alcoholism Buttercup is very good. Balagur, poet, merry man, adventurer. But at the same time endowed with certain logical for this universe survival skills and characteristics. May the canonists forgive me, but I do not imagine in the harsh world of a witcher chicly dressed arrogant and manneristic whip, who has not yet robbed on the first day and has not lost his hat feather. What can we say about Geralt? In my opinion, it is this image, which embodied the Polish actor, and inspired the creators of famous games. It's been viewed for the third time. I am not afraid to do it again.
This is the best fantasy series!
I have long been interested in fantasy as a genre. I read a lot of books and watched all the films of this genre. And I can say with confidence - The Witcher is the best fantasy legend. With a perfect world, a story, the main character. This is how fantasy should be - dark at first glance, but with a bright ray of hope in the distance, with a blurred idea of good and evil. Thank you so much to Andrzej Sapkowski for telling us about The Witcher and his world. . .
Many people say that the witch in this film is different than in the legend. I think the opposite is true. The image created by Michal Zhebrowski is exactly the same. This is how I imagined Gerald when I first read this masterpiece. And that's how he'll stay for me forever. Not a pretentious superman, from the Witcher series of games, but a lonely, shabby and slightly tired traveler with a sword behind his back and a faithful horse ' Flesh'...
Now the movie. Of course, connoisseurs of grandiose mega-battles and pathetic special effects will not find in it what they are looking for. There is no such thing here, because the series is quite old and low-budget. It is valuable not at all this, but the incomparable atmosphere of a gloomy and gray fantasy world. Where there is no clear division between good and evil, where only brute force rules and there are no other ways. . . I was able to show it just fine. You look and believe that such a world is quite possible and before you the truth stands the Herald, Buttercup, Ciri, Jenifer, Naneke and all the rest. Playing actors is beyond praise, there is no such thing in any fantasy that I have seen. Except that in the Lord of the Rings, but this is a completely different level of work and there is no point in comparing at all. I especially liked that the Herald wasn’t shown as a super-positive hero, or an invulnerable demigod. An ordinary witch, with an unusual fate. Jenifer is also a chic, dark-haired sorceress - a beauty, with a complex character. But not all-powerful! This and more interesting film, where the character is waiting for death, pain and loss - at every turn. But like real heroes, they overcome them no matter what. Difficult fate with no less difficult decisions. . . All this, all the experiences - shown more than colorfully and tragically.
Separately, I want to note the unparalleled game of Michal Zhebrowski. He was like no one else in the role of Gerald. Body, face and even that look. . Just like the book. Now I just can't imagine the Witcher any more. It is a pity that did not remove the continuation of the wonderful series, but it always happens. We don’t always shoot what we want, so we are satisfied and appreciate what we have. Above all praise. Most of all, I liked the scene where the Herald returns to Caer Morchen and renounces his creators. Although it was not in the book, it looks amazingly true and powerful. And the scene with the meeting of Ciri, in general, always makes you cry. . .
After the series, I feel like I’ve been to that world. Next to the Herald, I went that way. Few movies can do that. But that's exactly what it is. Just like the ultimate fantasy. . .
Behind a hundred roads
Three hundred years ahead
Single White Wolf
Looking for a trace in the world of truth
Through eternity. . .
Good luck on your way, White Wolf!
10 out of 10
People are divided into those who like fantasy and boring adults. No, of course it's not that strict. Who, after all, may not like a good fairy tale, where brave knights heroically gut the less brave knights, dragons reduce the kingdom’s income from agriculture, princesses look like consultants Avon got to them, and the main character, always chosen, zealously fights for the attention of his younger fans?
In this Polish series everything is in place, but everything is a little different. The white-haired Geralt, who has written in his work “protector of the weak, murderer of monsters”, in fact, is a character very positive, but with his cockroaches. Nobility, of course, is a wonderful human quality, but in great concentration kills the character, turning him into an infinitely naive robot. That's kind of how Geralt is.
