How sad is this?

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

In his adaption of Anton Chekhov's play, The Cherry Orchard, Mihalis Kakogiannis shows a great deal of respect for the 19th century Russian play. In fact, Mihalis shows so much respect for it that he tried to have the film flow and seem very much like a play. Although the technique is an interesting way of trying to adapt a play to film, it ultimately leaves the audience wishing for less of a boisterous staged feel and more of a subtle real life feeling that film can so wonderfully produce. To Mihalis' misfortune the over animated and often over dramatized characters do more to take the audience out of the film than it does to push them into the story. Although the staged feel to The Cherry Orchard does make the film seem to drag on without the interest one would find in a lifelike representation of the events, there is several very significant themes that are important to Russian history that come across very nicely in the film.One of the most interesting aspects of The Cherry Orchard is the way that we see the very different reactions to the emancipation of the serfs. If we look at the two "main" characters of the film, Madame Ranevskaya and Gayev, we see two people that are having a very hard time adjusting to the realities of the serfs being freed. They're not only in constant denial of the economic state of their estate but they are also oblivious to the possibility that former serfs are gaining both power and respect. If we look at how the film expresses the Raznichintzhe class, we see two different expressions. First we see Lopakhin that represents the emerging merchant class in Russian. Although Lopakhin was a former slave, by the end of the film we see that he wields the most respect and power through the active and hard work that he has done as a free citizen. Now on the other hand, Trofimov represents the Intelligentsia class that is emerging towards the later part of the 19th century. His nickname as the perpetual student gives away that he is not about working and doing business in a capitalist society, instead he talks of enacting greater change to help the uneducated freed serf class that now has a ton of freedom and not a whole lot to do with it. Now as Lopakhin showed one of the possibilities for freed serfs Firs showed another. Firs represents a relic of the past, a serf that was more content with being a serf and serving than being forgotten and left behind in the new society. Which is exactly what happens to firs at the end of the movie. Just like Firs, older serfs that could not enjoy the full expanse of their newfound freedom were in a way left behind by society. Although as a movie I believe that The Cherry Orchard could have been a little more intriguing had the director strayed further way from the play format, there are still many interesting aspects to the film that make it a enjoyable piece of Russian oriented cinema. Definitely, worth the watch if you have any interest in Russian life towards the end of the 19th century.

If at first you are put off by the acting and you feel like the acting is over exaggerated, you must know that this film was meant to be a play. The director chose to make this story a play and just film it as a play not a traditional movie. If you ignore the acting you can see the important content of the time. The film takes place at around the time the serfs are emancipated. So at this time the serfs are allowed to leave their masters and do as they wished. This impacted everyone, but especially the nobles. In this film we can see the nobles start to die down without the serfs. Many of the nobles get deep into debt which is what happened to the Ranevskaya family and without the serfs they were not able to make money to pay it off. The style to this film is not that appealing but the story gives us insight into the events that took place at the time.

The Cherry Orchard is an ensemble piece about a country estate with a famous cherry orchard that is the pride of the province.It is 1900 in Russia and amid the turmoil of social and political revolution, the family and servants at this little corner of the world are caught in a time warp. It is still Imperial Russia with all the privileges for the wealthy and landed gentry. Time goes by, life goes by, wealth disappears, but these people can't be bothered to notice.Charlotte Rampling ("The Statement" 2003) is Madame Ranevskaya who returns, with her daughter, from exile in Paris to her estate to be with her lazy brother (Alan Bates, "Gosford Park"), her adopted daughter, and various servants, friends and freed peasants. Like the large old house, their way of life is rotting away. They are broke and the only thing that will save them from poverty is to sell the land, house and orchard to developers. But the are so besotted with the old life they cannot arouse themselves to make a decision on what to do. And of course, they lose it all.The commentary throughout in the form of asides, laughter and outright contempt, is in the character of the servant Yasha (Gerard Butler, "Dear Frankie"). He serves Madam R, but he gossips about her profligate ways, has contempt for many in the family and takes advantage of the privileges they provide him, including a romp in the orchard with one of the housemaids (Melanie Lynskey,"Shooters"), who he then lectures on her immoral ways. It is a small part, but acts like a Greek chorus to comment on the others.In the end, the doddering valet of Bates is left alone, locked into this decaying house, two old relics forgotten by the aristocrats and the new bourgeoisie. He says to himself "my life has gone by as though I have never lived. No strings - nothing." He leans back in the chair and dies. These people are so careless that no one makes sure the old man has really been taken to a hospital, although they all talk about it, and Yasha keeps assuring everyone he 'knows' he was picked up. So they all just ride off in their carriages and the woodsmen move into the orchard and begin chopping down the cherry trees.The beauty of the cinematography, costumes and piano score of Tchaikovsky music set a mood that is languid and only for those who relish the type of multi-character stories like the recent "Gosford Park." I loved it. 9/10

Michael Cacoyannis seems strangely reluctant to tell this story in a straightforward, understandable fashion. This ridiculously edited film rates a 7 out of 10 only because it does, in its idiosyncratic way, convey something of the story of a Russian woman, of the landed gentry, fallen on hard times, who is desperately seeking to preserve the ownership of her estate, on which is an ancient and beloved cherry orchard. If she is forced to sell, the orchard will be cut down and the estate "developed" into "affordable housing". So what else is new, eh?By all, this is the choppiest editing and directing style I have ever encountered. Chekhov's play is certainly not constructed this way. There is no effort to introduce characters in an orderly fashion so that one may get to know who they are, and what their relationships and motivations are. Some of this eventually emerges if you are patient and alert enough, but don't blink! Some of the cast work is excellent. They must have been frustrated, though, if they knew what kind of editing would appear in the final cut.