User reviews

A 90-minute movie centered on St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum, filmed in one unbroken take by a digital steadicam, didn't send a lot of Americans racing to buy tickets when it was shown here two or three years ago. The movie, however, is far more than just a technical stunt. It's a unique tour de force with emotional impact.

Russian Ark portrays the Hermitage as a kind of cultural and historical ark floating on centuries of Russian seas. The narrative device is a shadowy eighteenth century Frenchman who wanders the halls and time periods, commenting often with good-natured European condescension on what he sees. He is accompanied by a Russian who is never seen, and who questions him about his comments. The movie ranges through time with appearances of Peter the Great, Catherine II, Pushkin, Nicholas II and his family, generals, maids, flunkies and diplomats. The Frenchman, played with great style by Russian actor Sergei Dreiden, takes us to painting and sculpture galleries, kitchens, ballrooms, storerooms, basements and living quarters as we observe things that happened in the Hermitage over the centuries.

At first, I was very aware of the technical feat of no cuts. Gradually, though, I think most people just relax and accept the skill of the director and photographer, and become immersed in what they are seeing. A kind of unreal imagery takes hold. The movie ends with the last dance held in the Great Ballroom before WWI. Hundreds of actors and dancers, in full costume, swirl around this ornate setting, and swirl around the camera as well, while the camera glides through the crowds. It's a terrific scene, and is followed by the end of the dance with all the hundreds of guests making their way through the halls and staircases to leave the building, with the camera facing them and moving along in front of them.

This is a highly unusual film, probably a great one.

Sokurov breaks boundaries with his dreamlike vision of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. It's the first feature-length narrative film shot in a single take (on digital video, using a specially designed disc instead of tape). "Russian Ark" is shot from the point-of-view of an unseen narrator, as he explores the museum and travels through Russian history. The audience sees through his eyes as he witnesses Peter the Great (Maksim Sergeyev) abusing one of his generals; Catherine the Great (Maria Kuznetsova) desperately searching for a bathroom; and, in the grand finale, the sumptuous Great Royal Ball of 1913. The narrator is eventually joined by a sarcastic and eccentric 19th century French Marquis (Sergey Dreiden), who travels with him throughout the huge grounds, encountering various historical figures and viewing the legendary artworks on display. While the narrator only interacts with the Marquis (he seems to be invisible to all the other inhabitants), the Marquis occasionally interacts with visitors and former residents of the museum.

The film was obviously shot in one day, but the cast and crew rehearsed for months to time their movements precisely with the flow of the camera while capturing the complex narrative, with elaborate costumes from different periods, and several trips out to the exterior of the museum. Tillman Buttner, the director of photography, was responsible for capturing it all in one single Steadicam shot. "Russian Ark" is an amazing accomplishment, and clearly made with passion, but while the film is sure to be hailed as a masterpiece by some, its narrative conceit isn't nearly as interesting as the technical feat of its creation. The result is a unique and intelligent film with sporadic moments of transcendent beauty that fails to create a strong emotional connection with its audience. It's essentially a 96-minute museum tour, with the added benefit of time travel and wax figures that briefly come to life.

But wax figures are all they are, essentially. Sokurov, as though following a hasty guide, spends so little time with the historical figures he portrays that it often feels as though he's moving on just as you begin to figure out who and what you're watching. The Russian experience of World War II, for example, is portrayed with a brief stop in a foreboding, ghostly room filled with coffins. The filmmaker is known for his lugubrious pacing, but Russian Ark has the odd distinction of seeming both slow paced and rushed. It moves slowly and mournfully, but still only glances across the surface of the eras it portrays. It's a demanding film, encompassing a wealth of Russian history and art history between its first and final frames. Those who stay with it will be rewarded in the end by a gorgeously mounted ball, in which the camera gracefully slides among elaborately costumed dancers as the orchestra plays. It's a deeply felt irony that this transcendent moment of joy takes place on the eve of the Russian revolution, and the world of these briefly glimpsed characters is about to come crashing to an end. It's a shame that the film has few moments where form and content align so powerfully

In the history of cinema, it is the Russians who are generally credited with elevating film editing to a modern art form. It is ironic, and strangely fitting, therefore, that it should be the Russians who, almost a full century later, have now produced the first full-length feature film ever to be composed of a single unedited shot running uninterrupted from first moment to last (Hitchcock came close with `Rope,' but he did include a few `cuts' in the course of the film). Even Sergei Eisenstein, who, in films like `Potemkin' and `Ten Days That Shook the World' spent his career developing and demonstrating the power of editing, would, I dare say, be impressed by `Russian Ark,' a film every bit as innovative and challenging as those earlier seminal works.

