A 90-minute movie centered on St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum, filmed in one unbroken take by a digital steadicam, didn't send a lot of Americans racing to buy tickets when it was shown here two or three years ago. The movie, however, is far more than just a technical stunt. It's a unique tour de force with emotional impact.

Russian Ark portrays the Hermitage as a kind of cultural and historical ark floating on centuries of Russian seas. The narrative device is a shadowy eighteenth century Frenchman who wanders the halls and time periods, commenting often with good-natured European condescension on what he sees. He is accompanied by a Russian who is never seen, and who questions him about his comments. The movie ranges through time with appearances of Peter the Great, Catherine II, Pushkin, Nicholas II and his family, generals, maids, flunkies and diplomats. The Frenchman, played with great style by Russian actor Sergei Dreiden, takes us to painting and sculpture galleries, kitchens, ballrooms, storerooms, basements and living quarters as we observe things that happened in the Hermitage over the centuries.

At first, I was very aware of the technical feat of no cuts. Gradually, though, I think most people just relax and accept the skill of the director and photographer, and become immersed in what they are seeing. A kind of unreal imagery takes hold. The movie ends with the last dance held in the Great Ballroom before WWI. Hundreds of actors and dancers, in full costume, swirl around this ornate setting, and swirl around the camera as well, while the camera glides through the crowds. It's a terrific scene, and is followed by the end of the dance with all the hundreds of guests making their way through the halls and staircases to leave the building, with the camera facing them and moving along in front of them.

This is a highly unusual film, probably a great one.

Sokurov breaks boundaries with his dreamlike vision of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. It's the first feature-length narrative film shot in a single take (on digital video, using a specially designed disc instead of tape). "Russian Ark" is shot from the point-of-view of an unseen narrator, as he explores the museum and travels through Russian history. The audience sees through his eyes as he witnesses Peter the Great (Maksim Sergeyev) abusing one of his generals; Catherine the Great (Maria Kuznetsova) desperately searching for a bathroom; and, in the grand finale, the sumptuous Great Royal Ball of 1913. The narrator is eventually joined by a sarcastic and eccentric 19th century French Marquis (Sergey Dreiden), who travels with him throughout the huge grounds, encountering various historical figures and viewing the legendary artworks on display. While the narrator only interacts with the Marquis (he seems to be invisible to all the other inhabitants), the Marquis occasionally interacts with visitors and former residents of the museum.

The film was obviously shot in one day, but the cast and crew rehearsed for months to time their movements precisely with the flow of the camera while capturing the complex narrative, with elaborate costumes from different periods, and several trips out to the exterior of the museum. Tillman Buttner, the director of photography, was responsible for capturing it all in one single Steadicam shot. "Russian Ark" is an amazing accomplishment, and clearly made with passion, but while the film is sure to be hailed as a masterpiece by some, its narrative conceit isn't nearly as interesting as the technical feat of its creation. The result is a unique and intelligent film with sporadic moments of transcendent beauty that fails to create a strong emotional connection with its audience. It's essentially a 96-minute museum tour, with the added benefit of time travel and wax figures that briefly come to life.

But wax figures are all they are, essentially. Sokurov, as though following a hasty guide, spends so little time with the historical figures he portrays that it often feels as though he's moving on just as you begin to figure out who and what you're watching. The Russian experience of World War II, for example, is portrayed with a brief stop in a foreboding, ghostly room filled with coffins. The filmmaker is known for his lugubrious pacing, but Russian Ark has the odd distinction of seeming both slow paced and rushed. It moves slowly and mournfully, but still only glances across the surface of the eras it portrays. It's a demanding film, encompassing a wealth of Russian history and art history between its first and final frames. Those who stay with it will be rewarded in the end by a gorgeously mounted ball, in which the camera gracefully slides among elaborately costumed dancers as the orchestra plays. It's a deeply felt irony that this transcendent moment of joy takes place on the eve of the Russian revolution, and the world of these briefly glimpsed characters is about to come crashing to an end. It's a shame that the film has few moments where form and content align so powerfully

In the history of cinema, it is the Russians who are generally credited with elevating film editing to a modern art form. It is ironic, and strangely fitting, therefore, that it should be the Russians who, almost a full century later, have now produced the first full-length feature film ever to be composed of a single unedited shot running uninterrupted from first moment to last (Hitchcock came close with `Rope,' but he did include a few `cuts' in the course of the film). Even Sergei Eisenstein, who, in films like `Potemkin' and `Ten Days That Shook the World' spent his career developing and demonstrating the power of editing, would, I dare say, be impressed by `Russian Ark,' a film every bit as innovative and challenging as those earlier seminal works.

