SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Kirpianuscus it is a challenge. only a challenge. or a trip. pure trip. in time, in the meaning of art,in the heart of the dreams from childhood. or it is just an experience. not surprising from Sokurov. but seductive for the force of image, for character, for the atmosphere, for the dance, for the cinnamon flavor of lost times and for the delicate humor. Russian Ark could be anything - lesson of history, total show, ball of nostalgic, form of cultural propaganda. important remains the final taste. fresh. sweet-bitter. enthusiastic. because it is one of films who has the gift to rediscover yourself to you. and this the most important detail.

MisterWhiplash There come times when I am seeing a film that announces and declares itself as a piece of magnificent, magnifonic, exceptional and daring work of art that I have to reckon with the objective vs the subjective perspectives: it's one thing to recognize how brilliantly a film is executed as opposed to how I felt about the content, or, in the old Ebert philosophy, not what it's about but how it's about it. Because objectively speaking, I'd find it hard to argue or hear a persuasive argument to the contrary that this is the highest orchestral arrangement of cinema that is possible.By that statement I mean that you can't watch this and not be impressed on some level - this is one of a small handful of feature films (which originated with Hitchcock's Rope and became Oscar fodder in the best possible way with Birdman) that are shot in one long, unbroken take, and because it was shot in digital format and not film the director and cinematographer, Alexander Sokurov and Tilman Büttner respectively, could arrange it so there were no cuts (unlike that pussy-footin' Birdman, psshaw, having seamless edits, the nerve!) And it's not simply in the cinematographic prowess, it's much in the way that a director of live TV has balls of steel: orchestrating and conducting everyone, like a symphony, to be on just the right marks at just the right beats - and this is a cast that features hundreds, if not over a thousand, people - and it goes through different lighting set-ups and costume changes and the lead actor Sergey Dreyden (kind of a Russian Peter Cushing with his black attire and hard cheeks and nose) has to carry it in large part emotionally speaking, or at least on some intellectual level.So for arranging everything and getting it to move together seamlessly it's a real *achievement*. But is it a great movie aside from that, or even a good one? In some part it is wonderful, in large parts, but (and I have to put the 'but' in there), it's hard to sometimes be completely engaged with material that is so experimental. For me I actually discovered not too long into the film I was locked in more with the audio side than even the visual side. Not that large parts of this aren't visually arresting - it can't not be at certain times if only because of the paintings on display (it's a lot like being on a class trip, so if you don't enjoy going to a museum, frankly you may not enjoy chunks of this picture very much) - but it's how the filmmakers uses audio, and remember this IS an audio-visual medium, that gives Russian Ark its fullest impact.What is the focus of the film for example? Is this a documentary? A dream? A schizophrenic time travel trip that's like if you took Tarkovsky and mixed him with Doctor Who (all in Russia, of course)? Well, let's look at the 'voice' behind the camera, the man who seems to be following our "Stranger" in black who wanders through the hallways and the rooms full of paintings and the corridors and then... finds himself in an opera, a giant ballroom with hundreds dancing in unison and soldiers marching and then Catherine the Great pops up. And all the while this voice that accompanies this man, is it a person there, or is it a ghost? I found it difficult to parse at times if there was a figure actually there - not just the main character but others who pop up from time to time - acknowledge 'his' presence. But is he or 'it' there? Maybe it doesn't matter in the way that the ambiguity adds to the mystery of it all. The whole experience, as the director's attempt to go for the Orson Welles quote to the max - "A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet" - has the feeling of a dream-documentary, if that makes sense, like we're wandering around some Hyper-Intellectual who has doused himself in the kerosene of Russian art and history (or also European history, note the mentions of German artists and composers and others) and is wandering around the halls and ballrooms and devastation and joy of centuries of work. While it's not really *all* the history (not enough Kossack blood or Bolsheviks me thinks), it's an engaging look at many of the key portions of how iconography, both in style and in artistic expression, come to the foray.Or... something like that. It could all be an extravagant d***-waving measure, like "look at what *I* can do with my digital camera and a whole army of people to command!" - but then isn't that what most cinema is all about? There are stretches that, even at 99 minutes, start to drag, but this may also be a first-timer reaction. I'd like to revisit this in a few years or so, or perhaps sooner, and see how, not unlike if I saw a series of paintings as I traipsed around a museum, my reaction would change.

samanthamarciafarmer As a disclaimer, I have already seen Russian Ark numerous times; it happens to be somewhat of a favorite of mine. Multiple viewings have not made this film any less impressive than it was the first time. It is done in a single, uninterrupted shot. Elaborate ballroom scenes, precisely timed entrances, poetic pans of the camera that end up exactly where they need to be, and the massive amount of planning that must have gone into this illustrates the skill of Alexander Sokurov and his crew. The intricacies of the technical aspects are matched in the plot, too. For Russian history buffs, Russian Ark is a delight; one is on the edge of their seat, dissecting each scene to discern (before the narrator and "the European" discuss it) what is being seen or heard. Many highlights appear: the Greats-both Peter and Catherine-Mikhail Glinka, the last Tsar, Pushkin, WWII in the Soviet Era. The film appears as a whole representation of Russian culture and its containment in the Hermitage. It is important that this ark of Russian culture is explored by a European outsider, especially one who scrutinizes Russia so closely. The culture is examined by the "Marquis" as a European veneer is attempted to be scraped off, and the issue of Russia's history being ambivalently European and also not-quite-European is discussed. The narrator, when questioned as to the Russian authenticity of arts or music or confronted with vaguely Russophobic leading questions, only ever seems to simply confirm that "they are Russian". The degree to which the country's history is tinged with European or Asiatic influence is never acknowledged, because regardless of how much that might be the country is still characteristically different. Perhaps this is why it is so puzzling, and why Sokurov represents it as an ark to keep "sailing forever", never to be discovered in truth.

Magenta_Bob I expected something very different from this, even watching it a second time I was kind of taken aback by it being just, as a friend put it, "two guys wandering around a mostly sparsely populated museum." As such I don't think I know any film quite like it and I admire it for that. To this end I think the seamlessness is far more than a gimmick and works great, there is a "stream of consciousness"-ness about how the camera just floats about, sometimes lingering on some painting or whatever while the people carry on with their business. This goes again in the dialogue which is just uninterrupted and uncensored thoughts. I don't think any films look quite like Sokurov's visually either, particularly there's some fisheye lens thing going on to dizzying, dreamlike effect (also to be found in Faust). I am not sure how to express this, but I love how unconcerned the film seems about the stuff in it making narrative sense or having to be there, like, I feel like you could take away any given sequence without loss of coherence and yet I'm glad everything is there. The ending is my favorite part I think; everything from the ball onwards and especially the part with the people leaving the castle I find ludicrously impressive and well-choreographed.I feel like there is something inherently symbolical/psychological about walking in and out of these rooms where different things happen. They don't all have different and obvious meanings but it struck me in particular when they walked into the war room. Perhaps more banally there is a meta level to Russian Ark as our Russian narrator doubles as the spectator i.e. us ("Has all this been staged for me? Am I expected to play a role?").To its disadvantage, there is some awkward nationalism in it in the shape of the Russian pointing out all great things Russian, but we do get the European shitting on Russia constantly as a counterweight. However, it is a nice touch when he unites with the Russians in the final dance, as Russia and Europe come together.