For their bravura, awe-inspiring cinematic tour-de-force, director Alexander Sokurov and cinematographer Tilman Buttner take us into the famed Hermitage Museum and Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, providing us with a grand tour not only of the opulent rooms and famous artwork contained therein, but of 300 years of Russian history as well, as various vignettes involving famous people (from Peter and Catherine the Great to Nicholas and Alexandra) and events are played out within the glorious gilded walls.

`Russian Ark' is a bold and audacious project that is the cinematic equivalent of a breathlessly performed high wire juggling act. We know that one false move on the part of the actors or the cameraman, one missed cue or accident of fate could bring the whole delicately poised enterprise crashing down around them. How often, one wonders, did a perfectionist like Sukorov have to resist the temptation to yell `Cut!' to his actors and crew? It's truly amazing to see just how beautifully planned and flawlessly executed the final product turns out to be, especially the ball sequence at the end which features hundreds of dancers and spectators who are set in beautifully choreographed and constantly whirling motion. What's most remarkable is how much of a participant the camera itself is in the proceedings. Not content to stand idly by and observe the scene like some passive onlooker, the camera moves right into the center of the action, gliding in and out of the crowds with utmost grace and precision. Visually, the film is stunning, with exquisite costumes and furnishings as far as the eye can see. Indeed, `Russian Ark' is, among other things, a veritable feast for the eyes, the likes of which we have rarely seen on film before.

`Russian Ark' does have something of a `plot,' involving a narrator whom we never see, a 21st Century filmmaker – we assume it's Sukorov himself - who's found himself inexplicably caught in some type of time warp and magically transported to this strange spectral world. There's also a bizarre European `ghost' figure from the unspecified past who comments - and occasionally attempts to intrude – on the actions taking place around him. But these two characters are of far less interest to the audience than the aural and visual delights of the film itself.

`Russian Ark' is a wonder to behold, for it is much more than just an `exercise,' a `gimmick,' or even an `antithesis' to Eisenstein; it is a vibrant work of art that challenges the limits of its medium and reminds us of just what it is about movies that we love so much.

Western fascination with Russia -whether the land of the Tsars or the cruel empire of the madman Stalin - is one of our unending cultural fixations. Endlessly studied, painstakingly analyzed, mocked and admired - Russia is a massive, ongoing colossal story. An enigma that never yields its deepest secrets.

Director Aleksandr Sokurov is the voice of the anonymous inquisitor who accompanies nineteenth century French marquis Sergei Dreiden (Sergei Dontsov) on a breathtaking tour of the physical and spiritual Hermitage of St. Petersburg. He has made a groundbreaking, stunning film. Shot from a Steadycam in one continuous over hour-and-a-half stream, the film explores the treasures of one of the world's greatest museums. Equally, "Russian Ark" rambles, without regard for chronological order, through snatches of Russian and Soviet history, each short episode a fantastical peep into a wild, rich, often terrifying but always fascinating world.

In the nineteenth century European travellers, most often men (Charles Dickens, for example) and some women (Fanny Trollope for one) visited and wrote about the two untamed civilizations that beckoned to foreigners and promised adventure and intrigue: Russia and the United States. Count Dreiden, a not atypical Frenchman of haughty self-assurance and ample means, viewed Russians as boorish and their culture a gilt-splendored front for a nearly barbarous land. His book would not have been picked up by a publisher linked to the travel industry.

In "Russian Ark" Dreiden is more muted than he is in print but his unquestioning cynicism comes through as Sokurov captures the imagined journey in one building of a French nobleman through both his time and a future he questions without developing much understanding.

So we have both an Acoustaguide tour of a wonderful palace of culture and myriad treasures and snapshots of everyone from Catherine the Great to Nicholas and Alexandra and their children, including an adorable Anastasia, fated to be one of history's silly mysteries. Noblemen and contemporary sailors, bemedaled officers and bejeweled women, a cultured woman gallery guide and apparatchiks - they all fleet through and interact with the questioning but stolidly biased Frenchman.

