The Seagull (I) (2018) User Reviews

A Very Fine Ensemble in a Traditional Interpretation

[lavatch · 7/10 · 25 November 2018]

Shortly before his death in 1904, the playwright Anton Chekhov confessed to a friend that he hoped that his plays might have an appeal for possibly as long as seven years. It never occurred to him that his four dramatic masterpieces would draw such universal interest that they would become as timeless as the prehistoric creatures described in Konstantin's play that opens "The Seagull."

A shortcoming of this otherwise excellent film adaptation was the overly literal approach to Chekhov's text. The interpretations of the different love relationships were telegraphed to the degree that nothing was left to the imagination. The film artists did not appear to recognize that the strength of Chekhov is that the character interactions are ambiguous. As in life, anything is possible at any given moment.

For some reason, the filmmakers chose to rewrite Chekhov in assigning Konstantin a capsule summary of Nina's affair with Trigorin, her loss of the baby, her eventual rejection by the callous Trigorin, and her erratic work on the stage as a clumsy actress. But in the playscript, those details are conveyed by Nina herself while in such a state of delirium that it would be inadvisable to take all of her words at face value.

The literal approach extended to the other character relationships in which nearly every interaction was a melodramatic confession of unrequited love. Once again, Chekhov was approaching drama in the way that life unfolds with constant uncertainty of a vulnerable human being who is unwilling to reveal too much about his or her true feelings. One element that was missed was the potential for irony or even comedy. The only character interpretation that included this dimension was that of the uncle character Sorin, whose death always seems imminent, yet he continues apace as strong as an ox!

The locations, the costumes, and the performances in this film were superb. The performance of the actor playing Konstantin was especially memorable. There was more of the complexity and an arc of development to his role that made this Konstantin so memorable.

It is worth comparing this film with a 1975 made-for-television version of "The Seagull" with a sublime performance by Blythe Danner as Nina. With Chekhov, any production of one of his plays will be unique to the degree that it is almost like experiencing a completely different play. This 2018 version was earnest and especially well-acted, but lacked the nuance and complexity of Chekhov's interior life.

Not Perfect But Enough Drama to Keep Me Engaged

[larrys3 · 7/10 · 26 September 2018]

Haven't seen any of the stage or screen versions of the classic Anton Chekhov play, so I have nothing to compare this film to. With its very strong cast, I did think the drama offered enough to keep me engaged throughout, although I didn't feel a powerful connection to its characters for the most part.

The interplay of the emotions and passions of its characters played out at a rather posh lakeside summer home in Russia, at the turn of the 20th century, appealed to me because I don't mind dialogue driven films and I wasn't expecting any kind of action flick. Overall, the movie is not perfect but there was enough here for me to be worth the watch.

The Seagull does not soar

[mr_bickle_the_pickle · 6/10 · 9 June 2018]

Now I realize that The Seagull is a play by Anton Chekov. However, I dont think it translated well onto screen or perhaps the director didnt translate it well onto screen. Just some of the dialogue and the way the actors delivered their lines didnt feel very natural. Like it felt at times that I was watching a play rather than a film. In film you can be more subtle and nuanced rather than on stage where you have to play for the person in the back row. I think the only person who really stood out to me was Elisabeth Moss who played Masha. And I love Saoirse Ronan but for me it just seemed like such a odd choice to cast her since she had to put on an American accent to play a Russian in the setting of Russia.

Story wise it was ok. Very heavy handed with the symbolism. Which again, might be better suited in the play. For me, it picks up more in the second act. I think one of the more powerful moments is when Nina returns and speaks to Konstantin and the somewhat ambiguous ending.

The costumes are beautiful as well the settings. It can be a pretty film to watch. But overall, I dont think this film really added anything new that I couldnt get out of seeing the show live. It was good but nothing you have to immediately run out and see either.

"We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!"

[richard-1787 · 15 June 2018]

I thought of that line from Sunset Boulevard several times this afternoon as I sat, the only person in the theater for a 2:50 matinee, watching this *Seagull*. Not that the script, based on Chekhov's play of the same name, was negligible. To the contrary. It was well delivered by a cast who, for the most part, knew how to do so with telling effect.