Overall, the series is difficult to judge. He is not bad, although he suffers from the same syndrome as the main character - he is sometimes boring. Well, that is, waiting for a serious large-scale action here is not worth it. It is better to immediately switch to, say, Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. The narrative of The Witcher is very slow, measured, quiet and resembles, rather, reading a book where landscapes are described for a long time, there are long dialogues and, in general, everything is very long. It's neither bad nor good. Just an amateur.
Sadly on the screen look special effects, more precisely those places where they would not interfere, but the budget of the film was against. Lack of money for shooting, by the way, is the first thing that catches the eye when watching.
The Witcher waving his sword, you can hear growls and squeaks behind the scenes, but no goblins are visible. However, once show the dragon, which the creators of the film, apparently, overbought from the game “Heroes of the sword and magic 3”.
And so I scold the Poles, and the series is quite good. Fantasy lovers will definitely like it. Just do not expect from him any gloss, epic, scope and other words that now describe his genre. And then you'll like the white-haired witch Geralt.
Without a doubt, the series and Marek Brodsky’s film based on the books about The Witcher are now technically outdated. The viewer who has read the books by Andrzej Sapkowski or who is familiar with Geralt from Rivia from the excellent games of CD Projekt RED is the only film adaptation of the original source at the moment likely to disappoint. The Witcher is undoubtedly worthy of a new incarnation.
But is it that bad? Does this mean that the creators at one time without due diligence approached the film adaptation of the most popular fantasy of their country? I don't think so.
It should be borne in mind that in the past, the viewer was not spoiled by an abundance of expensive and high-quality television series, it was a time of popularity around the world & #39; Zena is the Queen of Warriors & #39; & #39; Amazing Journeys of Hercules & #39; & #39; Adventures of Sinbad & #39; and many other similar shows in which special effects were approximately at the same level as in the Polish series.
The book is almost always better than the adaptation, but then not only 'The Witcher' but fantasy in general only gained mass popularity, there were not enough extensive fandoms with good feedback. Therefore, it would be risky to focus only on meticulous fans of Sapkovsky’s books creating a television series. Not to mention the censorship restrictions, which of course do not allow the witch to light up like in games.
For its format and its time, the series was very good, he managed to convey a certain atmosphere and originality of the world invented by Sapkovsky, and a very good Geralt came out of Michal Zhebrowski.
7 out of 10
Starring Michal Zhebrowski – these harsh words sound at the beginning of each series, giving the local action an epic aroma, so characteristic of Geralt from Rivia.
According to the series, well, what about the series - it is not so easy to describe it all, putting it in one pile. Geralt must be harsh. He is a man, he kills terrible animals, on a bed, under his gray mane, many women find peace. He drinks, gets paid for the manticor he killed, and goes into battle again. He's a witch! Can all this be organically combined with the fights that were staged by third-graders from the sixth entrance? I don't know. To some extent, you can.
Of the other failures - a monstrously drawn by some shameless dragon, in one part, and perhaps all.
If you are not so fastidious about the beauty of the showdowns with swords and fists, and also close your eyes when a huge golden dragon appears in the frame (just for a couple of seconds to do it!), you have a chance to get good emotions associated with the pleasant picture of the sad world of Andrzej Sapkovsky.
Of course, many will respond to watching the series, after getting acquainted with the computer game of the same name. For the part that has previously encountered in the game world with such things as Arkanum, Fullout, Gothic, LBA... the actions of the series may well come to taste. All the rest are unlikely to appreciate the old manner of shooting; beautiful landscapes, not drenched in blood even more beautiful battles; the absence of juicy collisions with all kinds of dangerous creatures, in a world full of these creatures.
Of course, you will come to see this series and those who have read the book before. I can't advise you guys anything - Sapkovsky's work has never taken into your hands.
Summing up the ending, I will say that, having finished watching the series, there is an aftertaste of something difficult, old. Those who are looking for nostalgic notes in the rhythm of today’s time, this thing has a chance to approach.