How did Sokurov pull off a continuous take through over 4,200 feet of the Hermitage with a cast of many hundreds, gorgeously costumed, without a hitch? Unbelievable! That feat alone propels him into the Cinema Pantheon of Fame. At times I felt like I was drawn into the crowd, especially when they depart a dance to head for a fabulous banquet (the dance band is conducted by Valery Gergiev, the only famous - to Westerners - person in the film). And even though I knew from reviews that Sokurov pulled it off, I kept waiting for the seemingly inevitable "Cut!" following a miscue or stumble.

The hint of intrigue and menace that is so much part of Russia's past and present lurks behind an almost impressionistic front with scenes of one-dimensional gaiety almost but not entirely hiding a complex society. Sokurov teaches and teases simultaneously.

As visual splendor and directorial innovation this is one of the great films of our time. I look forward to owning it on DVD knowing that its magic can never be realized fully outside a theater.

Don't miss this one and see it more than once.

10/10.

I found "Russian Ark" a fascinating work of a very ambitious director. For me, it was a highly enjoyable guided tour through the rooms, galleries, and halls of one of the greatest museums in the world. I have not been to Hermitage (Winter Palace) for over fourteen years, and to see the familiar rooms, stairs, paintings, and sculptures was like traveling back in time. The film is also the journey over three hundred years of the Russian history and the attempt to understand the country's place and meaning in European culture. Each of the palace's rooms is filled with memories, shadows, whispers, smiles, and tears of the people whose lives have made the history of the country. The fact that it is all presented in a single, the longest uninterrupted shot ever makes it even more incredible. I also saw the documentary about making "Russian Ark". It is called "On One Breath" - that's how the director, Alexander Sokurov wanted his audience to feel about the film that was shot in a single glorious take during several hours on one winter night. The preparation for this unforgettable night took almost four years.

It's mind-boggling how they could achieve without making a cut; the timing, the precision, the preparations with the enormous number of people involved. Sure Russian Ark has its place in film history (see directorial indulgences), but I don't like cinema to be a guinness book of records. It not great film because it's a great achievement. Fitzcarraldo is one of my favorite film, it's famous because it the film where Herzogs pulls a real ship over a mountain. It's a great achievement sure, but it's also a great film. It's great because Herzogs efforts also mirrors the main character's efforts, and it works on deeper levels compared to the achievements of Russian Ark.

Nonetheless, Russian Ark is very beautiful to look at and fascinating for what it is.

This is, without a doubt, the most visually, and in some respects, emotionally, beautiful film I have ever had the privilege to see. WOW! Alexander Sokurov has proved himself one of the greatest artistic directors of the age in this enthralling journey through Russian history, society and culture. As a viewer, I was emotionally overcome by the simultaneously melancholic, frenetic and enigmatic atmosphere. The actors are fantastic all-round, the script is flawlessly coherent, the cinematography is unparalleled, and it goes without saying that the scenery is nothing short of jaw-dropping.

A powerful and moving insight into a beautiful, complex and tragically misunderstood culture.

Artistic perfection. 10/10!

The interior shots of the Hermitage, and the period costumes and ballroom scene are spectacular and stunning. For that, the epic scale of history covered (largely successfully), and the achievement of doing this in a seamless 90-minute shot, this film deserves 7/10. It's that much of an accomplishment.

Unfortunately, the irritating "dialog" and "plot" nearly ruined an otherwise awe-inspiring experience. The ongoing bickering between the two main "characters" was completely annoying, and their occasional interactions with the Hermitage's inhabitants were alternately pretentious and absurd. It was never clear to me in which rooms/periods these two guys were visible and/or audible to those around them, and in which they were not. And c'mon, a guy dressed like that being welcomed as a guest at such an elegant ball? He'd have been lucky to have only been tossed back out on the street. Simply

This movie would have worked much better as a simple documentary. Basically unchanged, except for the replacement of these two annoying characters with a standard documentary voice-over explaining what's going on. Then I'd have given it 10/10.