But what struck me, over and over, were all the close-ups of the faces. Wonderful faces, characterful faces, belonging to actors young and older who never knew the silent screen era and yet know how to act just with their faces. Faces often perfectly lit, so that we saw the fresh beauty of the young - Saoirse Ronan, as Nina, out on the lake with Boris Trigorin and elsewhere in the early parts of the movie - and the cruel wrinkles and crowsfeet of those to whom time has not always been kind (Annette Bening, as the aging actress Irina, who delivered her dialogue wonderfully, but did so much more with her face alone when she considered, at the odd moment, that she might in fact no longer look appealing to her younger lover, Trigorin). If you like to watch actors act with their faces, as Norma Desmond and her generation knew how to do, you will find this movie a feast for the eyes.

But it is also beautifully filmed. The exteriors were evidently shot up in northern New York State, and they are like landscape paintings. The interiors, with period costumes, are wonderfully shot as well.

But it is the performances that you will remember. In addition to those already mentioned, Brian Dennehy, now 80 years old, is winning as the aging Sorin. Billy Howle does a fine job with the young playwright Konstantin, so convinced that he sees a new way to do theater and yet so very wrong. I was less captivated by the Doctor and Boris Trigorin. Elisabeth Moss had a difficult assignment, because Masha is such an unsympathetic character, particularly self-centered in a story about self-centered people.

Another thing that struck me repeatedly as I watched this movie was how cruel most of the characters are to each other, in their own very decorous ways, mostly because they are so wrapped up in themselves that they do not consider those around them. Well before Antonin Artaud and Jean Genet, *The Seagull* is definitely an example of the theater of cruelty.

Because this was released in the summer, it will, I suppose, be forgotten by Oscar time. More's the pity. There is a lot of very good work here, in the acting, the lighting, the cinematography and the direction. This is definitely a movie that could be savored more than once.

----------------------------------------

I subsequently reread the play, in Laurence Senelick's 2006 translation. I was surprised to see how much of the script is taken verbatim from that. The person who did the fine screen adaptation removed references to things that contemporary audiences would not know, shifted locales for certain episodes to produce the sort of visual variety you can't have in a play but need in a modern movie, and trimmed back certain passages so that subsequent events, such as Nina's appearance at the estate near the end of the movie, come as more of a surprise. Other than that, this movie is a remarkably faithful transfer to the screen of Chehkov's play.

an entertaining version of Chekov's classic play - mostly because of the excellent ensemble

[dave-mcclain · 7/10 · 3 June 2018]

"The Seagull" (PG-13, 1:38) is a drama directed by television movie and series helmer Michael Mayer and written by Stephen Karam ("Speech & Debate"), based on the oft-performed classic play of the same name by renowned 19th century Russian theater and short story writer Anton Chekhov. This American version features an all-star cast with multiple Oscar and Golden Globe nominees/winners.

The story is very character-driven and more about the development and journeys of the various characters than an overarching narrative. The action takes place in and around the Russian country home of Irina (Annette Bening), an actress who still works, but whose glory days are behind her. Also living there are her brother, Sorin (Brian Dennehy), a man in failing health who never realized his dream of becoming a writer, and Irina's son, Konstantin (Billy Howle), who is a manic-depressive aspiring playwright who wants nothing more than to earn the respect of his cruel, self-absorbed mother.

Others at the house include the groundskeeper (Glenn Fleshler) and his wife (Mare Winningham). They're treated like members of the family, but subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of the lady of the house - and worry about what would happen if they anger her. Irina herself is married to a man named Boris (Corey Stoll), who is a successful writer. She seems to want to be with him mainly because of his fame, but he's the kind of man who may not be satisfied with the same woman for too long.

And that brings us to the various love triangles. Konstantin has a girlfriend, an aspiring actress named Nina (Saoirse Ronan) who has trouble reaching out to him when he's in one of his moods, but she's also attracted to another. An unassuming school teacher is pursuing the groundskeeper's jaded daughter, Masha (Elisabeth Moss), but she's interested in someone else in the household. And so it goes. Not much happens outside the estate, but the characters develop and some of their conflicts are resolved.

