The Master and Margarita 4K 2024 Ultra HD 2160p

Storyline
Based on Mikhail Bulgakov's novel "Master and Margarita". 1930's, Moscow. A famous writer is censored by the Soviet state: his novel is banned, and the theatrical premier of his new play about Pontius Pilate - canceled. In just a few days he becomes an outcast. Inspired by these misfortunes the writer conceives a new novel in which the devil, named Woland, satirically revenges all those responsible for the writer's downfall. He knows this novel can never be published in the USSR, but Margarita - his muse pushes him to write it no matter what.

User Review

I have mixed feelings about the film. If I had to sum it up in one sentence, I would say no rather than yes.

I will try to list my main emotions and explain them a little. I want to emphasize right away that The Master and Margarita is one of the few works that is perceived very individually, despite Bulgakov's fairly detailed description of his characters.

So. The most important thing is that, unlike the book, the film makes it absolutely impossible to perceive the events with any ease. And there is absolutely no humor, which Bulgakov uses a lot in the novel. I think this is very bad. In no scene, in no dialogue, nowhere at all, is there a single drop of the ironic mockery that permeates the novel.

Furthermore, none of the three storylines in the novel are properly developed in the film. And it's not that there isn't enough screen time, but that the filmmakers themselves don't really understand what's most important. It would be difficult to blame them for this if they were readers. But they are the filmmakers. They could have made up their minds somehow. With a lot of effort, one could single out the love storyline in this adaptation, but even that is blurred and unconvincing. I didn't like either the Master or Margarita. And not even as actors, but specifically as a great love story.

The storyline with Pilate is very, very well shot—cinematographically, that is—but here, bang, not only are the dialogues cut out, but the authors' message itself is difficult to grasp. It's difficult even for those who have read MiM to death. In general, there are a lot of cuts in the script, but most of them are quite acceptable as the author's interpretation and reflections on the subject. But this one is somehow very unpleasant.

Third. Why, for heaven's sake, are there these construction sites and the city of the future? What does it all symbolize, for God's sake? As a viewer, I don't even want to delve into the authors' intentions, and I have the right not to. Especially under the above conditions.

Now for the subjective positives. I think Voland is perfect. Both as an actor and as a character. He is the best Voland I have seen, including in the theater. If he had been given the opportunity to develop throughout Bulgakov's original text, it would have been good for everyone. But he wasn't, unfortunately. But what we did get was enough to enjoy. Of the actors, I also liked Berlioz-Knyazev, Pilate-German, and Guskov-Maigel. Well, Basharov, too. True, as a character, he is completely isolated from his literary prototype. The rest somehow faded into the background. I apologize if I missed something. But the ones I mentioned above were simply more powerful, apparently, because they also had less text and fewer scenes.

The approach of a “novel within a novel, written by a novelist” is quite interesting. It's clear that they read a lot of journalism before writing the script. Surprisingly, this didn't really interfere with the plot and fit into it quite smoothly.

Info Video

Codec: HEVC / H.265 (59.9 Mb/s)
Resolution: Native 4K (2160p)
HDR: HDR10
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1

Info Audio

Multiple languages: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (#Russian+ #German)
#German: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
#Russian: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1

Info Subtitles