For their bravura, awe-inspiring cinematic tour-de-force, director Alexander Sokurov and cinematographer Tilman Buttner take us into the famed Hermitage Museum and Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, providing us with a grand tour not only of the opulent rooms and famous artwork contained therein, but of 300 years of Russian history as well, as various vignettes involving famous people (from Peter and Catherine the Great to Nicholas and Alexandra) and events are played out within the glorious gilded walls.

`Russian Ark' is a bold and audacious project that is the cinematic equivalent of a breathlessly performed high wire juggling act. We know that one false move on the part of the actors or the cameraman, one missed cue or accident of fate could bring the whole delicately poised enterprise crashing down around them. How often, one wonders, did a perfectionist like Sukorov have to resist the temptation to yell `Cut!' to his actors and crew? It's truly amazing to see just how beautifully planned and flawlessly executed the final product turns out to be, especially the ball sequence at the end which features hundreds of dancers and spectators who are set in beautifully choreographed and constantly whirling motion. What's most remarkable is how much of a participant the camera itself is in the proceedings. Not content to stand idly by and observe the scene like some passive onlooker, the camera moves right into the center of the action, gliding in and out of the crowds with utmost grace and precision. Visually, the film is stunning, with exquisite costumes and furnishings as far as the eye can see. Indeed, `Russian Ark' is, among other things, a veritable feast for the eyes, the likes of which we have rarely seen on film before.

`Russian Ark' does have something of a `plot,' involving a narrator whom we never see, a 21st Century filmmaker – we assume it's Sukorov himself - who's found himself inexplicably caught in some type of time warp and magically transported to this strange spectral world. There's also a bizarre European `ghost' figure from the unspecified past who comments - and occasionally attempts to intrude – on the actions taking place around him. But these two characters are of far less interest to the audience than the aural and visual delights of the film itself.

`Russian Ark' is a wonder to behold, for it is much more than just an `exercise,' a `gimmick,' or even an `antithesis' to Eisenstein; it is a vibrant work of art that challenges the limits of its medium and reminds us of just what it is about movies that we love so much.

Western fascination with Russia -whether the land of the Tsars or the cruel empire of the madman Stalin - is one of our unending cultural fixations. Endlessly studied, painstakingly analyzed, mocked and admired - Russia is a massive, ongoing colossal story. An enigma that never yields its deepest secrets.

Director Aleksandr Sokurov is the voice of the anonymous inquisitor who accompanies nineteenth century French marquis Sergei Dreiden (Sergei Dontsov) on a breathtaking tour of the physical and spiritual Hermitage of St. Petersburg. He has made a groundbreaking, stunning film. Shot from a Steadycam in one continuous over hour-and-a-half stream, the film explores the treasures of one of the world's greatest museums. Equally, "Russian Ark" rambles, without regard for chronological order, through snatches of Russian and Soviet history, each short episode a fantastical peep into a wild, rich, often terrifying but always fascinating world.

In the nineteenth century European travellers, most often men (Charles Dickens, for example) and some women (Fanny Trollope for one) visited and wrote about the two untamed civilizations that beckoned to foreigners and promised adventure and intrigue: Russia and the United States. Count Dreiden, a not atypical Frenchman of haughty self-assurance and ample means, viewed Russians as boorish and their culture a gilt-splendored front for a nearly barbarous land. His book would not have been picked up by a publisher linked to the travel industry.

In "Russian Ark" Dreiden is more muted than he is in print but his unquestioning cynicism comes through as Sokurov captures the imagined journey in one building of a French nobleman through both his time and a future he questions without developing much understanding.

So we have both an Acoustaguide tour of a wonderful palace of culture and myriad treasures and snapshots of everyone from Catherine the Great to Nicholas and Alexandra and their children, including an adorable Anastasia, fated to be one of history's silly mysteries. Noblemen and contemporary sailors, bemedaled officers and bejeweled women, a cultured woman gallery guide and apparatchiks - they all fleet through and interact with the questioning but stolidly biased Frenchman.

How did Sokurov pull off a continuous take through over 4,200 feet of the Hermitage with a cast of many hundreds, gorgeously costumed, without a hitch? Unbelievable! That feat alone propels him into the Cinema Pantheon of Fame. At times I felt like I was drawn into the crowd, especially when they depart a dance to head for a fabulous banquet (the dance band is conducted by Valery Gergiev, the only famous - to Westerners - person in the film). And even though I knew from reviews that Sokurov pulled it off, I kept waiting for the seemingly inevitable "Cut!" following a miscue or stumble.