I really hated this film! I am a huge fan of 'pure cinema' as promoted by my favourite director Alfred Hitchcock. I love great cinema whether it is silent, talkie, thriller, comedy, musical or documentary and this film being shot in one continuous take excited me greatly and I watched with huge interest expecting a great piece of film making. I'm afraid I found it extremely poor as a film.

There is no disputing the amazing logistical difficulties the director has overcome to film one continuous take for an entire feature length movie but if I was interested only in logistics I would study the London traffic system or the engineering of the channel tunnel! To be a great or even a good film takes more than logistics.

Even the technical brilliance of filming in one take is reduced these days massively due to digital/video technology. Reels of film only lasted a short time so Hitchcock filmed Rope in long takes but had to cut them cleverly together to give the appearance of the take continuing each time he had to change reels of film. It was impossible to shoot a whole film of feature length on one reel of film. Now anyone could make a film in one take as long as they avoid making a mistake messing up the take.

The only clever thing about this film is that the director has choreographed the movements of groups of people and planned out camera movement etc and managed to film it all without any obvious mistakes. This is pure logistics though, not pure cinema! There is no drama, no characterisation, no humour, no ingenuity of storytelling, it runs like a documentary or video tour. On top of that, the script and acting of the people appearing and the narration are inane and ridiculous. It is at times meant to be funny but is pathetically unfunny and idiotic. There is nothing to recommend this as cinema its only benefit is to show the beautiful building and works of art. This could be done better in a documentary without all the nonsense.

There is nothing I hate more in films than pretentious attempts to be something they are not. I give this 1 1/2 or 2 out of 10 rather than 1 simply for its choreographed movement of camera and people.

This documentary-type movie, done all in one long, unbroken take with a steadicam, has the camera basically hovering around a famous Russian museum for an hour and-a-half as the unseen film director (both by us and the others in the museum) makes comments, as if in a dream, and converses with a French, former diplomat from the 1800s. It's a mix of a museum tour, Russian history, and performance art -- Catherine the Great appears at one point, desperately looking for the toilet. I liked it because it's about the closest thing to a dreamstate you can get in film, something like the long tracking shots in Tarkovsky's movies; I didn't get a lot of the references to Russian historical figures, but it doesn't really matter. However, if you know Russian history, you may get extra enjoyment out of it and might latch onto the sarcastic bits better than I did. I think this is a real achievement; a perfect example of how style is substance. 9/10

OK, all done in one continuous shot. Well done. Great costumes & a magnificent location. Well done.

But i got the feeling that they forget something... let me think, i know.. THE PLOT!

This film despite the many positive things about this film it is a pointless, listless & boring 90 minutes of filmmaking. There was no plot or coherent storyline to speak of. They must have used up all the budget on actors & costumes & were unable to employ a writer on this one.

Was it supposed to be a drama? A documentary on the history of Russia & the Hermitage Museum?

I think it tries to be both but is neither. If it wasn't for the great camera work i would not have sat through this film to the finish. 3/10

Focusing on three centuries of Russian history from Peter the Great to Tsar Nicholas II, Russian Ark, the latest film by Alexander Sokurov, is an amazing tour de force. Shot in one long 96-minute tracking shot with a cast of 2000 actors and extras, the film takes the viewer into the great Hermitage Collection in St. Petersburg, Russia, showing real works of art from 33 rooms and exploring their meaning in a larger context. More than just a great technical achievement, this is also a sublime meditation on the individual's place in the universe, one that does not recreate history but allows us to revisit it on a dreamlike stage where past, present, and future are one.

The film begins in the dark with the narrator (apparently Sokurov) commenting about how little he sees. "My eyes are open", he says, "and yet I see nothing". He does not know where he is but apparently has just died in an accident of some kind. Is this a movie? A play?" he asks. He receives no answer except a vision of 18th century aristocrats moving slowly into the Tsar's palace. An elegant white-haired man in a black cloak (Sergey Dreiden) suddenly appears and escorts the confused narrator into the corridors of the grand palace. "Everyone knows the present, but who can remember the past", says the stranger as they walk from one ballroom to the next, witnessing great works of art as well as ghost-like presences from Russia's past. We see works by El Greco, Rubens and Van Dyck in their awesome splendor. We run into Peter the Great thrashing a general, Catherine the Great looking for the bathroom, and Nicholas II, the last Russian Tsar hosting the Great Royal Ball of 1913, the last such formal occasion of its kind.

