Perfect cast and a good story

disgusting, overrated, pointless

Admirable film.

The first must-see film of the year.

The screenplay of "4" is credited to edgy contemporary Russian author Vladimir Sorokin, and in case you think movies aren't serous business any more, reportedly everybody who worked on making "4" was beaten by angry viewers. It may be that Khzhanovsky went a little haywire in the latter part of the 2-hour-plus film, losing some of Sorokin's structure because he became a little too taken up with a lively and colorful group of wizened crones who are the actual inhabitants of the remote village to which protagonist Marina goes for the funeral and wake for her (twiin?) sister. Did the crones actually get drunk on the vodka they are shown swilling in the wake scene and thereafter? Was the camera-work meant to grow increasingly sloppier? Warning to young filmmakers: don't let colorful locations run away with your picture. Nonetheless this is a humdinger. Dangerous to be so provocative with your first big feature film. It made him famous (or notorious), but it was six years till he finished another film (Dau, an epic biography of the scientist Lev Landau, which is now in post-production). The film begins slowly but intriguingly with a half-hour sequence of three people telling lies to each other at an after hours bar, inventing fantastic occupations. Marina, who is a whore, pretends to be in advertising. A stylish, somewhat effete man who is really a meat dealer claims to purvey spring water to the president. The other man, deadpan chain smoker with a crewcut who later admits to Marina he's a piano tuner, tells a preposterous and revolting story about being a geneticist involved in cloning of humans that he claims has gone on since the Stalin era. "4" refers to the habit of cloning double twins. When he gets into a tale of homosexual rape among black clones in a slum the meat broker goes off in a huff. His discovery of "round" piglets sold at a fancy restaurant is assurance, if needed, that "4' is bizarre and surreal. Everybody has written about it. The Times called it "mysterious" and "mesmerizing," and Jonothan Rosenbaum wrote about it favorably (though I can't access his review -- some of the online archives don't go back as far as 2005 or 2006). Although at the one-hour mark, with the film half over, things only are beginning to happen, and that's not very good, the opening sequence at the bar, even if over- long, is atmospheric and intriguing. One excellent and admiring review by Ty Burr of the Boston Globe described the scene as a surreal, futuristic Russian version of Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" "come to life with a script by a post modernist prankster"(and Burr identifies Sorokin as "one of the more controversial voices in post-Soviet literature"). But it's scary and provocative rather than dreary. It's interesting to begin with three characters who are quite mysterious. Unfortunately the film delves into the meat broker's life only briefly, and the pretend geneticist piano tuner not at all. Perhaps it was best to stick to one of the three, to give the film unified focus, but it still makes things feel structurally left dangling. Doubtless the round pigs, the shaggy-dog bar conversations, the Stalin-era meat preserved in a vast freezer at 28º (below?), the large dolls whose heads are made of chewed bread, are all products of the fevered imagination of Vladimir Sorokin. So too are the repetitions of doubling, doubling scenes, twins, the fantastic clone tales, hinting that the world has gone mad and gone bad. Unfortunately the barking dogs, the endless trek cross-country to a wake peopled by colorful locals already had the quality of déjâ-vu, maybe because I've recently seen similar sequences in Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia and the Bulgarian Konstantin Bojanov's Avé, and I think I've seen it before that. I'll bet Emir Kosturica did some sequence like this somewhere. This movie is accomplished, ambitious in its eccentricity. Some of it nonetheless reminded me of Harmony Korine's Trash Humpers. And it made me appreciate Sokurov and Zvyagintsev even more, and, in a more popular vein, Bekmambetov, who's an entertainer and a technical dazzler, and no slouch in the surrealism department. Certainly, though, "4" is very much in the Russian vein. The sound design, though typically grating and overblown, is technically the film's most original aspect.

If you have ever heard the phrase, "And now for something entirely different"..., this fits 4 to an absolute T. You will get nowhere if you try to over-analyze, or try to figure what is meant by it. It works best if you let it wash over you. In its own perverse way, it really has a lasting effect. It begins bright and shining, and ends wet, muddy, drunken, and haggard. Is it a metaphor for the New Russia, a critique on the possibility of secret cloning experiments, or a celebration of drunken crones? I don't know, but I do know that this is truly like none other. If you are in a mood for A Walk On The Wild Side of Independent Cinema, give this film a look. The only films that are even remotely close to this, are the movies of Chicago director, James Fotopoulos.

thank god ilya K made this film, even though it doesn't add up to anywhere near as much as it could have.This is in many ways a very talented first-time directors art-house showcase film, pinching ideas willy nilly (not least from a certain Russian photographer) and rubbing the audience's face relentlessly, and to some degree a little unnecessarily, in his inventiveness. If it was calculated to make him the darling of festivals, which I'm sure was hardly the main point, it worked.Does it hide its shock tactics structural weaknesses (the second half is a real, repetitive mess) behind notions of the auteur, of interpretive demands that must be made on an audience, on "social comment", and the usual avant=gardist stuff? Yeah, it does. That doesn't mean it's worthless. You just wish that Ilya K and Sorokin, apparently a great novelist, had thought a little more about cinematic narrative forms and what you can do with them.That said, it's an unforgettable, beautiful mess of an artwork.

Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick! The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!