Chekhovskie motivy (2002)

Kira Muratova's "Checkhovskie motivy", adapted from a couple of works by the famous writer, concerns a man who, in the middle of his wedding, notices that in the audience is his deceased ex-lover.

Director:

Kira Muratova

Writers:

Yevgeni Golubenko, Kira Muratova

Stars:

Sergey Bekhterev, Nina Ruslanova, Natalya Buzko

2 wins & 5 nominations.

Cast

Credited cast:
Sergey Bekhterev
Nina Ruslanova
Natalya Buzko
Philip Panov	...	(as Filipp Panov)
Zhan Daniel
Rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Georgiy Deliev
Vladimir Komarov
Sergei Popov
Olga Popova

Storyline

Kira Muratova's "Checkhovskie motivy", adapted from a couple of works by the famous writer, concerns a man who, in the middle of his wedding, notices that in the audience is his deceased ex-lover.

---

Plot Keywords:

wedding | f rated | title directed by female | village | rich husband | 

---

Genres:

Comedy

---

Details

Country:

Ukraine Russia

Language:

Russian

Release Date:

11 January 2004 (Hungary)

Also Known As:

Chekhov's Motifs

Company Credits

Production Co:

Intercinema Art Agency,Nikola Film,Ukrainian Ministry of Arts & Culture

Technical Specs

Runtime:

110 min

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

User Reviews

I wonder what chekov would say

Okay, on one hand I totally agree with the first review of this movie: at face value, this movie is terrible beyond the point of comprehension and even in fact review. The first couple scenes have nothing to do with what goes on for the rest of the movie; you wonder why the beginning part was even written into screenplay! And the dialogue is repetitive, meaningless, and absolutely annoying because the voices are abnormal (not sure if russians actually talk this way). For all these reasons and many (understatement) more, I agree with the first review. On the other hand, as the title may hint, one should hardly be surprised that the content of this movie is excruciatingly boring. Have you ever read a Chekhovian play? I was waiting for a gunshot in this movie to trigger my attention after an hour and a half of a plot that has many loose ends, none of which are tied together, with a main thread that puts someone to sleep rather than keep them interested. The reasons I walked away enjoying this movie were because:

a)i felt like i am now able to withstand any movie ever created, no matter how bad it is, because my patience was tested to the maximum breaking point with this title.

b)many movies today are one dimensional and rely on a redeeming aspect to save the entire movie (like banking on owen Wilson's hit-or-miss funny-man style in dupree, so many examples); this movie has no dimension, which I believe is its redeeming aspect. Shot in black in white, with no plot, character development is absent, with no unifying elements to prevent viewers from getting confused (one is confused with each scene with chekovian motifs); the only expectation is that it did well at the Russian Oscars. This movie is banking on nothing else to grab your attention and have you watch it. For this reason, at least it is honest.

c)once you make it through 45 minutes of this film, everything becomes hilarious because it is sheer absurdity. who picked this film up and how did it get made is my question. Really though, if you make it far enough into the movie, you start laughing at everything because you realize you probably could have written a better movie script.

The reason I give this a 5 was because at least I can talk about a movie that realistically few will view completely. Having watched the whole thing, I can say "well if you watched it all you would get it". Then again, I have little experience living in Russia, so maybe this sort of stuff happens all the time and it has finally made it into movie format.