As we enter the Great Nicholas Hall, the opulent room is filled with thousands of aristocrats dancing the mazurka in gorgeous period costumes. A full orchestra is playing in the background and young soldiers are nattily dressed in their uniforms. How beautiful it all seems and how it appears they were destined to live forever but we all know how the nasty Bolsheviki spoiled the party. Ah yes, how green was my valley then. Sokurov said he wanted to make a whole film "in one breath" and he has succeeded in simulating the breathing process, pulling us in, then moving us out as we feel the rhythm of our own life beating with the swirl of lost humanity. At the end of Russian Ark, we see the peaceful flow of a river outside the hall to which the narrator comments, "The flow is forever. Life is forever." Having completed the past, our invisible guide is now ready to move into the endless silence that is, in the phrase of the Anglican priest Thomas Kelly, "the source of all sound".

I have just finished watching this film this minute with my Russian fiancée and i want to keep my feelings going accordingly in one take with no cuts. My goodness gracious me, what a film! I thought Fellini's Roma was great or Satyricon or Kubrick's 2001. This is by far more powerful and impressive. I felt so lucky to have witnessed this. What a man this artist is to have faced this incredible challenge and pulled it off magnificently. This is a study of the conscience, a dream, this is Jung, this is the Ghost in Dicken's nightmare before Christmas, this is almost as great as Noah's ark. How grateful I am to have had this opportunity to live this with such personally idealistic guidance. Every moment of this movie was supremely done with supremely good reason from beginning to end. This film is in my opinion, flawless, from whatever angle you want to look at it.

Russian Ark is Aleksandr Sokurov's homage to the Russian State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. The film is renowned for being the first feature length narrative film to be shot in one take, and from start to finish Sokurov glides us through 33 different stately rooms as we encounter historical figures from the last 200+ years.

The viewer is accompanied on this waltz, (or perhaps more fittingly, this mazurka for its lively East European tempo) by a 19th Century French Aristocrat who acts as both guide and critic of Tsarist Russia. The pacing of the movie and snippets of information divulged mean you don't have to be a Russian scholar to appreciate the film.

In one sense, the film is a triumph. Sokurov has created a very stylised, interesting and enjoyable movie in one single fluid take, and watching the film you understand what an achievement this is. The direction is visually hypnotising and the co-ordination of the cast and crew mesmerising. But, Sokurov seems to have delivered Cinema as Art rather than Cinema as Entertainment, and i couldn't help feel constantly reminded that i was merely a viewer rather than a participant in this film, perhaps a Russian coldness that made it difficult to become involved and engrossed in the film. Sokurov has certainly achieved something by shooting a film in one take, but, like a book with no punctuation the effect can be quite tiring and you find yourself trying to create commas and full-stops just to give yourself chance to breathe

this is more than a film...it is art. i can see why most people wouldn't enjoy this. they are expecting a film with a major plot and scenes that rivet you to your seat. this is not a film for people who get bored looking at a painting.

it is for people that wish to be intrigued by something beautiful. the script is one of a tour guide describing events of the past years of Russia, don't expect wonderful acting, or plot twists. enjoy the ride, it's one of grandeur. inspiring.

don't be too critical of this film, because it wasn't intended to be a blockbuster hit. it was intended to be a first. one that inspires films to come. i hope more people take up this approach to making films.