I thought for a long time what color to put the review, but my sympathy for Michal Zhebrovskiy tilted me towards green. But everything in order.
The first thing to note is that the atmosphere of the series was created decent. The series has its pros and cons, and although the minuses are much more, the pluses are quite fat, so they balance the minuses to some extent. So...
Minuses.
Plot and idea. At first glance, the story is not bad at all. If you haven’t read the books based on the series. Because if you read, then only the words “based on motives” and the main character are saved from righteous anger. I cannot give another explanation for such a free presentation of the very idea of the work personally. Throughout all 13 episodes there is a cold war between Geralt and Kaer Morchen. Honestly, as a fan of books, it is unpleasant and even painful to watch. Almost all witches, apart from Geralt, are shown either weaklings, or renegades, or, forgive me for rudeness, impotent, and often all together, so I thought witches couldn't... He may even be very ..." causes a grin of bewilderment. What makes writers think witches can’t? And in general, why was this feud on the part of Geralt necessary? In order:
1) Geralt Ala was the inventor of a new combat technique. He's cunning, he's dodging, he's walking away from the fight and he's acting weird. How many times they tried to kill him, not caring that he is the best among the students - you are amazed. And I'm sorry, I mean, he's the only one who thinks you can't fight monsters using standard human combat techniques? What-what? You can’t use arrows there, it’s not fair. And I'm precipitated.
2) Witches are mutants, I thought they were all albinos. But no. Albino here is exclusively Geralt, besides some middle by half, because his bristles are just black.
(3) Witches are men. So to see almost a whole squad of witches personally for me was a shock.
(4) Those man or witch throws killed me. Geralt is generally not prone to self-digging, and here such mental anguish. Dramatic, I do not argue, but it is too much.
5) Proud "I wanted to kill you." But I won't. A witch would kill. “I renounce you” – just a knife in the heart at the memory of how many witches died in the defense of Kaer Morchen in the battle with fanatics and how warmly the surviving witches took Ciri, trained her, raised her.
But okay. We make a discount on this magical "based on motives" and look further.
Elfs. The writers didn’t care that there were many blonde elves in the book. Ha. Here are some... in fact, it is not even clear who they are. I would say Indians, but in Poland it is difficult to find them, so I suspect they are Gypsies. On the older people, these shaggy, hysterical vagabonds somehow do not particularly pull, although among them there were pretty faces. But the fact that elves can look decrepit old people is a discovery.
Driads. What the hell was their green face to blame for the disguise? Geralt washes the paint off Dryada’s face, and she becomes an ordinary girl. It's cute... and what adorable Dryads. And in general, Geralt is shown as a kind of alpha male, whom women throw at almost at the first meeting. I do not dispute, and in the book he was the object of desire of many ladies, but what I love the books of Mr. Sapkovsky, so it is extremely beautiful and delicate descriptions of bed scenes. By the way, these scenes were described exclusively between Geralt and Ian, and there are too many scenes not bedside, but erotic. Women are naked at every opportunity.
Monsters. Actually, I was saved by the fact that I did not expect anything from the series in advance in terms of special effects. Poland, 2002 – and it is immediately clear that the Lord of the Rings is not in sight. Actually, the monsters showed not so much, apparently, they themselves understood that they were getting out of hand bad. I would even say it's funny.
A bold move. The fire in the Temple of Melitale is something! That is, they immediately made it clear that the history will not be filmed further, because the Temple appears more than once in the next book. A knife in the heart of this fire.
Negative characters. In all 13 episodes, there is no inherently decent enemy. Falvik is ridiculous as a villain. It doesn't. At all. In fact, his line is unclear. Weaved Nilfgaard, the hunt for Ciri, although it was all much later.