The hint of intrigue and menace that is so much part of Russia's past and present lurks behind an almost impressionistic front with scenes of one-dimensional gaiety almost but not entirely hiding a complex society. Sokurov teaches and teases simultaneously.

As visual splendor and directorial innovation this is one of the great films of our time. I look forward to owning it on DVD knowing that its magic can never be realized fully outside a theater.

Don't miss this one and see it more than once.

10/10.

I found "Russian Ark" a fascinating work of a very ambitious director. For me, it was a highly enjoyable guided tour through the rooms, galleries, and halls of one of the greatest museums in the world. I have not been to Hermitage (Winter Palace) for over fourteen years, and to see the familiar rooms, stairs, paintings, and sculptures was like traveling back in time. The film is also the journey over three hundred years of the Russian history and the attempt to understand the country's place and meaning in European culture. Each of the palace's rooms is filled with memories, shadows, whispers, smiles, and tears of the people whose lives have made the history of the country. The fact that it is all presented in a single, the longest uninterrupted shot ever makes it even more incredible. I also saw the documentary about making "Russian Ark". It is called "On One Breath" - that's how the director, Alexander Sokurov wanted his audience to feel about the film that was shot in a single glorious take during several hours on one winter night. The preparation for this unforgettable night took almost four years.

It's mind-boggling how they could achieve without making a cut; the timing, the precision, the preparations with the enormous number of people involved. Sure Russian Ark has its place in film history (see directorial indulgences), but I don't like cinema to be a guinness book of records. It not great film because it's a great achievement. Fitzcarraldo is one of my favorite film, it's famous because it the film where Herzogs pulls a real ship over a mountain. It's a great achievement sure, but it's also a great film. It's great because Herzogs efforts also mirrors the main character's efforts, and it works on deeper levels compared to the achievements of Russian Ark.

Nonetheless, Russian Ark is very beautiful to look at and fascinating for what it is.

This is, without a doubt, the most visually, and in some respects, emotionally, beautiful film I have ever had the privilege to see. WOW! Alexander Sokurov has proved himself one of the greatest artistic directors of the age in this enthralling journey through Russian history, society and culture. As a viewer, I was emotionally overcome by the simultaneously melancholic, frenetic and enigmatic atmosphere. The actors are fantastic all-round, the script is flawlessly coherent, the cinematography is unparalleled, and it goes without saying that the scenery is nothing short of jaw-dropping.

A powerful and moving insight into a beautiful, complex and tragically misunderstood culture.

Artistic perfection. 10/10!

I really hated this film! I am a huge fan of 'pure cinema' as promoted by my favourite director Alfred Hitchcock. I love great cinema whether it is silent, talkie, thriller, comedy, musical or documentary and this film being shot in one continuous take excited me greatly and I watched with huge interest expecting a great piece of film making. I'm afraid I found it extremely poor as a film.

There is no disputing the amazing logistical difficulties the director has overcome to film one continuous take for an entire feature length movie but if I was interested only in logistics I would study the London traffic system or the engineering of the channel tunnel! To be a great or even a good film takes more than logistics.

Even the technical brilliance of filming in one take is reduced these days massively due to digital/video technology. Reels of film only lasted a short time so Hitchcock filmed Rope in long takes but had to cut them cleverly together to give the appearance of the take continuing each time he had to change reels of film. It was impossible to shoot a whole film of feature length on one reel of film. Now anyone could make a film in one take as long as they avoid making a mistake messing up the take.

The only clever thing about this film is that the director has choreographed the movements of groups of people and planned out camera movement etc and managed to film it all without any obvious mistakes. This is pure logistics though, not pure cinema! There is no drama, no characterisation, no humour, no ingenuity of storytelling, it runs like a documentary or video tour. On top of that, the script and acting of the people appearing and the narration are inane and ridiculous. It is at times meant to be funny but is pathetically unfunny and idiotic. There is nothing to recommend this as cinema its only benefit is to show the beautiful building and works of art. This could be done better in a documentary without all the nonsense.

There is nothing I hate more in films than pretentious attempts to be something they are not. I give this 1 1/2 or 2 out of 10 rather than 1 simply for its choreographed movement of camera and people.