"The Seagull" is an entertaining version of Chekov's classic play. His 19th century sensibilities may not be to the taste of modern Movie Fans and the Russian setting (although the characters all speak in English) may be just too foreign for some, but the story explores life, love and longing, universal themes to which most people can relate. This is a great actors' showcase, and every member of the cast rises to the challenge. Every one of those characters are interesting and well-developed, but also basically selfish... although that's kind of the point. "B+"

The Seagull (2018)

[rockman182 · 6/10 · 12 May 2018]

We get a nice double weekend of Saoirse Ronan this month with The Seagull and On Chesil Beach (for film lovers who scope out the lesser heard of films). On Chesil Beach is the film that I'm really anticipating but The Seagull was the first stop. Went in blind to this one without even seeing the trailer. The film is based on the Russian play of the same name, by Anton Chekov. Not sure how faithful the film is to its literary source but I was mixed on the presentation in the film.

The film is about an aging actress and her lover who go to visit her brother in the summer. Her son is a struggling playwright who struggles to strive for his moms acceptance. He is in a relationship with a young neighborhood girl (played by Ronan). She falls in love with the lover of the aging actress, who himself falls for her. That might have been the worst explained synopsis I've ever written. Its much easier to understand while watching the film.

The film posts great set design, cinematography, and costume design. The film looks of its locale and time period. I'm not familiar with any of Michael Mayer's work but I'm sure his background in theater direction helps with the aesthetics of the film. The film also boasts a rather terrific cast. Along with Ronan we get a very good Annette Bening and an unfortunately underutilized Elisabeth Moss. There is slight humor here and there which bring chuckles but overall its not so easy to care for the labored love of the characters or their relationship.

I guess for me I wasn't a gigantic fan of the source material and found it hard to place the importance of the adaptation of this story. It's still very respectably made and well acted, it just isn't something that spoke to me or left a lasting impression. Moss was one of the better characters (along with her lover) and they don't get enough screen time. Its often fun but not always compelling, unfortunately.

6/10

Far from Chekhov

[bernardoarquivo · 1/10 · 29 September 2018]

When you make a 98 minute movie of a play that usually clocks in at about two hours or so, a great deal of text is bound to be wasted. It's the case with this latest version of "The Seagull", and Chekhov is not an author whose lines you can simply discard.

Dorn, the doctor, has been known and remembered since the premiere of the play in 1896 for prescribing his idiotic "valerian drops" (which according to Stanislavski's memoirs was something that Chekhov himself used to do, somewhat mockingkly, since he was a doctor himself). It's not in this movie.

Trigorin's magnificent monologue to Nina about never being able to compete with Tolstoi or Turgueniev - one of Cheklovs finests - was butchered and becomes meaningless. Konstantin has a long and heartfelt conversation with Sorin at the beginning to explain his problematic relationship with his mother. It's brutally cut. Polina, Masha and Medvedenko are reduced to a useless bunch of shallow losers.

Director Michael Mayer was apparently more concerned with beautiful landscapes, lakes, boats and gardens. And a soundtrack (very sweet and nice, I might add) that reminds us constantly of Hallmark rom-com. As it's been pointed out, here, the movie is "beautifully made". But it has nothing to do with Chekhov.

The cast is very uneven and the roles are poorly developed. Director's fault. Saoirse Ronan is ok, and her smile lights up the screen. But no real depth. Corey Stoll is excellent but his role was pulverized so he doesn't have much to do with his Trigorin. Same with the brilliant Brian Dennehy's Sorin. Annette Bening is good but lacks the necessary charisma for Arkadina. The sweet, sad and loving Masha turns to a neurotic drunk by Elisabeth Moss. Mare Winningham's Polina is just a whiny and annoying matron. And Billy Howle is awful. The idea of the role created on the russian stage by Meyerhold being played by a talentless nobody is just wrong.