The story of Geralt and Yennifer is indicative for fans of fantasy, because, although they have a violent and strange relationship, but the fact that their love is as strong as their characters is a fact. Here Ian was shown in two episodes and that's all, such a love story in the series ended in nothing. Geralt possessively embraces the girl and clearly decides that he will raise her himself, surrounded by driven elves and a loose Buttercup. The actress playing Ian didn't like it. She's beautiful, but she's missing something. Ian was beautiful and dangerous. It doesn’t make that impression here.
I won't say anything about guns, I don't know much about them. But fight scenes also leave much to be desired.
Plus.
Undoubtedly, Geralt. Mikhal Zhebrowski is chic. At first I liked the look and the body – great. Then the game. It seemed that such a courageous and harsh could not play softly, but I was wrong. The scenes with Butterfly, Neneke and Ciri are a real pleasure. The game is natural, so it looks perfect. That's how I imagined Geralt, only this bristle ... Without her, he is just handsome, why he so stubbornly left her – a mystery.
Buttercup. Zbigniew Zamakhovsky Charming. I imagined this character to be different, but here he is charming. He sings like a soul. Although no vocal heights show.
Neneke. Anna Dymna perfectly fit the image of the chief priestess of the Temple. And in a duet with Geralt, she looked very harmonious.
Costumes, landscapes, scenery and soundtrack. The atmosphere is chic. It is as if the action actually takes place in the mysterious and cruel Middle Ages. Beautiful landscapes, believable scenery and costumes. It's nice to hear about humor.
In general, the series is not bad, it is worth watching at least for the sake of the main character, he is gorgeous. And yet to make a discount for the year and the country of creation and these magical "motifs".
P.S. There was no Peter Jackson on The Witcher.
7 out of 10
The film adaptation of the first two collections of stories about a witch named Geralt proved to be an impossible task for Polish television. Still, the world created by the imagination of Andjay Sapkovsky is very rich in colorful places and fantastic creatures, and taking up their embodiment on the screen without having a sufficient budget was very careless. But this could be forgiven if the narrative followed the spirit of the book.
But no plot of the original source is reinterpreted by the director into something completely contrary to the main motives of the book. Yes, many moments are present in the book and in the film, but their interpretation here is too one-sided. Many plot moments are cut, because of this, the motivation of the characters is lost, and their relationship with Geralt becomes incomprehensible. With all this, the writers managed to add their own storylines somewhat out of the general canvas of the narrative.
Especially I would like to note the sudden episodes of childhood and youth of Geralt. It would seem that this is a huge untouched material, on which you can create an interesting and deep story. But the writers slide into petty internecine fights between witches. According to the number of intrigues, it seems that you are not looking at the school of harsh warriors, but at the local institute of noble maidens.
But with all this, the series causes positive emotions. From time to time, the spirit of the Witcher slips through it. And the actor who played Geralt managed to really feel the image. I deliberately don’t want to write anything about special effects and costumes, for a low-budget series they are quite good. But the actors for secondary roles are selected absolutely unlike the book prototypes.
So The Witcher can hardly be called a good film adaptation. It’s still interesting to see.
“The Sword of Purpose has two points. One of them is you.
I read the books about the witch Geralt three times, again and again discovering something interesting and new for myself. The heroes of the Sapkovsky saga became my family, and I experienced with all my heart the joys and sufferings that fell to their lot. And so learning about the filmed in Poland series about Geralt, I rushed to get acquainted with him, excited and excited at the same time. As you know, fans are especially sensitive and critical of the adaptations of their favorite works, and I was no exception in this regard, so my review will differ from the rest, mostly enthusiastic reviews.
Most often, people mention cheap special effects when pointing out the shortcomings of The Witcher, but I am one of those who can turn a blind eye to rubber monsters, provided that the actors play convincingly, the exciting plot and the accurately conveyed atmosphere of the book in which the film or series is made. It is clear that no director will not transfer to the screen every page of the work, and the viewer is already accustomed to be surprised by the many ignored storylines, but the film adaptation, in my opinion, succeeded, if the movie characters cause the same feelings as their book prototypes, their characters are not affected – in other words, they have not ceased to be themselves. Alas, I can’t say that about the characters of The Witcher.
