My Reviews of Russian Films
Some of these reviews are quite old, perhaps as much as 15-16 years, so I can't really vouch for them representing my current opinions on the movies in question.
Listed in no particular order, except that all the latest additions will be placed on top.
Listed in no particular order, except that all the latest additions will be placed on top.
List activity
144 views
• 2 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
9 titles
- DirectorAndrei TarkovskyStarsAlisa FreyndlikhAleksandr KaydanovskiyAnatoliy SolonitsynA guide leads two men through an area known as the Zone to find a room that grants wishes.Visually stunning sci/fi drama.
10/10
I loved "Solaris" so I was quite curious about Tarkovsky's other sci-fi film, "Stalker", especially because I'd read "The Roadside Picnic" several years earlier, the book on which this movie is based. A terrific book, by the way.
Not quite as good as "Solaris" (or the book) but head above shoulders in relation to the vast majority of other sci-fis and dramas, and a masterpiece in its own right.
Like "Solaris" it is slow (but in a good, "arty" way), quite lengthy, visually brilliant, and philosophical. But not to worry - I don't mean the kind of fortune-cookie philosophical moralizing you'd find in a piece of trash like "Good Will Hunting". (The Zone is a strictly Hollywood-morons-free area. I believe the aliens that left it there booby-trapped it against all decadent show-biz types.)
The dialogue is oftentimes fascinating, the only problem with it being that perhaps there should have been more of it. The silent scenes do tend to drag a bit, just a tad. (Maybe Tarkovsky admires Bergman's early non-event movies too much; I personally can't stand him.) One of the few films in which the b&w-to-colour transition makes sense and works well.
This is a highly intelligent film that consists of layers, not the kind of superficial pseudo-intellectualism that we get from wannabe movies of this kind, from far less intelligent and/or competent film-makers. - DirectorSvyatoslav PodgaevskiyChristopher BevinsStarsViktoriya AgalakovaEfim PetruninSofya ShidlovskayaAn aquatic nymph falls obsessively in love with a man and wants to have him with her forever in her underwater kingdom, where she is doomed to spend eternity.This will have you at the edge of your seat! If for all the wrong reasons...
2/10
A movie that had me at the edge of my seat, almost falling over on numerous occasions. Monotony can do that. I was awfully bored by this useless, cliche-ridden conveyor-belt horror.
As so often with bad horror films, the title is a blatant lie. This has zero to do with mermaids. It's a friggin' poltergeist. She may be a persistent ghost but she's also very dull, even at her most active. Every time I download a mermaid horror it has to disappoint me. WHY all these clown film-makers can't make a decent film about ACTUAL mermaids, I have no idea.
The intro pretty much gives away the whole movie. It explains that the "rusalka" (mermaid) takes a man into the water - in which case he is efffed. If he escapes, he remains insane for the rest of his life, i.e. He is efffed. It's a lose-lose situation however you spin it.
The swimmer's sister tries to cast a spell to sacrifice his fiancee, but why? He'll escape death but remain insane. Nor is it ever explained how come his sister knows so much about the "mermaid" past yet he knows nothing about it. And since she knew, why didn't she warn him about not swimming there? Why didn't his father warn him? Why leave him the house? Too dumb.
But these are not major issues. The plot is too simplistic, too banal, and the direction relies purely on cliches. The cast is bland, and they look quite bored. I can smell nepotism from a mile, let alone this up close. Russia is a nation that's been struggling with extreme corruption for centuries, and this cast is probably awash with nepotists. Probably a whole bunch of Putinists i.e. Apparatchiks.
No wonder the script is pedestrian and the cast crap. Putin's Russia isn't a fertile ground for high art, mildly put. I know how things work here in Serbia: if you're not part of the political ruling elite, i.e. The dictatorship, you can barely get funding for anything, much less a movie. This must be even more extreme in Putin's Russia. So far I've had nearly only disappointments when it comes to modern Russian cinema. (Admittedly, and ironically, the current political climate - as well as nepotism - in the West also prevents prosperity in the arts...)
From a technical standpoint the movie is well made. I.e. A lack of funds isn't the issue. It's a lack of talent and/or willingness to deliver a quality product.