Sokurov is not the first man to try make a one-shot movie. Hitchcock was probably the first with "Rope", and he would have done it in one single shot if it was technically possible at the time. More recently Mike Figgis attempted to approach the problem differently with "Time Code" ( one screen divided into four simultaneous images , each of them, a single shot ). But even so, "Russian Ark" is a tour de force! If an unedited movie is always a challenge, this one is almost provocative. Making a movie with more than two thousand actors, an amazing number of costumes and props, and in no less a place than the Hermitage, involving scenes in more than thirty of its rooms, would be impressive in a conventional movie, but shooting it for a duration of more than one and a half hours without a single cut is just crazy! I suppose the famous French cinema theorist Andre Bazin would have loved this movie. Of course Bazin and other defenders of unedited sequences are correct about one thing: that you can feel more involved in a movie that is free of the distractions of editing. Coinciding with the apparent current invasion with reality TV, this movie seems more realistic than these awfully edited shows. The filmmaker has fewer opportunities to cheat, with a single shot. Of course cinema will never be reality: it was, is, and will be an IMAGE forever. But a single shot accompanying the characters through a whole movie is an amazing thing, to attract us and to make us feel we're part of the story. Naturally there are some disadvantages with a single shot, if indeed we can regard them as such. Apart from the technical difficulty involved, the problem is to have something to show all the time. Indeed there are some quite lengthy scenes in "R.A" that are either tedious or meaningless, but since an unedited film is closer to reality than any other kind of film, the question is: aren't there some moments like that in our lives? Don't we wait sometimes? Naturally, lots of people would contend that they don't go to the cinema in order to be bored (possibly because their own lives are filled with enough tedium), but the fact is that cinema is quite an eclectic art: you can find American blockbusters made simply for fun, or to wash your brain, and otherwise you can access movies that are more "clever"(and that does not mean that blockbusters are necessarily "dumb"), but it is worth acknowledging that some cinema is concerned with values that have no connection with fun or frivolity. This may seem obvious, but it is an essential consideration if we are to do justice to a brave new film like "R.A", and let us come back to the movie and the way it deals with the single shot: the 'empty' sequences manifest a mirror of life, and in that case a reflection of the life in Russia especially. We can appreciate Sokurov's rationale for making an unedited movie: that is , the camera is subjective; indeed our actual physical vision is not cut in real life (even if you close your eyes for a moment, your vision is not 'cut' but only blackened for a brief period.) Not only does the single shot give a feeling of reality, but it also makes us think we are the character whose eyes are replaced by the camera. The character's eyes became the camera, then the screen, then OUR eyes. There is a double indirect connection between the character and us. In Noah's Ark, all of the animals are in pairs. In "Russian Ark", the VISION is double. That leads me to discuss the character's voiceover. The voice might have been a bit odd for the audience because it seems that it was pasted, since it was recorded after the shooting and then added to the movie, and so the movie partly loses its unedited quality, due to the sound. During the first minutes of the movie, we feel no connection between the image and the voiceover, but as we continue to follow this character through the 'maze', we're getting closer to him thanks to the 'eyes', and then we accept the voice. Indeed, don't we hear our own voice differently from the way we receive other people's voices? If the voiceover has a strange murmuring quality, it is because it manifests as our own voice! This effect may not work for everybody, but it worked (sometimes) for me. If the single shot and the voice are employed to project us into the 'action', the subject is quite fascinating and challenging as well: relating three centuries of Russian history by using the Hermitage Museum in St.-Petersburg! It is particularly interesting to see that Sokurov has employed a kind of sci-fi convention to communicate the idea of two men wandering through corridors of history. That creates a kind of duality between past and future. Lots of things reminded me of Tartovski's "Stalker" (another Russian metaphorical and metaphysical sci-fi film); the slowness, the strange unexplained situations, the odd dialogue, the loneliness of the characters, and the fact that the unreal part of the story is neither visible nor barely discussed, which probably suggests that Sokurov chose a sci-fi approach more as a simple narrative device rather than any desire to make a sci-fi movie. To have cast a non Russian character to help Sokurov to look at his country's history more objectively, is a wise decision. And so he refrains from any temptation to make a glorious kind of propaganda film: instead we see a well measured film which yields an exposure of positive and negative aspects of Russian history and culture. The film's element of satire ensures that there is no indulgence in the self-congratulatory that is evident in the worst of US cinema. Well, to be honest, I think I did not know enough Russian history to really understand this movie because it can be very confusing without that knowledge. (I had the exact same concerns with Rohmer's "l'Anglaise et le Duc"). But on the other hand, it encourages the viewer to learn more about Russia, and to see this movie again to enjoy it more. It is also the kind of movie that makes you regret that you do not speak the original language, obviating the absence of more genuine comprehension. Actually it is quite talky, and not everything is subtitled: sometimes you cannot identify which character IS subtitled, and it becomes it a bit more confusing. In spite of any negative remarks, partly due to (any) spectator's ignorance of Russian culture, this movie is generally rewarding and worth seeing. I should add that the shots are generally beautiful: the exterior scene in the snow is stunning, but regrettably too short! And the ball scene is also sublime… Just watch it with a Russian-speaking friend who has an encyclopedic knowledge of Russian history, and it will be even better! Otherwise just let your eyes be your guide: after all we don't understand everything that occurs around us in our lives! 7/10

First a warning: Do not see this film if you are expecting ANY plot! It is a film shot mostly for the visual imagery and in this respect, I think this film is quite interesting.