So Geralt is my great pure literary love. The witch, not content with the role of an ordinary mercenary, subtly feeling, seeking justice, constantly doubting, following his Purpose, which he simultaneously rejects, moderately educated, as he demonstrates at every opportunity, entering into philosophical disputes with anyone, attentive, loving, caring and faithful, even if his loyalty sometimes takes very strange forms - this hero is described in the books of Andrzej Sapkowski. As for Michal Zhebrowski, who played the role of a witch in the series, he is, of course, an attractive man, and for this alone, you can probably close your eyes to most of the shortcomings in his game, but I do not want to do this. So Zhebrovski's hero is anyone but Geralt! Gloomy, silent, unemotional with a frozen expression of disgust on his face that doesn’t leave him even during an orgy with Mirror Girls, he looks more like canonical action heroes than my favorite fantasy hero. The only scene in which the cinematic Geralt does not cause fair bewilderment is the scene of his meeting with Ciri, whom he considered dead, filmed really touching.
A buttercup, a talented handsome bard, mistaken by many for an elf, a favorite of women, be it a maid or a queen, a little capricious and mannered, but a brave and faithful friend - such is the book character. In the series, the Butterfly is like a crumpled, not drying vagabond, in which there is not even a hint of gloss and nobility, and for which noble beauties could not go mad, except that they all suddenly wanted exotics. Yes, in his own way, this character is not bad and even charismatic, but he has nothing to do with the metrosexual bard Sapkovsky.
The wizard Yennifer, cunning, cruel, selfish, calculating, bitchy and selfish in books, she was not beautiful. Was not (!), so the claims to the appearance of the actress, in my opinion, by the way, quite attractive, look at least strange. But Yennifer knew how to, what is called, submit. An experienced seductress, she did not need men at all, or rather, she needed them only as proof of her own usefulness and a means of revenge to the whole world for the early years of rejection in the body of the hunchback, for the pain she then experienced and which she remembered forever. Her relationship with Geralt can hardly be called healthy - she never trusted him, and often used him for his own purposes. The more questions are raised by her frank recognition of the desire to have a child in the film adaptation. Yes, the bookish Yennifer also suffered because of her infertility, but never, never (!) did this proud woman allow herself to speak out loud about it, fearing to appear weak. I am already silent about the fact that in the serial sorceress there is no hint of bitchiness, and in nature it is more like the book Essie Daven, but this is a completely different character.
And finally, the witch Ciri, aka the bandit Falk, aka the Lionfish of Cintra, aka the Child of Elder Blood. This is not a cute obedient child shown to us by the director, this is a devil that can piss off anyone. Personally, I have great doubts about the scene in which the girl opens to the soldiers who are looking for her, wanting to save the priestesses Melitele. Of course, the Cintric princess was a brave girl, sacrificing herself, for the sake of loved ones, but the serial priestesses were strangers to her, and Ciri always preferred her own to the lives of such people. A vivid example of this is evidenced by her stay in the Rat gang, where she not only reconciled with the murders committed by her new friends, but also took an active part in them to be accepted into the group, because it is more difficult for one to survive. Probably, the director’s view of this heroine is even good, in the end he ennobled her, did better, but this is not the Ciri that I fell in love with in the saga.
As for the secondary characters, they are even less like their book prototypes, and the only thing that brings them together are common names.
The main theme of the books, the theme of Purpose, seemed to me not fully disclosed, but scenes of fights with monsters are given a lot of time. But, as I have already written, Geralt is something more than a simple thug with swords, and in order for this to become obvious not only to readers but also to the audience, scenes of battles could probably be sacrificed for the sake of more important ones, those in which the characters of the main characters are revealed.
Bottom line: this is definitely not the "Witcher" I was hoping to see, but I'm betting for an attempt.
