|
Showing all 28 reviews...
|
|
 |
I am Russian and I found this movie really boring. Sokurov is not for everybody. I don't like primitive, but this movie must be only for critics or very special public.
3/10
27.7.2006 -
kopchuk@ - age: 26-35
It's a great movie... however I think that one should have some kind of background in russian history to fully appreciate the film.
10/10
24.1.2004 -
innuendo555@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I thought this was a great movie, and was spellbound by the intensity. I don't demand the non-stop pace that Hollywood addicts rely on, and loved being walked thorugh periods of Russian history. It made me want to go away and learn more before watching it again...
10/10
19.1.2004 -
awcinclk@ - age: 26-35
It is very difficult to give a note if you don't know the russian history. So, don't say anything bad about this film if you have no knowledge about this wonderful period. I am fed up of all these "pseudo intellectual" people who did not understand the real objective of this film. For russian people and for those who know a little this fantastic adventure of Saint Petersburg, this film is the first one where you can really feel this incredible atmosphere of the Ermitage. I am not russian, but I love this country and these people. The history of this country before 1917 is full of incredible periods. Don't forget Russia is the place where is born the real civilization at the Xth century when Europe was in the dark and the rest of the world was at the stone age.
10/10
30.10.2003 -
chris78110@ - age: 36-49
I find the "love it or hate it" spectrum of review opinions very interesting. My wife and I enjoyed the costumes, architecture, art, and music, and since I have studied Russian, I enjoyed trying to understand the soundtrack. I wonder whether the film is about the idleness of the pre-Revolutionary Russian ruling class, with numerous parallels to the French experience, I. E. , history repeating itself, which would tie in with the closing "flying Dutchman" soliloquy.
6/10
23.9.2003 -
j,eldon@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I went in knowing nothing at all about this feature accept the title. Although I would never call myself an "art house" movie lover I have a wide range of films in my collection from "A Bout de Souffle" to "In the Mood for Love", "Like Water for Chocolate" and "Festen", but also "Goonies", "Matrix" and "Ocean's 11". However, this I wouldn't even begin to compare to any other film, simply because it comes across as a lavish but confusing documentary or, worse, a museum advertisement. Whilst it is impossible not to appreciate the stunning camerawork and scope of the film combined with lavish costumes and music there is little else to commend it as "entertainment." Perhaps if you want to learn about Russian history or the museum then it has value but even then (as someone else has already commented) a straight documentary with a clear narration could have served better. The idea of a one shot tour through a musuem could have been interesting had the notion of a plot been considered. Instead we have the strange character of the Marquis which although superbly acted doesn't push the film forward. It would be unfair to say the film is one paced but the difference between them is slight. This is not a story driven, character driven film and therefore should be judged accordingly. However, it is arrogant and pretentious to look down on people who do not enjoy this film as if they have no intelligence or taste and are simply philistine "movie" fans. People who post comments like that are one of the reasons that I venture with trepidation to some art centre cinemas to see foreign films. These people have an air that they are watching the film because they should and that only they can appreciate it properly with dry comments such as "oh that's funny" rather than actually showing they find it funny by laughing. It's good that films like "Russian Ark" are made as diversity is always welcome and it is always interesting to see boundaries pushed. But it is important not to use their existence to demean films such as "Run Lola Run" which had the same cameraman as the steadicam operator from this film or any other blockbuster that provide escapism for others not fortunate enough to have an education that allows them to appreciate the history of a russian museum.
4/10
25.7.2003 -
nathan@ - age: 26-35
I respect any film maker that dose something new, and while this movie is mesmerizing visualy and the continuos shot is interesting. This movie bored me to hate it. Also the one continuous shot is like going through hell without blinking.
1/10
25.7.2003 -
jack707@ - age: 18-25
Most visually stunning film I've seen in a long time. I was swept away.
10/10
23.7.2003 -
darlenetansey@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Hi all, No not for everyone. Please don't bother if you seek traditional film entertainment. Don't go if you don't like slower paced films, ambiguous plot lines, unexplained historical references, experimental films, or art films. Don't waste your time if seek action, love interests, at least one youngish and/or attractive actor you can identify with, sex, a big kicker in the plot, big laughs, a hard cry, or stock characters. (p)The rest of you will probably find this film to be anything from mildly entertaining to profoundly moving. I found that the cantankerous European was familiar and lovable, and the climactic ballroom scene was warmly stunning and touchingly filmed, with a spectacular musical performance and top notch sound. I believe that the attempt to bring the opulent and doomed past into the prersent day Hermitage museum was successful, (p)The steadicam work is nearly unbelievable, with the single take of an hour and a half revealing rarely less than outstanding lighting, costumes, and camera angles. The historical references are interesting and appropriate. (p)This film or may not fall short of being a masterpiece, altough I would put at least the ballroom scene in that category, but carries the attentive viewer along the passages of time and space within that remarkable Russian Ark, the Hermitage. If that is not reason enough to see this film, then see it for the scrumptious costumes, the gorgeous soundtrack, the remarkable technical achievements of the single-take filming, and the wry commentator. If the movie bores you, you probably didn't see or heed my warnings. I hope the rest of you have a wonderful time.
