This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I am a fan of science fiction, both in written word and film. I have been trying to broaden my scope by watching science fiction films from around the world, so when my friend mentioned that the Pacific Film Archive was showing an obscure modern Russian science fiction film called "Under Electric Clouds", I jumped at the opportunity, despite a few very negative reviews. After all, critics are often wrong. While I have no regrets, in this case, the critics were right. I believe I used the term "horrid" as we left.Normally, in my reviews, this is where I put the basic plot points. I have nothing for you. I have absolutely no clue what the movie was about. There were several small stories, sort of intertwined, possibly taking place at various points in time that may or may not have overlapped. One was about an immigrant. One had kids on drugs. One was about two siblings returning home after their father died. It was likely deeply existential and full of subliminal meaning, but damned if I could make heads nor tails of it. To make matters worse, the dialog and acting was so stilted and so passive that more than one person in the audience found themselves drifting off to sleep. Several simply walked out. The saving grace to this film was the cinematography. There were some beautiful shots that were evocative and intriguing. But the rest was sadly not science fiction and too obscure to resonate with even the most cultured film snobs, though it might play better with a Russian audience. It is safe to say, this one will not be joining the collection at this time.

The movie is straight follower of classic existentialism (impressionistic).You should see this picture only in theatre. Because it has so consistent photography. Contrasts and color are chosen very good.EVERY frame is made to perfection. When frame moves, I relax absolutely and enjoy every single shot of this movie. Though I understand that Alexei made gigantic work. Only after theater I checked - they indeed were shooting with some interruptions for over 4 years.If you know a little how cinema makers work - it is definitely for you to enjoy. Absolute perfection.Movie has preface words: "Aligning and positioning do not exist. Picture is relation of contrast, even just relation of black and white" (Paul Cézanne).Action prevails over motive. Action exists as itself, no randomness, because everything will repeat itself. No matter what happened as it will happen again and were happening before. Atmosphere prevails over plotting. Metaphor is strongest move.I think central in there is metaphor of Post Cold War world. Compare age of twenties to what we have now. Because of that author is using 72 kWatt house illumination (house of artists episode) to make straight passing to "shining twenties".In some episodes there is interesting notions about "90-es OD feeling" and "80-ies fall of USSR era". And all this OD world is compared to our, is frozen just because nobody has balls to move it.Also I see many relations to works of Anton Chekhov. Most notable is relation to "missing person" genre. Just check out "The Cherry Orchard", everything is related to world of that play.Though I have some negative, which is mostly about my opinion. I would like some clarifications in middle of movie. May it is due to interruptions in production of movie. Because of it you can notice difference between first and second halves.

I've seen a lot of so called artsy movies, from many directors, and although that genre can be really subjective, this one, was by far one of the worse movies I've ever seen. The reason why I give it a glorious three is because the photography is quite good, and atemporal, but still, I don't think I ever hated a Russian movie until today. Artsy should not mean: lack of script, lack of intensity, or robotic characters. Artsy (in my point of view) means something new far away from what we are used to see in commercial movies. None are bad as long as they can use their tools as best. This movie is about absolutely nothing, supposedly on a near future and it is (or tries to be) a compilation of short stories with different characters, but none of them tells a single story. The characters are boring, robotic, with really silly (stupid) dialogs, and although, for the first half an hour, I thought it was just the way the story was gonna start, it comes out that there is not really a story but a bunch of simple shortcuts kind of co- related at the end... in which there is not a single story in anyone of them. With no believable justification, with many blanks and open questions that are never solved, and with an idea of a play that never gets to an end and it doesn't even start. I can't recall any music on the movie, what makes it even slower. None of the people from the audience liked it, I saw their faces and heard their comments. Watch it if you can't sleep. I'm sure you will and your dreams are gonna be way more interesting.