All three actresses are totally bland - and this is a Russian movie! I want beautiful Russian women in Russian films: is that too much to ask for? It isn't. Russia is full of beauties, yet this movie strikes out on all three counts. Worst of all, the least attractive one is the "seductive mermaid"! What a screw-up by the incompetent casting director. A ravishing beauty may have added some credibility to this nonsense or at least briefly wiled away the boredom whenever she appears to terrorize someone. - DirectorEgor AbramenkoStarsOksana AkinshinaFedor BondarchukPyotr FyodorovThe lone survivor of an enigmatic spaceship incident hasn't returned home alone - hiding inside his body is a dangerous creature.Some nonsense here and there, but overall more intelligent than most alien-creature films.
6/10
Much better than most of the recent Russian productions I'd come across in the previous decade, whether I watched them in their entirety or chose not to waste my time with them at all.
A fairly original approach to the alien body-snatcher cliche. This time instead of just having random carnage like in a computer game (hint: "Alien" or "Doom"), there is an actual symbiotic relationship between the creature and his host, and this is explored (quasi) scientifically, and from several dramatic angles as well: something we're not used to from American movies which are nearly always very straight-forward and dumb with this theme.
Sure, there are the usual military-wants-to-use-alien-as-weapon cliches, but at least for once it isn't the U.S. military but the Russian military - or to be more precise the Soviet one. This is set in 1983.
Considering that Putin's tyrannical, mentally ill regime has a rather schizophrenic attitude toward the USSR, it was interesting to see how the USSR would be portrayed. It is portrayed as corrupt and inhuman, here at least. Perhaps the next Russian movie set in the USSR will be pro-Soviet? That would be in line with the afore-mentioned schizophrenia. This is assuming that Putin's censorship team is in full control of all scripts (i.e. scripts depend on their approval), which is a logical assumption in such a control-freakish 100% dictatorship such as the one in current Russia.
I do have an issue about Oksana's common sense though. She is against feeding the creature with live prisoners. Considering that these prisoners are all child-killers (or similar scum), then not only is the decision justifiable but ingenious. What a great punishment to have such deviants fed to a head-crushing monster! Furthermore, Oksana wants to risk bringing the cosmo-nut into the civilian population, completely disregarding the havoc the monster could wreck there. She seems to believe that the life of one person is more worth than that of many. The hell?...
Besides, the real Soviet Union wouldn't feed deviants to the monster, it would feed political prisoners to it. They'd actually recruit the deviants into the KGB. (The more intelligent deviants would become spies, the dumb ones would sweep the floors.) Could this be how Putin got recruited into the KGB? Did he slaughter children in a kindergarten? Just speculating...
The writer wanted so badly for Oksana and the astronaut to escape the base but... well... escape from a top-secret Soviet military base would have been pretty much impossible, which is why the writer resorted to some rather flimsy, unconvincing plot-devices:
1. Allowing the cosmo-nut to have more freedom made little sense. The creature was extremely dangerous and it may have been becoming more independent, or at least stronger, with time. Giving him new quarters was illogical.
2. Allowing the cosmo-nut to mingle with Oksana outside - pretty much unsupervised as far as conversations go - made very little sense too.
3. Oksana convincing the "Nobel Prize hopeful" doctor to help her - hence pretty much to seal his own fate - also seemed far-fetched.
4. Oksana and the cosmo-nut being shot at by Soviet's elite forces at close range, yet missing her, was far-fetched.
5. The jeep leaving the base: also not realistic.
Still, despite the movies screenplay flaws the story is developed interestingly and fairly competently. The dialog isn't the kind of Mickey Mouse crap we get in American monster movies (whether 50s B-movies or recent big-budget: not much difference there). That Oksana falls for the astro-nut is a bit too convenient for the writer, but I guess he needed certain things to play out the way he'd intended.
A slick movie, but with a better written, more logical first half. But then, isn't that nearly always the case in such movies? The resolution (in thrillers/horrors/mysteries) is usually where most of the nonsense occurs, when the logic falls apart i.e. is sacrificed to the needs of the story, but at least I wasn't bored with it. And none of the nonsense was too annoying or hugely stupid.
The movie offers a unique situation, whereby the host of a body snatcher - in a way - takes part in cannibal behaviour (though not intentionally). This presents a fun philosophical dilemma: did the cosmo-nut become a cannibal or not? - DirectorSvyatoslav PodgaevskiyStarsAlina BabakValeriya DmitrievaIgor KhripunovThere is an ancient ritual known to humankind for more than a hundred years...According to the legend, an ominous entity known as The Queen of Spades can be summoned by drawing a door and staircase on a mirror in the darkness, and by saying her name three times. The Queen of Spades gets her energy from reflective objects; she cuts locks of hair from those asleep, and those that see her go mad or die. Four teenagers decide to call The Queen of Spades as a joke. But when one of them dies of a sudden heart attack, the group realizes they are up against something inexplicable and deadly dangerous.Russian, yet very American.