6 out of 10
I am quite critical of the innovations in the film adaptations, but it is not as bad as it could be. In this series, there are enough pros and cons, but perhaps first about the disadvantages of this picture.
In my opinion, the biggest disadvantage of the series are special effects and the implementation of monsters. Monsters are like growth dolls made of papier mache, which are very different from those described in the book. As for special effects, here I will even give an example: Remember the moment where the dragon turns back into 'three slicks' so at that moment there was an explosion in the spirit of Chinese films of the 70s.
The second rather noticeable disadvantage is a strong discrepancy of some characters. For example, Vesemir in this series is some old, infirm monk who dies at the very beginning of old age. The buttercup performed by Zamakhovsky does not correspond to the description of the Buttercup from the books. Caer Morchen depicted some kind of wasteland with a dungeon. Well, I had a different idea of witch swords, too, but I'm already picking on it.
However, the advantages outweigh all the shortcomings of this series. First of all, this is Michal Zhebrowski in the role of Geralt, with this role they hit the bull’s-eye, only, as far as I remember, Geralt had a gray bristles, but these are small things.
I also liked the atmosphere of this series. Costumes and scenery really take the reader into the world of the witch and no longer pay attention to the shortcomings that are certainly in this film.
In general, I have only positive emotions from this series, but I would not mind if the Witcher was filmed in Hollywood for example.
8 out of 10
A decent Catholic should not swear in public, and therefore Mr. Andrzej Sapkowski - he is the witch Geralt and invented - refused to answer questions concerning the only film adaptation of his work, especially since in the post. And even though Sapkovsky was never a “big” writer, but the popularity of his books in the Eastern European space is huge, and therefore the release of the heroes of the witches saga beyond the bounds was only a matter of time. So appeared at the beginning of the zero series “Wied min”, which in fact was not so much a film adaptation as a film based on.
The first collections of stories about the witch (hired killer of monsters and evil spirits) Geralt, who was only passing through Rivia, at one time became a curious postmodern experiment for the genre to integrate world-famous fairy tales into the aggressive environment of dark fantasy, where racism flourishes and internecine strife flares up, and many people do not care about the local Mordor, because their problems are enough. Sapkovsky wanted to draw the line between fairy tales and fantasy once and for all, primarily in the minds of readers. While in the fairy tale the prince falls in love with the poor stepdaughter at the ball and has sublime feelings for her, then in fantasy (according to Mr. Sapkovsky) the heir to the royal throne is driven only by the thirst for the speedy defloration of the seductive and innocent village fool, and then you can ask your hayduks to drive the unfortunate one out of the palace gates in the cold. Such is the book dwelling of the witch, where the beauty turns out to be a monster, the local Snow White scours the world accompanied by seven thugs who trade in robbery, and dragons are hunted not by brave knights, but by crowds of greedy bandits. It cannot be said that by this Sapkovsky became a trendsetter, because the genre in the late 80s has already begun its natural mutation. But Geralt’s world contrasted with the black-and-white universes of fantasy classics, where evil was unprincipled, good was uncompromising, and if there were exceptions, it was only within the rules and in the person of secondary heroes. It is noteworthy that later Sapkovsky interpreted in a new way the traditional techniques of epic fantasy with walking a motley taga from one object of a fictional map to another.
