Watch Onegin For Free

Too much of everything

Simply A Masterpiece

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I do understand that any film director has an own vision, but o my God!!!, this is an example of "misunderstanding" of Pushkin's poetry! First of all, the music used in the movie has nothing to do with Pushkin's time (XVIII-XIX century). Olga's song (Oh the Viburnum Blooms) is a very popular Soviet song written in 1949. The main theme of the movie is an interpretation of "On The Hills Of Manchuria" written in 1906 to memory of those who died during war with Japan, updated with gypsy guitar in this movie. Pushkin died in 1837, there is no way the movie's music corresponds to the Russian XVIII-XIX century culture or the poem's characters. Secondly, the most important elements of the poem like Tatiana's letter to Onegin, for example, are washed out of the movie. Tatiana is a 17-years old girl in love, the all her passion is in that letter!!! Then, why this movie is so dark? If authors thought about the poem as a tragedy (I associate the darkness with tragedy), then Tatiana shouldn't had to be married to such a handsome fellow like Martin Donovan in the movie. Based on the book,her husband was old and badly injured during a war. I stop criticizing the movie here, as there are different opinions and some of them a quite positive.

The 1999 cinematic production Onegin left this viewer as moved and distraught as the 'superfluous man.' Although certain social observances, such as 'the duel,' or marriage as an intractable institution, are without equivalents in our society, I believe Onegin's dilemma is identifiable. He is molded by the times and St. Petersburg's decadent society of nobles, but he is also alienated by it. He stands in observation of its faults and of his own. The story finds the character uncompliant but not rebellious. He is without outlet, or his own definition of nobility.The figure of Olga's French tutor assails Onegin for acknowledgement, but Onegin, in his clever way, dispatches this symbol of the Russian Gallomania. The Onegin character displays the uncanny ability to see through society's contrivances—even if he arrives at no definite conclusions. At the same dinner conversation he submits his sentiment that no man should own another in active defiance of the nobility's hold over the serfs. This audacious statement brings him closer to his would-be love, Tatayana, who looks on in admiration.She bears her heart to him, an offer he refuses. His explanation that marriage holds only disappointment seems to highlight his particular reaction to social norms. While he enjoys the freedom of nobility as well as explicit decadence, he broods on the critique of a society engaged in its own disgrace. His response to cynical nobility is alienation. His answer to the squalid institution of marriage is debauchery. And for these shortcomings he, himself, seems doubly jaded. He faces Tatayana as an apologist, and he seems embarrassed. After all, her offer of marriage is an opportunity to engender a true nobility of mind and spirit. Pleasure-seeking, and intellectualization are a vain reaction to what appears to be a cold and aggressive world. Tatayana exposes him in this respect. On the other hand, he has earned her love through his own keeping and defiance achieved through isolation. Onegin invites destruction on both himself and Tatayana in pursuit of this love. Viewers find him beseeching her in a room of marble, her royal husband asleep upstairs. Finally, she admits to him her continued love, which has not been destroyed, even by his neglect and the harshness of society. This admission is both a victory and a wretched fate.It is preferable to the fate he invites. His gesture promises to ruin Tatayana's honor as well as his own. For Onegin, the moment is a test of the conviction of love. He, therefore, marches directly to Tatayana where she sits reading in her husband's mansion to profess his love and defy institution at all cost. She turns him away forever to avoid total ruin.This fate is the fate of the 'superfluous man,' of the Russian who grapples with questions of self and places his will at odds with the forces of nature and society. The principle pathos of the film is the search for answers to those "accursed questions" which elude Onegin in the city and through the country landscape. Viewers peer through his windswept heart ultimately to dicover Pushkin's heroine, Tatyana, who like those answers, shall remain untouchable in the house of Nobility.

actually a comedy.the original title was 'a day late and a dollar short', after a Hollywood bigwig was rummaging thru the studio archives and stumbled on an old 3 stooges script and decided the modern treatment would be to come up with another in a string of feinnes pieces passed off as a costume drama.the costumes were supposed to be clown costumes but since there was a glut of personnel and makeup artists doing stuff like 'sense and sensibility' it was decided to snazzy it up a bit.so they came up with this square peg in a round hole approach and once again, shopped around for who would fit the bill re 'when yer hot yer hot, when yer not yer not' and the names feinnes and liv deary came up.was this before or after those dreadful LOTR sequels of sequels where she hardly says anything? was this in her 'on the way up' or 'on the way down' phase of her film career? she was fairly good in 'inventing the abbots' but that's because she was at her peter principle level of highest competence. not so this vehicle. more like a vehicle hit by a train called reality of what you get with mediocre but much ballyhooed actors. aka 'hype hype hype' some sort of pep rally cry suitable for a high school football team. not suitable for a story that's been around this long.at least we don't have to hold our breath waiting for yet another version in this century; anyone else who may have contemplated it in another life was surely convinced the odds were not good since ms tyler and mr feinnes showed just how bad the pooch can be screwed by not getting suitable actors.you think I'm kidding about the day late and a dollar short theme? I counted at least 3 of them without trying: the dinner, the duel and the 'bitter sweet' (emphasis on bitter like the taste of stale beer) closing scene. I am so glad DVD player manufacturers perfected that feature you can speed up the playback and still hear the voice track at the original frequency, it just comes out in a rapid fire clipped manner. that cuts down the boredom until those blessed end credits envelope this symbol of the downfall of a frivolous life.I'm talking about the lead actors careers, not the characters in the story.

**** CONTAINS A possible SPOILER for those who have not read the book ****I remember back in school we were doing silly projects like Cinderella in the style of Kurasava, or as an action movie. This movie is something like that. And although I could not exactly pinpoint of what exactly, but it's definitely Onegin in the style of something. Don't get me wrong - the movie has it's strong points - Liv is as pleasant to look at as anywhere else... What "made" the film for me, and still is the defining (only) moment I remember is the duel scene, where <SPOILER> the bullet is shown to hit Lensky's head and his brains fan out from the other side in a VERY slow motion </SPOILER>.But what can make this film from a mere "painless 5" into an "unforgettable 11", is if you speak Russian, and have read (memorized) the original, get a Russian version, which instead of just reading Pushkin is dubbed with synchro translation of the English dialog back into Russian. It's truly hilarious.