This documentary-type movie, done all in one long, unbroken take with a steadicam, has the camera basically hovering around a famous Russian museum for an hour and-a-half as the unseen film director (both by us and the others in the museum) makes comments, as if in a dream, and converses with a French, former diplomat from the 1800s. It's a mix of a museum tour, Russian history, and performance art -- Catherine the Great appears at one point, desperately looking for the toilet. I liked it because it's about the closest thing to a dreamstate you can get in film, something like the long tracking shots in Tarkovsky's movies; I didn't get a lot of the references to Russian historical figures, but it doesn't really matter. However, if you know Russian history, you may get extra enjoyment out of it and might latch onto the sarcastic bits better than I did. I think this is a real achievement; a perfect example of how style is substance. 9/10

Russian Ark is Aleksandr Sokurov's homage to the Russian State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. The film is renowned for being the first feature length narrative film to be shot in one take, and from start to finish Sokurov glides us through 33 different stately rooms as we encounter historical figures from the last 200+ years.

The viewer is accompanied on this waltz, (or perhaps more fittingly, this mazurka for its lively East European tempo) by a 19th Century French Aristocrat who acts as both guide and critic of Tsarist Russia. The pacing of the movie and snippets of information divulged mean you don't have to be a Russian scholar to appreciate the film.

In one sense, the film is a triumph. Sokurov has created a very stylised, interesting and enjoyable movie in one single fluid take, and watching the film you understand what an achievement this is. The direction is visually hypnotising and the co-ordination of the cast and crew mesmerising. But, Sokurov seems to have delivered Cinema as Art rather than Cinema as Entertainment, and i couldn't help feel constantly reminded that i was merely a viewer rather than a participant in this film, perhaps a Russian coldness that made it difficult to become involved and engrossed in the film. Sokurov has certainly achieved something by shooting a film in one take, but, like a book with no punctuation the effect can be quite tiring and you find yourself trying to create commas and full-stops just to give yourself chance to breathe

OK, all done in one continuous shot. Well done. Great costumes & a magnificent location. Well done.

But i got the feeling that they forget something... let me think, i know.. THE PLOT!

This film despite the many positive things about this film it is a pointless, listless & boring 90 minutes of filmmaking. There was no plot or coherent storyline to speak of. They must have used up all the budget on actors & costumes & were unable to employ a writer on this one.

Was it supposed to be a drama? A documentary on the history of Russia & the Hermitage Museum?

I think it tries to be both but is neither. If it wasn't for the great camera work i would not have sat through this film to the finish. 3/10

Focusing on three centuries of Russian history from Peter the Great to Tsar Nicholas II, Russian Ark, the latest film by Alexander Sokurov, is an amazing tour de force. Shot in one long 96-minute tracking shot with a cast of 2000 actors and extras, the film takes the viewer into the great Hermitage Collection in St. Petersburg, Russia, showing real works of art from 33 rooms and exploring their meaning in a larger context. More than just a great technical achievement, this is also a sublime meditation on the individual's place in the universe, one that does not recreate history but allows us to revisit it on a dreamlike stage where past, present, and future are one.

The film begins in the dark with the narrator (apparently Sokurov) commenting about how little he sees. "My eyes are open", he says, "and yet I see nothing". He does not know where he is but apparently has just died in an accident of some kind. Is this a movie? A play?" he asks. He receives no answer except a vision of 18th century aristocrats moving slowly into the Tsar's palace. An elegant white-haired man in a black cloak (Sergey Dreiden) suddenly appears and escorts the confused narrator into the corridors of the grand palace. "Everyone knows the present, but who can remember the past", says the stranger as they walk from one ballroom to the next, witnessing great works of art as well as ghost-like presences from Russia's past. We see works by El Greco, Rubens and Van Dyck in their awesome splendor. We run into Peter the Great thrashing a general, Catherine the Great looking for the bathroom, and Nicholas II, the last Russian Tsar hosting the Great Royal Ball of 1913, the last such formal occasion of its kind.

As we enter the Great Nicholas Hall, the opulent room is filled with thousands of aristocrats dancing the mazurka in gorgeous period costumes. A full orchestra is playing in the background and young soldiers are nattily dressed in their uniforms. How beautiful it all seems and how it appears they were destined to live forever but we all know how the nasty Bolsheviki spoiled the party. Ah yes, how green was my valley then. Sokurov said he wanted to make a whole film "in one breath" and he has succeeded in simulating the breathing process, pulling us in, then moving us out as we feel the rhythm of our own life beating with the swirl of lost humanity. At the end of Russian Ark, we see the peaceful flow of a river outside the hall to which the narrator comments, "The flow is forever. Life is forever." Having completed the past, our invisible guide is now ready to move into the endless silence that is, in the phrase of the Anglican priest Thomas Kelly, "the source of all sound".

