Matilda (2017) Reviews

• All that glitters is not gold

  bostonfilmfan2017-12-06

  It's a tricky task to review Mathilde, because the political controversy surrounding this film in Russia inevitably throws a shadow. If you don't like the movie – does it say something about your political taste or the artistic one? And yet I'll attempt. No politics in my review. The movie is very poorly conceptualized, written and acted. The concept that transpired to me was to produce an expensive box-office success by shooting it in Russia's magnificent historical monuments and by using famous people's story and nudity. The script seems to be written by a fifth-grader, the dialog is plain and ridiculous and it sounds even more ridiculous in its native Russian. Actually it sounds a lot like it's been written in a foreign language and then translated into Russian, which I think is what had actually happened, the screenwriter being American. The cast. It looks like the production team was so preoccupied with creating impressive sets very little time was given to casting. Mathilde herself seems to be a copy of Elizabeth McGovern in Ragtime, minus the acting talent. The 41-year old Lars Eidinger is too old for the role of a young and romantic future emperor Nicholas I, who was 25-26 at the time and acted accordingly. (No-no, the story of Nicholas and Mathilde was not a May-December romance!) Also, since the actor is German, he is very artificially dubbed by a Russian voice actor. Nicholas's parents, the Russian royal couple are played by strikingly non-noble actors (chosen no doubt for their fame in Russia). His fiancée Alix is nothing but a weird half-wit, so the closing statement that Nicholas and Alix were happy for 25 years is not supported by anything we saw in the previous 2 hours. In fact none of the characters in the film has any depth or life in them, they all are stick figures, functions of the plot. As far as the historical aspect of the film is concerned I can take any degree of artistic license, but it distracts me greatly to see the royal family in the 1890-s go about their business without any help (or even presence!) of servants and staff, or use the phone without the help of an operator. No but really, why bother with the historical sets if you don't care how the characters exist in those exquisite spaces? But most disapointlingly, there is no love story. Two good-looking people randomly falling into each other's arms in various lavish interiors and declaring love do not constitute an on screen love story. There is no chemistry, no depth and no heart in all that we are shown in Mathilde, alas. There is one great true life story that is waiting to be made in a great movie.

• Fascinating splendid fantasy

  phd_travel2018-09-17

  The sets and costumes are reason alone for watching this movie. It's amazingly produced. If you accept the story is a melodramatic exaggeration of the facts then it's exciting and entertaining. One flaw is the cast Nicky and Alix don't look much like the people they are playing. Just accept it as a fantasy version of history and you'll have a good time. The subtitles are hard to read.

• Isn't worth the time

  ignatsavkin2017-10-28

  Very weak script. The movie doesn't trigger any emotions whatsoever. In addition it's full of awkward moments that reveal producer's lack of historical knowledge. Even some simple scenes haven't been properly thought through. Starting with the train crash (a log carriage?! really?!) ending with ridiculous cathedral climbing when there simply is an open door. Long story short - don't waste your time.