Here is such a wonderful new world was in the hands of the director Marek Brodsky, but he disposed of good material with the equanimity of a hearingless man who grabbed a harp. Absolutely not feeling the spirit of the original, spitting on the entourage created by the writer “fairy tales for adults”, Brodsky, not without the help of screenwriter Michal Šrzebić, for some reason undertook to redraw the central figure of the work – the witch Geralt. The fantasy of interpreters was not a joke, it was enough for as many as three starting series of slack, telling about the childhood of the hero, experienced mutation and becoming a monster fighter. But if Sapkovsky's "White Wolf" is an outcast among people, then Mr. Brodsky has him persona non grata everywhere and by default. The cinematic community of witches is more like a totalitarian sect, embittered and driven into the wilderness after the destitute elves. Geralt’s internal struggle with his own nature, which played an important role in the book, undergoes a metamorphosis, turning into a fight with the notorious system and the code of honor, which is gaggy in its high-flownness. And such contrasting reincarnations in the film is a pond - that's the mother of Geralt is not a cruel bitch, the son did not throw evil priests, and he himself is not fully a witch, for which we always despise our brothers. The ash-haired hero of Sapkovsky went through misunderstanding and dirt of the human world, remaining a mutant, and here the factory marriage - in the eyes of the writer and director, monster hunters are akin to robots, they are insensitive and assexual, therefore they hate Geralt, who has feelings not atrophied in the process of change. So, in relation to this new witch, a storyline is formed, repeatedly deprived of the foundations, losing content. The theme of purpose is poorly disclosed, although it rises throughout the film constantly. Love relations with the sorceress Jenifer lose their book beginning, moreover, they seem to put a point, because the film covers only collections of stories, not the entire cycle. We cannot say that there is nothing to cling to in this freethinking: if you do not know the original source, you can even feel the history of the eternal outcast, especially since at least some moods of the witch world, such as racism or social stratification, are reflected in it.
As for the visual side, everything is so syzo that even excuses with a small budget do not save. After all, Brodsky threw out a good half of not the most superfluous chapters, but he wanted to certainly remove the one about the dragon - admire, pans and panties, on the chart of prehistoric times. The role of smaller monsters was performed by rubber dolls, ah, how fascinating fights with them in their slowness and clumsiness. The devil, he is in the details: there is no money for a fortress, so we will transfer Kaer Morchen to a kind of cave; we will recruit dwarfs for the roles of red people, so instead of stocky and bearded relatives of Gimli we will get subtile shorts; on a choreographer you can save a lot and forget about the spectacular battles. But this is how it comes to nudity, so everything is fine. Where are your bathy panties, Renfrey, and why do we see beautiful naked buttocks? A good half of the female characters in the course of the action sooner or later remain without clothes. Well, thanks on this, not respected by high-quality production, so at least pretty actresses were picked up and divided to the goal.
What saves this creation of the nobility cinema from complete failure? The series features three colors of the Polish acting school. Zhebrovskiy plays a witch tortured by life with some special pleasure, as if he wanted to visit the outcast himself. Zbigniew Zamakhovsky, apparently, is familiar with the book much better than the director and gives Buttercup almost one in one with his book hypostasis. In short, pulling the film by the ears of the acting ensemble goes with a hurrah. And if you think so reasonably and without looking back (and this is second), the series has a quite interesting storyline. It is, in comparison with the book, simplified, different, and the main character hangs out in the world of crooks and swindlers like garbage thrown into the hole, but he is worthy of sympathy. So we can draw a simple conclusion: the main drawback of The Witcher is its substantive divergence from the original, with all the ensuing losses of meanings and ideas. For Sapkovsky, the witch saga will become a landmark, because it will bring him not just to famous writers, but will make him an author, from whom you will always expect rethinking, no matter what becomes the object - epic fantasy, Hussite wars or the Afghan war. Therefore, the distortion of the plots created by the writer-stealer inevitably entails a loss of color. So The Witcher directed by Brodsky is a medium-sized low-budget series in which Sapskovsky’s book is only taken as the basis of the foundation.
A show is better than a movie. It's obvious right away. To be honest, I did not read Sapkovsky’s books before watching the film. But after broadcasting one of the episodes of the series “The Witcher” on TV, I began to look for the series in its entirety. The idea is very unusual and interesting. It seems that Hollywood has not yet invented anything like this.