9/10
13.7.2003 -
dhf2000@ - age: 36-49
The movie was a masterpiece from begins to end. The concept was original and the effort put in to film such a movie, no stop time, was extraordinary. Note: The movie is not for the interests for everyone. It is slow, but stating the film as crummy or a movie to fall sleep to, as some critics have done, is poor and uneducated in the art of film..
10/10
8.7.2003 -
dylanc77@ - age: 18-25
This movie was magnificent, among the 10 best of all time. Tour the hermitage in the extra dimension of russian history. Genius.
10/10
3.7.2003 -
datastatisticsconsulting@ - age: 36-49
This movie is for sophisticated and art movie watcher. It has no sex or violence or plastic sense of beauty. It is not an escape, it is not for amusement, but to inspire thinking. For people unaware of foreign history, it's a higher science. Is see that the responses on this site so far are from unsophisticated provincial american drones who don't have the ability to see or imagine beyond their corfields or suv's. Let alone to use teir brais. Movie was shot in amazing one master shot...
10/10
25.6.2003 -
glanceaway@ - age: 36-49
This is a crummy (only because I couldnt use a harsher word) film!!!!!! Ps: we dont want movie tickets.
1/10
12.6.2003 -
kitty_dribbles@ - age: 36-49
We went on an excursion to see Russian Ark (gag) and we must say that it was the hardest film for people to sit through. Even the woman who sat with us who went to see the film volentarily ended up falling asleep and snoring! It was the most boringest movie ever made in the history of earth and couldnt possibly be found entertaining. The film has no real story line and if it did then nobody got it. So for any other History teachers out there who are contemplating whether to see this film, DON'T, it's a waste of time, a perfectly good money which could be better spent!
1/10
12.6.2003 -
kat_laura@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
I am very unsure of how to respond to this. I'm confused and disquieted. Watching it, I felt a similar sense of being haunted- a feeling both sad and unsettling, as with those scenes in titanic in which shots of the decaying wreck segue into recreations of the same locations as they may have appeared in their heyday. This was intensified by the fact that my ancestors in russia were a part of the social world of at least the later regime depicted, if not the earlier. I felt as though I were watching people I was related to, and I felt a kind of loss (I might have shared in that if not for the revolution) and repulsion/guilt (do I want to identify myself with people who went to great lengths to display obscene amounts of wealth and so differentiate themselves from other human beings?) in the end, I can't avoid this identification, which I suppose has it's advantages and drawbacks...'dreamy' and 'nightmarish' were two accurate descriptors used about this film in a review, as are 'from stupefying to stupendous'. it was in parts quite tedious, yet in others riveting. Museum fatigue if experienced by the audience was probably an effect sought by the director, as to hold one's 'breath' for so long is hard, and in this time we now inhabit the hermitage is just a museum that contains as in the film reminders/vignettes of past events. The buiding itself is now the main event, rather than the powers it has hosted down the hundreds of years and now represents. Perhaps it is appropriate then that we never get close to the characters, always remaining intruders that wink in and out of visibility as it seems. The marquis was incredibly irritating to me, not least for his provincial arrogance, and that is a good teaser for further debate about the ways we will be evaluating culture of europe and its erstwhile parts in the context of these times. I know almost nothing about russian history. The older I get, the more I regret my education hasn't been better. The final few scenes were exhiliarating, wistful and tremendously moving after the accumulation of tension from the relentlessness of the continuous shot up to that point. Whatever the horrors that preceded and followed- being asscociated with- such heights of opulence, I can't help being grateful that our species found a way to invent the mazurka and to dance it like that.
9/10
23.5.2003 -
twentyjazzfunkgreats@ - age: 36-49
Very boring and does not depict Hermitage in all its splendor, a simple documentary well narrated would have been a lot better, a waste of my time and money, and I am from St. Petersburg originally!
2/10
9.5.2003 -
ngurvich@ - age: 50+
Considering the awesome one shot sequence genius of a film, you can bare with the middle 30 minutes of some boring stuff, it got repetitive, but the idea and the information in it was amazing! Imagine seeing all these Russian characters, and I thought I was really seeing Catherine the Great on the screen! Wow!
8/10
7.5.2003 -
blueingreen8@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
If you need to catch up in your sleep, go see this. Otherwise - AVOID IT!!!
2/10
3.5.2003 -
p_scribe@ - age: 26-35
One probably does need to know some background before seeing the movie: about the Hermitage, about St Pete, about shooting the movie itself. Without certain specific knowledge, it's just a 'poor', somewhat chaotic and yet sporadic presentation of the cultural wealth assembled in the Museum. Knowing that the Hermitage opened its doors for shooting the film for a mere 90 minutes, you do become very forgiving about the camera work and actors' moves. You do too! I only humbly wished that the comments had been better thought out and more informative for those who haven't been blessed by visiting the Arc..
7/10
10.4.2003 -
mazut@ - age: 36-49
An antidote to all the mess on the news services. There is a great cultural debate in this film that I think you get even if you know little about Russian history. It is a sweepy kind of film. I really enjoyed it.
