A Masterpiece!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

'It's a pity you're not here with me. You would understand everything. Look. The sea is all around. We are destined to sail forever. To live forever'- quotes the narrator of the story. To live forever was this movie mission, and for the most part, it kinda does. A 90-minute Russian film shot using only a Steadicam and over 2,000 actors inside a Russian history museum in one complete, continuous, uninterrupted take is indeed, going to stand out! However, there were a few mistakes on the camera that was noticeable, such as children looking at the camera or people tripping down the stairs. I guess, the director didn't notice or he really didn't feel for film editing. Still, the enormity of their accomplishment is even more striking when one realizes that the 33-rooms museum only granted one day for director Alexander Sokurov to shoot the film. After three false starts, he completed it just in time. That's pretty impressed. Set entirely within a dream-like world, the film tells the story of an unseen narrator (Voiced by Alexander Sokurov) and a foreign nobleman from the 19th century named Marquis de Custine (Sergey Dreyden) checking out the artifact artwork within the St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum complex. As they talk, about the relics within the museum; each new room holds 300 years of recreated Russian history, allow them, to witness key events with key people play out in front of them, across different times within Russia past. This achievement was made possible by over 4,500 cast in many different lavish period outfit & historic costumes. It took four years of practice to get the film choreographic right. For that hard work ethic, we can only be thankful. The fruit of all, their labor is a delicate exploration of the nature of history and its effect on a national consciousness. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I found the movie to be, beautifully shot by Cinematographer Tilman Büttner. I love, how the steadicam camera floats, glides and even waltzes its way through all the film's commotion, spotlighting various moments of action and people seemingly at random as if a trance. As much, as I would have love to see, the historic events play out in order. The non-linear, improvisational 'structure' of the film thus acts as an evocation of the disarray of a nation's past, as if somebody is looking back only through nostalgic goggles at Imperial Russia. Trying really hard to remember, the good thing about Russia's Golden Age, but also trying really hard to ignore everything that wasn't good about their history, such as anything before Peter the Great or the time, the country was rebranded as the Soviet Union. Clearly, the movie had some troubles, talking about certain events like World War 2 or the Russian Revolution. It felt like, it was trying too hard to steer away from conflict. Some viewers might hate the film, due to that reason. I can understand; why certain audience members felt the movie was somewhat dull or boring. Without conflict, you don't have, much of a story. Despite the narrative's sluggishness, the movie does try to have somewhat of a story-arch with Marquis de Custine. I like his character development. At first, the Marquis' attitude toward Russia was mostly negative. He found the country to be, a bit too savage and full of uncreative actors. He felt like they were trying too hard of a carbon copy of other European countries at the time & incapable of something ingenuity. By the end of the film, he became, much more aware to Russia dusha and start to warm up to the idea of Russia having their own culture. As much as certain critics might find the character, unlikeable. His real life-couther part was a little harsher about Russia than this one. The movie got nearly nothing right about the character. The real-life Custine really hate autocracy, and everything about Tsarism. Another thing is that he wasn't a womanizer, but an open, practicing homosexual. I really found it odd, that he was chosen to be, one of the film's narrative voice. Still, I love the actor that play him. He remind me, so much of Christoph Waltz in the way, he speaks and moves. I also love the smart dialogue that seem to follow him, but it's clear, that the sound was added, way after filming was done. You can clearly see it, in the voice dubbing. The dialogue doesn't really match with the character's mouth movement at times. Another problem is that, it's really hard to figure out, who is speaking, and what they're trying to say. While, intriguing, some of the dialogue and artwork use are so vague, that it doesn't make, much sense. Then, there are plenty of artwork that doesn't get explain. Maybe, the film was a bit too artsy in the art-house department for me, because I really didn't get some of what the film was trying to say. Despite that, the climatic ending was very clear, but somewhat predictable. The whole movie, then, can be seen as a fight against the complex of inferiority of the Russian artist. At least, that is what I got from it. Anyways, the music and set pieces that follow the narrative, were great. Overall: I love the elegant dream like historic reenactments in this film. It was a somber watch, worth checking out. It's a very trippy film.