The storyline includes an unusual character, a monster fighter. This monster killer doesn't wear a aspen stake or a leather suit. He doesn't drive a cool car or hide a gun behind his belt. He is the Witcher, the one who has chosen to be so. His life is full of adventure, but the only thing that interests him is who he really is. Is he human or is he a cold-blooded killer? The answer to this question is to be found by the viewer in the finale of the film.
Scenes of battles and fights are interestingly filmed. Fencing performed by Zhebrovsky and other actors is incomparable. The atmosphere of the film, Gothic gloomy, mysterious mesmerizing. Filming in the forest, in the mountains, on the water and in the caves is done well, in my opinion. The angry simplicity of the scenery and some costumes spoils the overall impression, but the general mood in the film, the original storyline, the play of some actors and unusually beautiful musical compositions all smooth it out.
It is necessary to note the characters and their performance by the actors.
Geralt. Strongen. Noble. Fair enough. I think Mr. Michal played him in a great way.
Butterfly. I don’t know what he was supposed to be, he looks beautiful. I liked that funny image of the little faithful and loyal friend-gulyak witch more. He's funny and ridiculous, but cute. Therefore, the actor who played the role of such a Butterfly is quite suitable and memorable.
The sorceress Yennifer. Excuse me for shouting, what's her name?! Her very name is laughable. I stand in solidarity with many. The image of this witch should have been more vivid. The actress is not bad, but not suitable. No femininity or charm.
Witcher's mentor. Full compliance. Interesting look.
Elves. They don't look like elves. Some Aboriginal. No mysterious mystery, you will not guess that they are elves until they are called such.
I really liked the images of the servants of the temple Melitele, the images of the queen and her daughter, mystical characters.
In my opinion, one of the big disadvantages of the director and screenwriter can be considered excessive cruelty to elves by people. People treat them like fascists to Jews in ancient times. Throughout the film-series there is an expectation of something good, some manifestation of feelings on the part of the main character. Not impressed by his relationship with a cruel sorceress, and these accompanying intimate adventures just outrage. Obviously, we are all not perfect, but there are too many nude scenes that are not appropriate.
It seems that the director did not have his own specific thoughts about the script and the development of the plot or his opinion about human relationships. I don't approve. There is no need for vulgarity here.
There is a clear desire to conform to the book and on the contrary, there are significant deviations. Then I had to completely connect my story with the idea. There's an underperformance. Sorry. The idea for the book is great. If I were a director, I would have money and connections. And anyway, the plot of the story about the witch is fascinating, I want to know, what will happen to him next?
I really liked Ciri's story. Finally, a cute and pleasant actress! Even the baby.
Well, finishing this review, I can only add one thing: I liked the film-series.
For ideas and heroes
The film tells the amazing and dramatic story of the life of Geralt, a witch. Who are witches? They are cold-blooded killers who protect people from monsters, not for the purpose of making the world a better place, or to make a living. In early childhood, they were taken from their families and with the help of witchcraft deprived of the ability to experience any emotions. This is how they were created, this is their purpose.
Geralt is neither a man nor a witch; and for this he is hated by men and witches alike. Geralt is capable of loving and experiencing compassion. Emotions do not weaken him; on the contrary, they give him strength. The ability to feel helps him to better understand the motives of other beings, particularly humans. Geralt protects the weak and, rejecting many witch laws, brings justice to the world as he understands it. By nature, he resembles Volkodava - the hero of the eponymous series of books by Maria Semyonova.
It is amazing how subtly conveyed the atmosphere of the medieval fantasy world.
It seems that you are a participant in the events.
The characters are also very realistic: Geralt is a lonely wanderer looking for his place in life. Butterfly is a carefree bard hedonist and philosopher; Yennifer is a sorceress who seeks a normal, peaceful life.
This is one of the most... unusual movies I’ve seen.
It should not be compared with fantasy fighters, which have been filmed in recent years in large numbers. There are no special effects, and the plot may seem too stretched to the impatient viewer. This film is designed for a fairly narrow audience and is perhaps the best fantasy film.