9/10
2.4.2003 -
doctorcampbell@ - age: 26-35
Worth seeing depending on your interest level. I don't know enough about Russia to undestand it all, and the film is a bit slow at times. Still - the one-camera technique is interesting (how did they manage to do it all in one take?) the Hermitage is SO much larger and grander than I imagined, the costumes were amazing. Some of my friends felt it was reactionary, bemoaning the loss of the beauty of the aristocracy - when most people during the times portrayed in the film lead miserable lives. Still - given the title - I am guessing the film's intent is to show modern day Russians, who have gone through some extraordinarily difficult times, that their people and history have produced some world-class art & culture, and that they can participate in this and be proud of it.
7/10
27.3.2003 -
stephen@ - age: 36-49
It's a very risky proposal with a not very pleasant result. With great costumes and amazing sets recreates important passages from the russian history. The camera movements have great moments but some others lets the film go down... Everybody in the set have to move leaving enough space for the camera man and his crew, what makes a weird and not very believable environment, not to mention that lots of extras are looking to the camera all the time... It's a daring and pretentious film that finally doesn't achieve its goals.
8/10
26.3.2003 -
diegarte@ - age: 26-35
The movie is like a dream... As if you are viewing your dream, your imagination taped on video. It is mystery, and it leaves some food for your brain to digest. I had similar dreams after visiting Hermitage for 3 days in a row, imagining noble and emperor families living in that great palace. If your favorite movies something like "XXX", "Spiderman" or "Scooby-Doo", this movie is definitely not for you. You will be bored. If you have philosophical questions attacking your mind, if you're thinking about life and eternity, then go see it. Also, the movie is very quiet - if you'll have popcorn, the entire theater will hear you chewing :-) (I didn't have, I heard)
10/10
25.3.2003 -
l_vadim@ - age: 26-35
Boooooring and pointless!!! The idea of making a sort of acted-documentary about the Hermitage and its links with Russian "recent" history is not bad at all, but the direction is poor and the final product is a boring and shallow waste.
1/10
24.3.2003 -
vcosta@ - age: 36-49
Different! Long at times, having a background knowledge of Russian History is a definite plus. Amazing Costumes and sets. You start getting nervous after an hour: will anyone mess up his lines and screw the WHOLE movie up? Making them have to start from the begining?
8/10
24.3.2003 -
saphora_jones@ - age: 26-35
Rather Different, Interesting. Having a bit of a Russian background helps appreciate the movie. The storyline is a bit thin at times. Spectacular costumes and sets.
8/10
24.3.2003 -
saphora_jones@ - age: 26-35
It's really boring, but I guess it depends on your interest level.
1/10
8.3.2003 -
w,pack@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I haven't seen Sokurov's films (sorry, I cannot call his production 'movies') for a long time - the last one I saw was his adaptation of ''Madame Bovari''. My opinion of this director was -boring imitator of Tarkovsky. But I love Hermitage, so I decided to go and see the Russian Ark. And you know, I was pleasantly surprised!!! First of all, of course, it was interesting how he managed to made film with 3000 actors in one shot - absolutely amazing!!! Of course, there are some mistakes - for instance, some of actors are looking direct to the camera, speaking unnaturally - but still - to make a huge ''costume'' film in one shot... wow... I was AMASED also of how many people went to see it - the theatre was FULL!!! I said to myself - oh, this city HAVE a future if so many people went to see non-Hollywood film of boring director :) Sokurov constructed his tour through Hermitage following from simple to complicated rule - he started it from kind of back entrance and finished at the front staircase - this absolute masterpiece of Rastrelli's architecture. He also ''throwing'' us from one historical époque to the other - and without following the time scale. Of course, for that who is not familiar with Russian history some things could be obscure. Who is this dark-skinned guy having a fight with his nice lady? Wow, it's Pushkin and his wife Nataly!!! You have to know the tragic history of their marriage resulted with great Russian poet's death at the duel... Why Peter the Great is so rude with this poor guy? - the scene symbolises Peter's fight with Old Russia in his ''hacking through the window to Europe''. Why there is so much attention to the Persian Delegation? - oh, it's very important!!! They are giving their apologies because of the murder of other great Russian poet, Griboedov, who was at the time the Russian Ambassador, in Tehran... and so on, and so on. Lots of small details with underlying meanings. I can speak a lot about the film, but I'm afraid there are not so much space here... And how it was shut!!! It's not Hollywood, where you can see just close-ups, generals, and maybe one or two more cinematographic tricks. Sokurov achieved the total EFFECT OF PRESENCE - it's YOU who is spying Peter the Great through the windows, it's YOU who is eavesdropping the conversation of the last Russian Empress Alexandra with her sister Ella, it's YOU who is trying to follow Great Catherine the Second in her mystery adventure... such a fresh wind in today's cinematograph stagnant atmosphere... And there is one more thing I want to mention - the appearance of Maestro Valery Gergiev, one of the Top Five in the world, as a orchestra conductor at the Emperor Nikolay's ball. So, I'm giving this film 10 points - it's a real masterpiece. Bravo, Sokurov!!!
10/10
1.3.2003 -
vbrom@ - age: 36-49
|