For people who wish to come in contact with this wonderful play, I recommend the flawless 1975 version with Blythe Danner, Frank Langella, Lee Grant and Kevin McCarthy. Or Lumet's 1968 movie. And for real aficcionados, the 1974 russian version, with great Irina Miroshnichenko as Masha.

It's a Fine Movie

[deoyellow · 7/10 · 12 June 2019]

I haven't read the book yet but The Seagull is a good movie.

Stellar ensemble cast wasted; movie lacks spark

[paul-allaer · 4/10 · 16 June 2018]

"The Seagull" (2018 release; 98 min.) is the latest big screen adaptation of the Anton Chekhov theater play. As the movie opens, we are at "The Imperial Theater, Moscow, 1904", where an aging stage actress is saying her goodbyes left and right. The action then shifts to the dacha (country estate), where the actress' ailing brother is anxiously awaiting her arrival. Meanwhile the actress' son Konstantin is preparing to stage his latest play. He is assisted by a lovely young lady, and the two seem happily in love... At this point we're less than 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest film from director Michael Mayer, who is best known for his work on Broadway. Here he tackles what should be a natural for him: bringing a stage play onto the big screen. "The Seagull" has been made into a movie before (and a number of times at that), but I must admit that this is the first movie adaptation I have seen. All the elements are seemingly in place, none more so that a terrific ensemble cast led by Annette Bening, who seemingly only gets better as she ages, but also Saoirse Ronan, Elisabeth Moss, Brian Dennehy, and Billy Howle, just to name those. And it's certainly not the acting talent that is lacking. Bening and Ronan are simply terrific. (As an aside, Ronan and Howle are co-starring as a couple in not one but two movies currently playing at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati: besides the Seagull, they also star in "On Chesil Beach". What are the odds of that?) Yet despite all this, "The Seagull" is simply not a great, or even good, movie. We watch these character but have no emotional investment in them. When Konstantin has yet another outburst (almost like a five year old's tantrum), we just wonder--why? When romantic relationships may or may not develop, we wonder where the spark is for that. It' a darn shame, and frankly I was relieved when the movie's end titles started rolling, as I had had more than my fill of this.

"The Seagull" was filmed exactly 3 years ago (and one can notice it when you compare Ronan in this and in "On Chesil Bech", filmed 1 1/2 yrs. after this). Why has this been sitting on the shelf for so long? One can only wonder... The movie opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and based purely on the strong ensemble cast, I decided to check it out. The Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great (about 10 people). Frankly I haven't heard single buzz about this movie, and I can't see this playing long in the theater. If you have an interest in big screen play adaptations, or are a fan of anyong in the ensemble cast, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

Well made but lacking connection

[augustkellerwrites · 7/10 · 4 June 2018]

Drama abounds as The Seagull navigates a journey of romantic entanglement. Set in late nineteenth century Russia, this film follows a cast full of characters experiencing unrequited love. Exquisitely produced and scored, The Seagull does all it can to surround viewers with its elegant world. Unfortunately, the many proficiencies of this movie are limited by a key weakness: emotional connection.

Ultimately, it is difficult to truly care about the characters in The Seagull because they aren't fully likable, developed or interesting. Through monotone writing, acting & direction, their bonds to the audience are superficial. Perhaps we are supposed to find some characters unrelatable but, when the entire crux is the drama between them, it leaves me wondering why I should care about the film as a whole. The Seagull is undoubtedly a well made film that displays the perils of romance but also lacks the pop to be universally memorable.

Writing: 6/10 Direction: 6/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 7/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.2/10

I think three stars is generous

[georgiasunflower · 3/10 · 15 January 2019]

I wanted to watch this movie and I sat their with excitement wanting it to be worth it. The cast was amazing, all incredibly talented which is why it was sad to watch all of that talent waste into nothing. I must admit I have not read the original work so I will not critique the story, but this adaptation of it was boring, listless and never went anywhere. I felt like I got on a train, road through beautiful country, but ended up exiting at the exact spot from where I had entered. Not much happened though I was constantly on the edge of my seat anticipating something. This was very much a wasted hour and a half.