5/10
When I saw there was a Russian horror film, I was fairly curious to see it. I'm getting a little fed up with the formulaic persistence of American films, so anything that might stray at least a bit from the recipe might be fun. Plus, it is a very different culture, so how American can it be, right?
Well, the makers didn't stray much from the American formula. This is basically Russians doing an American horror film. BUT, visually the film is better than the vast majority of modern western horror flicks (because it features more than 2-3 colours), AND the film is in Russian, a language I find very interesting to listen to.
The plot is fairly standard: some kids summon a ghost and then a curse lops them off one by one until a curse expert comes to the rescue. The first hour is basically a rehash of the American teen-curse shtick, while the last half-hour surprisingly becomes an exorcism flick.
And what an attractive redhead! Russians at least don't have a need for casting sub-par-looking actresses, at least judging from this film. - DirectorAndrei TarkovskyStarsNatalya BondarchukDonatas BanionisJüri JärvetA psychologist is sent to a station orbiting a distant planet in order to discover what has caused the crew to go insane.One of the best sci-fi films of all time.
10/10
Tarkovsky's first sci-fi/drama is one of the best films ever made. "Solaris", based on Lem's novel, is an intellectual affair but I mean that in the best possible way. It isn't pretentious, but it is very intelligent, a very rare feat in the dumb world of cinema.
The dialog is fascinating, and the story often captivating. The photography is excellent, the movie having a sort of mood all of its own. Quite long, but never boring. In fact, I wish it were even longer.
This is the kind of intelligent, unique movie Bergman would have done if he had only been capable of it, and if his interests had gone beyond sopa-operatic dramas.
If you liked this, you will probably also enjoy Boorman's vastly underrated "Zardoz" and Tarkovsky's other sci-fi drama, "Stalker".
What you shouldn't do is watch Soderbergh's awful George Clooney remake. It ranks as one of the worst sci-fis ever made. (Well, anything with Clooney is likely to be bad, and Soderbergh is a pretty reliable deliverer of garbage, as well.)
Unfortunately, I failed to write a proper review after my 3-4 viewings of this film, hence this is all I got... - DirectorAndrei TarkovskyStarsMargarita TerekhovaFilipp YankovskiyIgnat DaniltsevA dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.You know you're in trouble when the narrator refuses to talk to you, but spits bad poetry left and right Tarkovsky's pretentious sloth.
5/10
Totally inferior to "Solaris" and "Stalker". Laziness sometimes hides behind the veil of "deep", hard-to-decipher "symbolism".
Predictably, this messy non-story received rave reviews on this site. It's the old "I'll pretend I understood it so as not to appear dumb" movie-viewing phenomenon (coupled with the "I'll gain respect from my peers by showing appreciation for 'deep' movies" inferiority complex). Just how deeply ingrained this fear - this disease - is in the human mind is best illustrated by this: Tarkovsky himself once said that most people leave the theater in silence after they'd finished watching "Zerkalo". Tarkovsky must have said this with a touch of pride, hoping "Zerkalo" affected people deeply, emotionally, on a subconscious level, leaving them speechless and immersed in intellectual musing. However, the reality, as so often, is quite different from wishful thinking. Why did these people leave the theater in silence? Because they didn't DARE complain. Because they were utterly confused. Nearly everyone is afraid of not having understood the "symbolism". Always keep in mind: the vast majority of humanoids have a powerful FEAR of being exposed as morons or cowards in society. One of the many ways this can occur is by saying you didn't understand a movie. If you failed to understand "Bambi", then you truly are a moron. On the other hand, by not admitting you were confused by pretentious European cinema you may think you have succeeded in hiding your supposed lack of intelligence, but all you've achieved is to show that you're a coward - unable to tear apart a movie like this with the frankness that it frankly deserves.
I'm told this film is about a dying man, recouping his life, childhood, divorce... I've never even noticed that the narrator was dying! Where was this mentioned? (Perhaps I just dozed off ) Unfortunately, the narration here is done through poetry, i.e. basic info is convoluted through riddles and other garbage, which basically means that "Zerkalo" becomes a puzzle to solve - like so many dumb European films - instead of a story to enjoy. Who says a movie has to be riddled with puzzles and "symbolism" in order to be "artistically valid"? Just exactly where is this written? I am not saying a film should spell everything out, i.e. require no amount of thought, but going to the other extreme can be just as stupid/pointless. "Zerkalo" means almost nothing. The thin premise of a dying man and his reminiscing not only does not constitute a story, but is very DULL as well. I did not care about his life because his life was not nearly eventful and interesting enough to validate its being put on the big screen.