It's a 96 minute film done in one shot, which itself is very interesting and almost worth watching for just this reason. The second reason to watch is that it provides a great tour of the Hermitage museum (former palace) in St. Petersburg for those that may not be able to go in person.

It will probably be more enjoyable to those who know Russian (although I think the subtitles were accurate & thorough) and a little about Russian/Soviet history. People (supposedly) from the last 300 years of Russian history are shown at various times throughout the film. The film only point out Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Pushkin, the rest like Nicholas II & family you are supposed to be able to recognize, so I am sure that unfortunately, there is A LOT that I missed & others will too.

There's some scattered conversations about Russia's fascination with Western Europe which seems (to me) the underlying theme of the movie. [In my opinion it would've been interesting if at the end they hinted about how American culture now seems to play the same role. Cultural emperialism via McDonalds/KFC and even the usage of English words over Russian ones....but that's an entirely different tangent and is unconnected to the Hermitage.] I hope that the point of the film was to encourage people to value the Russian contributions to Russian culture and not just the European (or American!) influence/contributions.

I had such hopes for this endeavor, especially since it received such great reviews, and I found myself totally confused, bored, and trying to stay awake. What a shame, when there is so much to say about Russia.

I kept wondering, when are we going to get to the revolution, with some glimpses of how the Hermitage existed during communism? The concept never even came up. What did come up was a blind woman discussing art she cannot see, a tzarist who had to pee, another member of royalty needing to run in the snow, and endlessly long and repetitive shots of orchestras, as if the director was trying to fill up time to make the Guiness book of records for longest cam shot. I would have wished that the Frenchman gave the young boy a lecture on art rather than chastising him for not knowing Scripture...what is the connection here? I still do not understand what the theatrical performers in costume weaving in and out of the film were there for.

The person who watched this film with me considered this an analogy to The Emperor's New Clothes...when everyone else is remarking on how wonderful this film is, few have the courage to be honest about what they are really seeing.

I just love this movie. It is something that is not every one will understand nor appreciate. From the get go from the begging when you - the 3 person - arrives with the three friends you are taken for a ride through the Hermitage in Russia. I could not take my eyes off the screen since I felt like I was waiting what was around the next corner and what other marvels will I see. The costumes are fantastic and the acting superb. But you know what it seems like if you were a quasi-ghost of some sort so that you can travel around without the everyone seeing you, and when those that do you are just another person in the act. Pay attention to the last shot, it sums up the reason why what you just experienced was the say that you did.

See it with an open mind and you will "sail away".

A feature length single shot is indeed different, and a very clever idea that must have been a massive tour de force by the entire production team. But when I ask others what they thought of the movie, it is this single shot single fact that dominates, rather than actually what was in the shot.

I'm afraid that for me it dragged, perhaps partly because my limited knowledge of Russian history meant that many verbal and visual references were totally lost on me. Yes, a magificent building, yes, magnificent artworks, but in viewing them, all the movie camera did was try very hard to give us still shots. It was only the magnificent ball scene that redeemed it. A nice bit of costume drama with a big cast. So it's 3 cheers for the mazurka, and 6 out of 10 for the movie.

Glad I saw it on a freebie ticket.

So big whoop it was all one take. And? As a very poor tourist guide to the Hermitage, I suppose you could say this movie did show you (in the scattiest way possible) what is in it. But have you read these reviews? Oy vey! What could you possibly learn about Russian history, Italian and French art or the wonders of Peter the Greats building program from this paltry turd? And the 'technical brilliance'? What were you guys watching? The camera spends quite a bit of time on the floor, on chairs, on curtains, on peoples backs etc etc. Really, I could do that. We could not bear certain parts of this film because they were so boring. What was the narrator wittering on about? It was like listening to the last three guys in the pub, after 5 hours of dedicated drinking. Nobody saying anything worth hearing, and nobody listening to anybody else. Clichés spliced to banalities. My wife is Russian, and she felt ashamed at this splodge of a movie.