Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

colinxanderii I did not enjoy this film, I enjoyed the story, but this particular telling of the story was not enjoyable for me. The story itself is based off of and named after the play The Cherry Orchard written by Anton Chekhov. The story is centered on a Russian noble family trying to hold onto an estate. Actually they don't actually try to hold onto the estate they just party and worry about losing the estate until they do. My reasons for not enjoying this film are not because the lack of action, I in fact enjoyed the narrative, but the way it was portrayed in the film was very unengaging. Which is odd since you would think that a film being shot around the idea of being both a theatrical play and a movie would be more stimulating, and perhaps it could be, but this film did not achieve this. In its attempt to be a theatrical play and a movie it loses elements of both. The audience performer dynamic for example you lose that sense of the audience watching you as you act is gone as well as the feeling of seeing the actors sweat while they do it all in one take. A film can't do this and it's not expected to. A theatrical play also has to rely on the fact that you can't fix things in post-production. However I do not dislike the film because of these elements.I dislike the film because of the terrible pacing, and the wooden acting, among other things. The first act of the film does not set up the characters or really even tell you who they are or what their names are. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do in fact mention all the names and who they are in relation to each other, but with all the chaos, and the muttering, I'm not sure how I could figure it out without a guidebook. And while a film does not have to tell me all of the characters names, plays usually do, at least the ones I have gone to give you a little pamphlet telling you about who the actors are and who they play. The middle section of this film feels slow and painful so there is little build up for the delivery at the final parts of the film. This might be somewhat due to the narrative of the film but the acting exacerbates these negative elements and doesn't really let the stories good points shine through. Because of the mindset this film was directed in the actors act and talk spontaneously throughout the film, but apparently the attempt to give it feeling and impact was forgotten which makes the sudden spontaneous over acting feel wooden slow and really takes me out of the film. Most, if not all, of this film's good points are towards the end and it was absolutely not worth the wait (although the films ending need some serious work as the effectiveness it had was lost). If this review is very disjointed take that sense and try to multiply it by 11 that should be about how the acting feels like. The real cruel irony of this film is that it tries to be a film and a theatrical play and fails at being both. I do not recommend this film but I do recommend going out and seeing it done in a theatrical play.

grrybear I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake! 4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name!

Fisher L. Forrest 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.

jwarthen-3 Cacoyannis began his career filming Greek tragedies five decades ago. Anyone seeing his production of Chekhov's wonderful play knows he adores this work: the discerning casting, the use of Tchaikovsky's little-known piano pieces. Best of all is the look of the production-- its costuming and lighting have the quality of delicate homage. Watch for scenes like the arrival of auction-bidders in a muddy street midway through the film-- a bit of period recreation on a par with Coppola and Scorsese. Chekhov's brilliant bits of stage-business are treasured here: Varya's clobbering her wished-for fiance with a door-slam, Epikhodov's goofs, Yasha's mother-problem, and especially the family's sitting gravely down together before their dispersal. These are lovingly done, and if citing them here is meaningless to those who haven't read the play, I'm afraid the film will mean as little to them, especially on videotape, where the exquisite visuals won't count for much. The acting can't sustain novices-- the cast, especially the males, show the effects of limited rehearsal time, sliding in and out of cohesion. The exceptions to that are Katrin Cartlidge (in a role that often stands-out in stage productions), Ian McNeice, and Michael Gough, delivering the finest performance I have seen from his 50+ years of movie-acting-- acting-teachers should march students to see CHERRY ORCHARD to hear how Gough reads a choice line like, "Now I can die." Cacoyannis nodded in spots: the weird accents affected by the lower-class characters add nothing, and the hammy Act II beggar-- one wants to thrash him. This is not a great film. But the play it serves may be the past century's greatest. At a time when American theaters cannot afford large-cast period plays, a Chekhov-fan feels special gratitude for this production.