Reviews & Ratings for
Heart of a Dog (TV) More at IMDbPro »Sobachye serdtse (original title)

39 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
Wow, 3 June 2004

Author: arsen-azizyan from New Haven, CT

This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.

28 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
The Cult Movie, 12 February 2005

Author: Efenstor from Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, Russia

The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.

Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.

And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech.

23 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
The last masterpiece of the Soviet cinema., 27 February 2001

Author: scribbler-2 from Russia

One of the most excellent movies ever produced in Russia and certainly the best one made during the decline of the USSR. Incredibly clever, hilarious and dramatic at the same time. Superb acting. Overall a masterpiece. Score it 10/10.

13 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
hilarious, smart, sharp, 9 August 2004
Author: David-353 from Tel Aviv, Israel

One of the best screen versions of a great book I've ever seen. The acting is superb! The film is full of bitter satire on the first years of the communist regime and shows its stupidity and utter cruelty. I hardly believed that Bulgakov could be put on the screen with such a delicacy as to preserve the subtle hints and political/satiric subtext that characterizes many of the cultural masterpieces of the communist era. The casting is fantastic and every actor is irreplaceable. The film has reached the status of a cult movie very quickly and many phrases from it have become a part of the modern Russian language. A must see!

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Great food for thought. Still tasty:), 27 October 2007

Author: Oleg Sidorenko (oleg_sidorenko@hotmail.com) from Moscow, Russia

Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history — anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over — for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).

Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
entertaining and worthwhile, 30 June 2005

Author: jurched from United States

Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!

Jur

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Emphasis on man, 5 December 2004

Author: FcPoliFan from Timisoara, Romania

There are people and people on this world, of which some, we must agree, are of arguable "pedigree". Like...a dog, let's say. So what is the difference between man and dog? The fact that an animal doesn't aspire to greatness? Or is it that an animal knows, more or less, its limits and man often doesn't? Debatable, but my guess would be something in this direction. And, just one more question: is it the heart or the mind that counts more?

In the "natural" surroundings of the year 1924 in Russia (shortly after the Russian revolution came to an end - the war between the Reds and the Whites) a professor devoted to his science, but not obsessed by it, conducts an experiment on a dog, implanting some gland which, in effect, causes the animal to evolve into a man. It does sound a bit silly, I must say, but it's arguably a thing of evolution which one might consider. The result of the experiment is a human being which adapts amazingly well to the "simple" doctrine of the bolsheviki, while denying any intellectual rights a person might have on the world as it is. The simple man who desires philosophical concepts such as equality without being able to fully comprehend what it'd mean. In a way, this is what communism relied on and too many people relished this utopist dream.

It's a satire, yes, but not to a huge extent. Don't watch the film expecting to see a phenomenal comedic act, as you definitely won't. The cast does deliver some strong performances, although not constantly and I suppose the directing went rather swell. I'd say well shot.

There's not really much to say, given the strange character of the film. Maybe the subject isn't that catchy, but the movie itself has some very interesting strong points dispersed throughout the whole film. It's not Frankenstein, but you have to wonder how close it comes to being the infamous monster.

8 out of 131 people found the following review useful:
What a waste of time, 13 August 2004

Author: Jack OntheNet from Shanghai, China

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.

If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.

I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.

Add another review

Related Links