I love this movie so much

Pretty Good

The acting in this movie is really good.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Making a movie pro or against anything as "The Student" does it, is not hard. Following the examples of the despised propaganda that biased media provide us, the movie depicts just the right circumstances that prove the needed points. I guess the film is in some way intellectually provoking but it's a 2016 film.Let me elaborate: 1 century ago film-makers and media creators started to put to work the brainwashing power of mass-communication. Today even commercials don't take themselves too seriously; otherwise you don't take the product seriously - we all know ads are just a way to sell something.Serebrennikov and von Mayenburg instead take themselves very seriously as if they are contributing to mankind's progress (for sale) or unveiling some great mystery (while they are just giving another shape to ideas and concerns way older than them). They take themselves too seriously for someone who chose not to become a prime minister, an academic or a prophet. They are supposedly entertainers but they don't seem to care about the boring and lengthy script.Therefore, for the potential audience of the movie (which is very limited and likely made up of people that already agree on most of the points the authors stress), warning! This is mostly an annoying waste of time with very few redeeming moments.While respecting the fact that someone may still learn something or ask himself some new questions as a "response" to the movie, there is nearly no entertainment; it's just a prosaic, uninspired lesson. Watch Agora (2009) instead.

Yet another bleak, cynical Russian take on the modern world and its moral conditions (Leviathan, etc). Here, Russian director Kirill Serebrennikov and German playwright Marius Von Mayenburg re-tread the age old argument that pits Christianity against the modern worlds view on human morality. Made in a somewhat trendy, dismal style, with too many shaky hand held shots and some overbearing music - these movie makers, as with so many others over the decades, seem to think they have reached an informed conclusion so, able to convince us all of their superior intellectual standpoint. They have both chosen to overlook the fact that vast numbers who went before them, have concluded that it's an unwinnable topic that leaves more questions than answers – in fact, many who set out to fight against and disprove the wisdom of Christ's word, converted over to it.They use many of the Bibles strongest passages to substantiate their subservient arguments but the language presented on both sides of their viewpoint tends to suggest that perhaps: The Wisdom of Man is Less than the Foolishness of God. Their protagonist is portrayed as a psychotic who quotes almost verbatim Bible scriptures but, he is ultimately shown to be as crippled as the cripple he tries to heal, then harms. This character offers no real basis to mount a genuine argument. As another reviewer has already stated: Laughable. Set in a current (surprisingly undisciplined) Russian school, many of the usual hooks are put-out to appeal to our basic instincts: Sexual freedoms (with lashings of nudity and sexual situations) ~ Anti Semitism (with the biology-sex-ed teacher being both anti-Christian and Jewish, in fact - her character simply allows for situations of associated Christian based hatred, to be easily introduced within the ideals of the modern world) ~ Next, there's the headmistress and the teacher of religious studies - both shown to be perhaps out of touch (as one might expect). These movie makers have perfectly armed themselves with so many manipulative character devises to support their biased point of view. It's too easy to mount an argument by designing characters to serve an already formed view. If the topic leans your way it could appeal - otherwise, stay away.

This is the main idea of this film, which is a parable and a satire at the same time. The main character is a text-book case of a psychotic person, with all relevant schizophrenia symptoms (visual hallucinations, illusion of grandeur, paranoid ideas). Many of the scenes actually describe psychotic crises (getting undressed, wearing the ape costume, carrying the cross, abusing his friend, killing him etc.). So this is actually simple to understand. But the movie goes beyond that. The parable aspect of the film is that no one (neither the biology teacher) understands the madness of this character, and treat him like a normal person (or at least in acceptable terms). They all come into argument with him, support or contradict his delirious ideas, and finally tolerate his fundamentalist way of thinking (which is the product of mental disease). Of course the situation is not realistic; in the normal world, the person would be immediately taken to a hospital. But the point that the director is trying to make is that fundamentalist ideas are a delirium that is contagious, that other people tend to lose their critical thinking, that science can not withstand the attack of religious ideas and that normal people can actually become victims when the liberal values are dismissed. A beautiful, heart-breaking movie about how society's values can be lost, along with sanity, love and respect to each other.

Nowadays Russian cinema is more political than ever. And its political word is not shy, it frankly declares war against either bureaucratic or societal corruption (or both), as we can see in Leviathan, Durak, and this film. But the most dangerous enemy in this war, is the scope of the enemy. If you define the whole corrupt society as something to destroy, who will be your allies in this war? No one, for sure. You're as lonely as Don Quixote in his delusions.Actually, the idea of "the Holy Bible in a human's body" as a character is striking, strengthened by the undeniable references. The viewers are forced to observe how religious fundamentalism can threaten the society, especially when the people around cannot see the big picture, cannot imagine what will come next and feed the beast naively as if donating to the church. But as I mentioned above, despite the power of its criticism this movie too is unfortunately flawed with the problem of being incapable of providing solution, like similar others. The film rightfully asks: "This religious fundamentalism is poisoning us! What is the antidote to it?" But the answer is perfectly oxymoronical: "We need idealist individuals, but hopeless at the same time due to their loneliness..."So, according to me it's clear that these "pessimist-idealist" characters represent the directors themselves. They can foresee what's coming, they want to do something, but when they look around they realize that they don't have anyone to cooperate with. So, disappointed with this loneliness, they get critical of the society much more than the problems the society is experiencing. So, contradictorily, what we as the viewers have in the end is not a motivation for action, but a reflection of the pessimism of the director dictating us to sit and smile cynically at the inevitable self-destruction of the society.