I think I first found out about the film properly when it was mentioned in the TV documentary series The Story of Film: An Odyssey, and I saw it listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I knew as a film lover it was one I had to see. Basically the whole film takes place during a winter's day inside and outside of a Winter Palace manor and museum, all seen through the point of view of an unseen Narrator (Alexander Sokurov, also directing), going through 33 rooms and courtyards, and there are no cuts whatsoever. It begins with a small party of men and women in a horse-drawn carriage arriving at the side entrance, the unseen narrator meets the European / the Stranger (The Marquis de Custine) (Sergey Dreyden). The narrator follows the stranger through numerous rooms of the palace, each room manifesting a different period, not in chronological order, or Russian history. Featured are one of the generals of Peter the Great (Maksim Sergeyev) being harassed; the era of Catherine the Great (Mariya Kuznetsova) with a spectacular presentation of operas and plays; Tsar Nicholas II (Vladimir Baranov) in front of an imperial audience being offered a formal apology for the the death of ambassador Alexander Griboedov by the Shah of Iran, also the idyllic family life of his children; the ceremonial changing of the Palace Guard; during the rule of Joseph Stalin the museum director is whispering that repairs are needed; and during the 900 day siege of the city during World War II a desperate man from Leningrad is making his own coffin. A grand ball follows with many participants being in spectacular period costume, the music of Mikhail Glinka is featured, a full orchestra being conducted by Valery Gergiev is playing, then a crowd is seen going down the grand staircase for the long final exit. The narrator then walks out of the hallway backwards to see many different people dressed in clothing from different time periods, the narrator then leaves the building through the side exit. The narrator sees an endless ocean as he leaves and does not look back or see the building, this could be interpreted as an ark preserving Russian culture as it floats in the sea of time. Also starring Leonid Mozgovoy as The Spy, David Giorgobiani as Orbeli and Aleksandr Chaban as Boris Piotrovsky. This film took four attempts to complete, the first three attempts were riddled with technical problems, but the fourth attempt of continuous single-take filming became was successful and is the final, a full hour and forty minutes of POV Steadicam uncut footage. There are some interesting things to see throughout the unedited sweep in and out of the building, including paintings and other artwork, and 2,000 actors and three orchestras in period costume, I will be honest that the draw to this film is obviously the fact that it is all one take, but it is a well executed experimental film drama. Very good!

This is slow moving but I really like it. It's about a ghostly narrator traveling through the Hermitage. 3 centuries of Russian history are all fit into a single uninterrupted take. It's very impressive that they were able to do it and it makes this film very ambitious. The reenactments of historical events are entertaining and surprisingly engaging. The Hermitage is known for its well done architecture and the movie helped bring its great architecture to the screen. It is gorgeous to look at and it displays several shots real well making them highly memorable. If you don't like slow paced movies then this is not for you but if you like slow movies then you'll most likely enjoy it. Little if not any action happens in this movie yet I enjoyed every bit of it. The ending is quite poignant and it is very thought provoking and a lot of thought went into it. The movie gives you ideas and concepts to think about long after viewing it and its final shot will be lingering in your head. This is a memorable movie that must be watched by all people who like the Art House genre.

A film in one take! Of course let's not forget Murnau and "The Last Laugh" made 75 years before. It is a technical feat to be sure but it runs out of steam not too long into the film. We figure the trick out early on and visually, the film just seems to ramble. It feels at times like a guided tour of a huge museum where there so much great art the mind simply turns off. Trying to fit a plot of sorts into such a project is hard enough as it is, but an uninteresting story line... I enjoy long takes - please don't get me wrong on that issue - but we have been spoiled by some virtuoso directors who can use them and cut brilliantly as well. Bravo for the technique but one viewing was more than enough.Curtis Stotlar