So what does one get when poetry (i.e. rhythmic/semantic puzzles) is layered on top of a bunch of meaningless, often unrelated scenes? You get a wonderful stew of nonsense, leaving the viewer free to interpret it IN ANY WAY he chooses. Whatever meaning you find in this malarkey is totally individual, and can be easily supported by a plethora of invented arguments. It's like a Picasso "painting": abstract enough crap to elicit any kind of meaning. Picasso and Tarkovsky's "Zerkalo" have that one thing in common: both are feared greatly by people who lack the guts to admit to others (and sometimes even to themselves!) that they do not understand it. (Besides, what's there to understand?)
Whenever a movie requires a road map, you know it has failed - at least in the story department. What does all that documentary footage mean? Tarkovsky pretentiously shoves various newsreels into "Ogledalo", most probably because he likes the way they look. Maybe HE saw a meaning, i.e. a link between those scenes and the story, but I believe that movies can be approached as food in restaurants: the customer is always right. Or at least: the director ISN'T always right. Tarkovsky can talk about how all the scenes here have a purpose until he's blue in the face, and I still won't take him seriously. It isn't difficult to link the unlinkable: all you need is some imagination and an even healthier amount of self-delusion. What Tarkovsky and "Zerkalo"'s fans see in this film will only make sense in their confused, deluded, hallucinatory little minds.
On the other hand, "Ogledalce" has some very good photography, especially the scenes in colour. The documentary footage, if nothing, is a welcome refreshment amidst all the confusing nonsense, some of which is quite dull, as well.
Symbolism? A man holding a bird in his hand, while the narrator emits incomprehensible poetry at the poor viewer? Yeah, the bird symbolizes life, whatever. The stuttering boy from the first scene probably symbolizes the difficulty of communication in society. Whatever. There is a problem with communication amongst humans?? Really??? Why, thank you, Mr.Tarkovsky, for letting us in on that great secret! I never, EVER, would have realized this were it not for "Zerkalo". The point I'm making is that below all these clouds of verbal and visual riddles, there often hides a message (IF there is one) that is banal, anything but deep. Sometimes the message in such movies is merely "life is hard". How veeeery deep
Going back to the stuttering boy scene: the great irony, of course, is that movies such as these don't exactly help in the area of communication, do they? The viewer leaves the theater silent, wondering what the hell he just spend 100 minutes of his life on. Tarkovsky failed to communicate his oh-so deep thoughts even worse than the stutterer...
"The Mirror" is like a magic trick (without the use of mirrors): you're fooled (if you're gullible enough) into believing that what you've just witnessed was something deeply profound. It's a scam. - DirectorSergey MokritskiyStarsNikita VolkovEvgeniy TkachukOlga BorovskayaA video game designer is stripped of his identity and recruited by a mysterious force to be the gatekeeper of a multi-dimensional portal.5/10
I recall getting a bit bored with this, partially the result of a muddled plot. The script is just all over the place, the writer expecting you to either have read the book already (which I didn't coz I have zero interest in modern fiction) or to pay close attention to the confusing plot and the mostly mediocre dialog.
Nice special effects, a premise that could have worked, but I get the feeling the biggest drawback is the attempt to cram too much plot into two hours.
Unfortunately, I didn't do a review when I watched it, so I wasn't able to write more than this.
Bland actor playing the main character. Doesn't help. - DirectorAleksey BalabanovStarsAleksandr MosinOleg GarkushaYuriy MatveevSanja the Bandit after a particularly vicious shootout, stumbles into the musician Oleg at the local banya. Following a retelling of a semi-mythological story, the pair decide to make a pilgrimage to a "bell-tower of happiness".6/10
Another film I omitted or forgot to write a review about.
I recall a visually interesting movie with a slightly supernatural plot, and some unusual scenes.
The cute chubby woman running naked in the snow is what brought me to this film, while I was putting together my "T**s Oscars" lists about a decade ago. - DirectorTimur BekmambetovStarsKonstantin KhabenskiyVladimir MenshovMariya PoroshinaA fantasy-horror set in present-day Moscow where the respective forces that control daytime and nighttime do battle.I believe I watched this around 2005-06, and because I failed to write a review then, I have nothing to add now. Seems to have been a solid film, as the rating indicates.
Of course, I may have rated it lower now.