• Distorted and historically inacurate film

  DesertFlowerInArizona2017-12-20

  Now I have to make one disclaimer. I was at a distinct disadvantage in watching as I do not know much of the spoken Russian language and there were no subtitles provided. I read more than I speak. However, you needn't be fluent in a foreign language to understand that sometimes in film, actions can and many times do speak louder than words. The positives? the costumes and scenery are breathtaking beautiful and the cinematography was excellent. The negatives and there were plenty: At the heart of it all, "Mathilde" is still a "beautiful" fabrication. Now I totally understand why half of Russia lost its collective mind over this film. Mind, I don't condone the kinds of violence that took place such as what happened in the weeks before the premiere, but way I see it, the director Alexei Uchitel deserves any current or future universal scorn, derision and ridicule coming his way! He didn't just insult the Orthodox Church with this travesty called "Mathilde", he also insulted the intelligence of members of the international movie going public who just happen to believe that historical accuracy in film is important! That just might be the greater sin here. Uchitel could've and should've made a truly great and respectful film but in short he dropped the ball. "Mathilde" is an ill conceived film chock full of inaccuracies and outright lies from start to finish! They'll be easy to spot if you know anything about the history of the Romanovs or Russian History at all. Never mind the unnecessary nudity and the gratuitous fornication scenes that Uchitel packed within the first 20 minutes of the film. Even then it still didn't stop the film from just being tedious and dragging on interminably lol. Ok...so I get it that sex sells, but there's nothing to buy at that store, dear! There was nothing romantic about this film IMO. If a person wants a porno disguised as a "romance" (so as to induce less guilt about watching trash, I imagine lol) ... there are plenty of so-called couples films at your local adult bookstore and online that are probably of better quality lol. One can't help but notice that Uchitel keeps the love scene between the Tsar and Tsarina much shorter, so basically he's telling us that "stolen fruit is sweeter" than a full and true love between two married people. Not very original concept IMO. Plus, it belies the fact that Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra were a loving couple in every way throughout the 24 year of their married lives...and we all know any dalliance that may or may not have took place between the Tsar and Matilda only went on for two years, tops! Way I see it, thought, there's much worse things to be upset about in the movie than the silliness of the hanky panky. Historically speaking, Uchitel didn't just take artistic license. He went wayyyy overboard in taking unethical extreme liberties by distorting the legitimate (and well documented) real life stories of three public figures from Russian History. Each one of them has an interesting and compelling story in his and her own right! Uchitel turned the Romanovs as well as Mathilde Kschessinska into ugly and grotesque caricatures, thus re-writing history in the process. Uchitel presented to us a luxurious, sensual but in every way fictitious romantic rivalry that is so overly dramatic, capricious and impulsive that it makes Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet look clear thinking and logical by comparison! I especially disliked the meanspirited way he depicts Tsarina Alix...as though she were some insecure, jealous and vindictive dried up middle aged spinster rather than the beautiful young person she was confident in Nicky's love for her. She never confronted Matilda. In fact, it's well documented that she blew off the affair as a minor indiscretion, and forgave Nicky for it. Her forgiveness was in writing in his own diary! It's interesting that Uchitel casted actors who were considerably older than the characters they played...but yet Matilda still looks young. I was annoyed by that miscasting, plus the fact they show the Tsar fawning over Mathilda AFTER his engagement announcement? Practically under the Tsarina's nose? Implying that the two of them were still a thing? What a load of you know what! According to everything I've read about Mathilde Kschessinska, she had no other "lovers" prior to Tsar Nicholas III...so who is that guy Count Vorotsov (the guy constantly being waterboarded) supposed to be? An obsesssed fan, a secret lover? Representing Russia itself? I googled to find out who he is, but found one other person with that name but that guy lived 100 years prior to the time period that the film covers. It made no sense to me whatsoever to include that extraneous character to the film. He adds nothing to the movie. Unless Uchitel is trying to posit that the Romanovs and Mathilde were cruel and torturers? Yet another lie! The worst of the many lies in this film? The coronation scene. Does Uchitel seriously expect us to believe that Matilda dressed as a bride could so easily crash a state event where she was not invited and was so heavily guarded? How ridiculous to insinuate that all Tsar Nicholas needed to hear is the sound of "Maya's" voice repeatedly through out the film quasi-orgasmically screaming "Nicky" for every little thing, and he'll go into a dead faint...especially at the coronation where it was evident that he was already married? Puhleeze! None of that happened! If it had then don't you think history would've recorded it? So, don't insult us the movie viewers with such nonsense. ...and don't get me started with the way the stampede scene was handled... Overall, I get the impression that Uchitel must think his audience is uneducated or just straight up gullible. If he truly thought we were intelligent adults, why else would he had attempted to dress up a $25 million dollar steaming piece of excrement and then pass it off hoping we'll see it as a beautiful artisanal chocolate truffle that we'd be just delighted to consume again and again? Personally, I think the film industry should invent a special rating for films like this kind: TG for Tedious Garbage.

• This movie must be seen!

  leo_mad2017-11-01

  It's fantastical new movie made by one of the best modern Russian director Aleksey Uchitel. Definitely, you can't recognised this movie as "the real" story - and so what? Yes, it's another beautiful fairy tail about Love, but how professionally it was done! Perfect costumes, perfect casting, perfect example of "virtual history" (sort of "virtual history" we all know from ancient classic Latin writers), very dynamic, very, very, very! The main drama of the movie is the conflict between THE LOVE and THE ONUS, and if the Emperor of Russian Empire could have the choice in it (it's an ancient dilemma of the world: Love vs Onus). IMHO all the scandal around this movie happened in Russia (organised by Orthodox church) is total fake and totally idiotic! 9 from 10 without any doubts! This movie must be seen! Thank you Mr. Uchitel!