A pleasure

[craig-359-543502 · 9/10 · 30 June 2018]

First, let me say that this film is not for everyone. If you don't have an appreciation for the tragedy often present in real human relationships and often chronicled by Russian authors you may not enjoy this movie to the fullest. On the other hand, if you have some familiarity with Russian literature you may be pleasantly surprised. The cast performed wonderfully.

If Chekhov were here, it is unlikely he would rush to see it.

[CineMuseFilms · 7/10 · 9 October 2018]

Fidelity of adaptation is a thorny issue in film discourse because it relies on context, characters, setting and script. If any of these do not respect the original, it is unlikely to satisfy. The American-made adaptation of the classic Chekhov play The Seagull (2018) meets all these criteria except the first, and that is one reason it will disappoint many.

The storyline is a crafted labyrinth of personalities and their foibles. At its core is a self-absorbed former grand diva of the stage, Irina Arkadina (Annette Bening) who is visiting her brother's summer estate with her famous novelist lover, Boris Trigorin (Corey Stoll). Her son Konstantin (Billy Howle) is consumed by rage over his mother's affair, a rage that spirals into suicidal depression when his own girlfriend Nina (Saorise Ronan) falls madly in love with Boris. At the periphery, there are more asymmetrical romantic pairings and victims of unrequited love who appear to exist simply to complicate the matrix of relationships.

Rather than have a forward-moving narrative,The Seagullis a collection of dramatic vignettes, each comprising a pair of larger-than-life characters mis-matched with someone they love without being loved in return. The film is without a hero or heroine and ends up exactly where it starts via an unusual repetition of its prolonged opening scene. Although seamlessly executed, the repetition creates audience confusion as a prelude to the film's predetermined conclusion. Keeping track of the tangled mess of emotions is made possible by a stellar ensemble each playing a distinctly different caricature. There are a dozen lives on-stage yet each holds our attention, although Bening and Ronan dominate.

Together with stunning visuals, one would expect this film to soar, but it never reaches potential. The first criterion of a great adaptation is that the film should connect to the historical and cultural context of the story. Undisguised American accents undermine authenticity, and the film is silent on the escalating class hatred that was about to erupt in Russia's violent revolution. It thus sanitises Chekhov's work into an ahistorical capsule disconnected from its context. Perhaps a European production with genuine connection to European history may have avoided this limitation.

There is still much to enjoy in this film. It reads equally as tragedy, romance, and comedy of manners, but falls away as Russian period drama. Richly melodramatic but without forward momentum, the pace feels ponderous and the repeated opening scene feels more like gimmickry than a functional structural device. If Chekhov were here, it is unlikely he would rush to see it.

Some Settle, Some Go For It

[ThomasDrufke · 5/10 · 13 January 2019]

Of the 3 Saoirse Ronan movies released this year, this was the one I was most intrigued by. Not necessarily by the story, that would probably be Mary Queen of Scots. But I was fascinated as to why this film sat on the shelf for nearly 3 years as Ronan received Oscar nominations for both Brooklyn and Lady Bird in the meantime. For whatever reason and through various production delays, it took years to bring the English speaking adaptation of the Anton Chekhov play to the big screen. I'm not typically a fan of these types of films, ones that prioritize proper dialogue and melodramatic scenes to chew up the screen time. However, I do appreciate when a modernization is attempted to bring more eyes to famous source material in a universal way. Ronan and fellow 'On Chesil Beach' screenmate, Billy Howle, play very well off each other. And much like that film, there's a certain heft to their relationship, as well as the other various people involved in love triangles. Does the film come together as much as the individual performances do? Not particularly. It's a serviceable adaptation that will unfortunately be soon forgotten, much like the other 2 Ronan 2018 films.

5.8/10

Enjoyable Chekov adaptation about the circus of love.

[JohnDeSando · 19 June 2018]

In 1896, the great Russian story teller, Anton Chekov, couldn't have foreseen his plays being produced through moving pictures over a century later. This classy film adaptation of The Seagull shows that not only does the master translate to the screen well, but also his works are enhanced by a roving lens that carries nuance better that any Victorian stentorian could have hoped.

Relatively-new film director Michael Mayer lyrically highlights with close-ups, quick cuts, and manipulated time the agony of unrequited love in a household where count can be lost of who loves whom, who doesn't love back. The most prominent mismatch is between aspiring and rich young actress Nina (Saoirse Ronan) and aspiring, idealistic young writer Konstantin (Billy Howell).

Their innocence is compromised by an adult world, for instance, by the acclaimed writer Trigorin (Corey Stoll), who steals her from Konstantin, who is jealous but remains doggedly devoted to her. (Ronan and Howell do their anguished young lovers bit even better in On Chesil Beach.)

And on and on as the web of lies and loss ensnares them all. Yet, an air of civility covers the entire proceedings, hallmarked by Konstantin's vain, acclaimed actress mother, Irina (Annette Bening), herself in a relationship with Trigorin. Irina stands best for Chekov's theme of the clash between classical theater and modernist imagination, exemplified by her son Konstantin's work, redolent of symbol and allegory and, oh, so self important. His outdoor play with a makeshift curtain evokes The Fantasticks with a little Midsummer Night's Dream but hardly the genius of either.

Because Irina is not impressed with Konstantin's creativity, her young writer son is filled with despair. Everyone else seems to be able to go on, albeit with cascading tears and gloomy resignation.

Although this drama may be dark, and Chekov is not known, after all, for his hilarity, witnessing it is a pleasant theatrical experience because we are all so darn fascinating when we become fools for love. Beyond that, the acting is some of the best you will see in cinema all year-even if it is grounded in 19th_ century Russian theater. Chekov lives on.

unrequited love. again.

[cdcrb · 6/10 · 23 May 2018]

I love Chekov. here, not so much. for those of you waiting for Annette to get that well deserved Oscar, don't look here. the film lacks in spirit and spark. if you are familiar with Chekov's work, it's usually people complaining about their lives. a lot. maybe because the movie is so short, things couldn't be developed to the extent where you can get involved, or care.

Chekhov's tale of unrequited love.

[chong_an · 7/10 · 23 May 2018]

I have never seen the play performed, so I am not referencing any stage versions, though I have seen a ballet version. This version is gorgeously shot, both of the outdoors scenery, and the claustrophobic indoor scenes. Set in the early 1900s, this collection of bored, landed gentry and self-important artists deserve a revolution to sweep them away.

Somewhat central is the mother Irina, who loves herself about all. The story belongs to her son Konstantin and his girlfriend Nina (Saoirse Ronan, who really chews up the scenery). They are in love, but Nina then falls in love with Irina's lover, and things fall apart. Meanwhile, there is a whole chain of characters with unrequited love, each focused on someone who bats them away, just as they bat away someone who is in love with them.

The exposition of the story is good, except for one glaring point. There is a jarring and confusing insertion of the start of Act 4 at the beginning of the film. This seems to be a blatant attempt to give Annette Bening top billing, since the credits were "in order of appearance".

Chaika, Low Striker

[writers_reign · 5/10 · 7 September 2018]

One wonders what part of if it ain't broke don't fix it screenwriter Stephen Karam doesn't understand. We have to wait for one reel before we get to the celebrated exchange: Maedvenko; Why do you always wear black? Masha: I'm in mourning for my life, with which Checkov (surely a superior writer to Karam) chose to OPEN the play. There is, of course, a lot of this around. In 2011, Terence Davies allowed his King-size ego to convince him he was a better writer than Terence Rattigan and, as such, was qualified to rewrite and distort Rattigan's play The Deep Blue Sea and in so doing snatch a suet pudding out of a soufflé. If Checkov is about anything he is about creating a Mood and here despite giving it their best shot the director, writer, and actors almost get there but then a metaphorical plane passes overhead and they have to start over, Most of us are aware that films are not shot chronologically so much as economically; all the scenes at one location are shot together and then dispersed to the part of the story in which they belong. Here the beginning and the ending were obviously shot separately to the main body of the film and it's difficult to know whether these scenes were shot first, when the money wasn't all in place, or at the end when the money had run out because they show a serious concern for the production electricity bill, either that or they were shot in a coal mine. It is, however, despite Mr Karam's best efforts, 80% Checkov and that's all that matters. Meanwhile wher Checkov is concerned Louis Malle's Vanya On 42nd Street is still the one they all have to beat.

Boring

[truemythmedia · 6/10 · 29 May 2019]

This film is really for a niche audience. If you don't like plays, skip it. If you don't like meditations on growing old, skip it. If you don't like films about the nature of an artist's struggle, skip it.

However, if you are the sort of person who loves a long play full of words, words, and more words, with hardly an event taking place, this movie might be for you. If you are an artist and you understand the conflict that can grow when you desire some one's artistic admiration but are denied it, you may like this movie. If you find yourself afraid that life has passed you by and you have to grasp at every moment as a last ditch effort to wring something out of this life, you might really enjoy this film.

Moscow 1800s

[westsideschl · 3/10 · 30 September 2018]

Who can argue against Chekhov and his vision of reality? Well, let me volunteer. Yes if you're not into staged acting w/lots of romantic escapades (actually triangles & quadrangles), overindulgent period clothing, stilted overblown dialogue, and boring parlor room pretentiousness (w/drinks of course). To top it off this movie of a play crawled as if neophytes were auditioning for a stage performance. Appropriately, thank you Thoreau for Zzzzz for this film.

Unlike Any Other

[lizarmstrong-60293 · 7/10 · 21 May 2019]

The Seagull, while imperfect, is a beautifully crafted film. It takes the challenge of transposing a Chekhov play into a screenplay, and does so very well. The cinematography is breathtaking, the scenery bringing out the dramatic undertone in each scene. The roles are perfectly cast, especially the wonderful Annette Bening as Irina and Saoirse Ronan as Nina. This film deserves a watch for anyone looking for something unique, well-acted, character-based and innovative! Don't let the negative reviews throw you off!

What a waste of almost 2 hours of my life

[missmarg · 1/10 · 17 October 2018]

One of the most boring movies I have ever watched. It was like watching paint dry!

Watch Saoirse Soar!

[bondscammer · 9/10 · 28 May 2018]

'The Seagull' is an entertaining adaptation of the Chekhov classic. Though the parts are greater than the sum, in this case, it's more than enough to recommend this as best enjoyed as a comedy ensemble piece about misplaced love and the misunderstandings that follow. Honestly, I went to see this for my favorite actress, Saoirse Ronan. And she soars in this! She plays a pivotal role, Nina Zarechnaya, who, as you will see when you watch this, is the living metaphor behind the titular meaning. Soarse is photographed as effervescent and luminous; and is stunning. Who wouldn't believe any man of any age wouldn't fall for her! I did, too! Saoirse perfectly shows Nina's naive determination to seduce Trigorin in exchange for similar fame as he has. The price of losing the young man who loves her, Konstantin, doesn't sway her ambitions. The film's coda allows Saoirse to show the end result of her ruthless determination to gain fame at any cost; and the results will break your heart as it did mine. Saoirse is absolutely brilliant here; as she transitions to mature adult roles. Overall, all of the characters endure their own love missteps and confusion, to both humorous and bittersweet results. Annette Bening is terrific as the aging actress, Irina, as is forever melancholy and bitter Masha, played by Elizabeth Moss, who crackles and has some great lines she vigorously chews thru! A great cast where the women stand out in all their parts and the men dutifully acquiesce.

Good acting but should have stayed a play

[truemythmedia · 6/10 · 28 June 2018]

This movie really is kind of a 'meh," for me. It has couple of shining lights, Annette Bening's (20th Century Women) and Corey Stoll's (House of Cards) performances for one, but overall, there just isn't much to grab the attention here.

Dull, irritating self indulgent characters

[ltaylor1234 · 1/10 · 30 March 2019]

Despite the stellar cast and lovely period setting, this movie fails to charm. I found myself losing patience with the spoiled, overly dramatic histrionics. It's hard to enjoy a movie when you want to slap some sense into half the characters.