In my opinion this is a claustrophobic portrayal of Russia and as I see it the Hermitage is the refuge where all of Russia is contained; works of art from everywhere but Russia itself; the military constantly present and even a scene where two sailors seem more perceptive of the works around them than the ' experts. ' Sergei Dreiden as The Stranger who has come in from the 18th c wanders through the endless marble halls and even enters a closed room, white with the makers of coffins and snow gently falling. The place of death itself, at the centre of the ark of the Hermitage/Winter palace, as it travels on a sea that is a dark flecked white with a darkness above it. A few words I thought were key in this flawless film made by the great director Sokurov; ' Look around us, the flower of Russian soldiers ' and the terrible words ' Farewell Europe, it's over, ' Gergiev conducts with magnificent flippancy music from Glinka as the inhabitants of the ark dance.

this is more than a film...it is art. i can see why most people wouldn't enjoy this. they are expecting a film with a major plot and scenes that rivet you to your seat. this is not a film for people who get bored looking at a painting.

it is for people that wish to be intrigued by something beautiful. the script is one of a tour guide describing events of the past years of Russia, don't expect wonderful acting, or plot twists. enjoy the ride, it's one of grandeur. inspiring.

don't be too critical of this film, because it wasn't intended to be a blockbuster hit. it was intended to be a first. one that inspires films to come. i hope more people take up this approach to making films.

First a warning: Do not see this film if you are expecting ANY plot! It is a film shot mostly for the visual imagery and in this respect, I think this film is quite interesting.

It's a 96 minute film done in one shot, which itself is very interesting and almost worth watching for just this reason. The second reason to watch is that it provides a great tour of the Hermitage museum (former palace) in St. Petersburg for those that may not be able to go in person.

It will probably be more enjoyable to those who know Russian (although I think the subtitles were accurate & thorough) and a little about Russian/Soviet history. People (supposedly) from the last 300 years of Russian history are shown at various times throughout the film. The film only point out Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Pushkin, the rest like Nicholas II & family you are supposed to be able to recognize, so I am sure that unfortunately, there is A LOT that I missed & others will too.

There's some scattered conversations about Russia's fascination with Western Europe which seems (to me) the underlying theme of the movie. [In my opinion it would've been interesting if at the end they hinted about how American culture now seems to play the same role. Cultural emperialism via McDonalds/KFC and even the usage of English words over Russian ones....but that's an entirely different tangent and is unconnected to the Hermitage.] I hope that the point of the film was to encourage people to value the Russian contributions to Russian culture and not just the European (or American!) influence/contributions.

"Russian Ark" is an amazing film because it fulfils the greatest possible experience that can be achieved when visiting a place like the Hermitage. When one goes to museums like this, the imagination is constantly at work trying to create situations and fantasies that are situated in the surroundings. These fantasies are often historical in nature, but in the end it leads to, hopefully, a deeper understanding of the beauty, culture, people, and history that the place inhabits. These moments of transcendence are difficult to achieve, and fleeting once found. This film creates that desired dream state and holds it for 100 minutes, or however long the film is. The audience is led through tidbits of the lives of numerous characters by the always likeable "tour guide" who is experiencing many of the same emotions and curiosity as the viewer. Instead of confining this film to traditional narrative, Sokurev creates a completely unique film experience by blending dreams, history, and visual beauty that takes the viewer on a beautiful trip. This film does make a point about the immortality of art and beauty, and the importance of maintaining one's cultural and artistic history. In the end, it is the trip, or vacation that is most appealing.

The interior shots of the Hermitage, and the period costumes and ballroom scene are spectacular and stunning. For that, the epic scale of history covered (largely successfully), and the achievement of doing this in a seamless 90-minute shot, this film deserves 7/10. It's that much of an accomplishment.

Unfortunately, the irritating "dialog" and "plot" nearly ruined an otherwise awe-inspiring experience. The ongoing bickering between the two main "characters" was completely annoying, and their occasional interactions with the Hermitage's inhabitants were alternately pretentious and absurd. It was never clear to me in which rooms/periods these two guys were visible and/or audible to those around them, and in which they were not. And c'mon, a guy dressed like that being welcomed as a guest at such an elegant ball? He'd have been lucky to have only been tossed back out on the street. Simply

This movie would have worked much better as a simple documentary. Basically unchanged, except for the replacement of these two annoying characters with a standard documentary voice-over explaining what's going on. Then I'd have given it 10/10.

So big whoop it was all one take. And? As a very poor tourist guide to the Hermitage, I suppose you could say this movie did show you (in the scattiest way possible) what is in it. But have you read these reviews? Oy vey! What could you possibly learn about Russian history, Italian and French art or the wonders of Peter the Greats building program from this paltry turd? And the 'technical brilliance'? What were you guys watching? The camera spends quite a bit of time on the floor, on chairs, on curtains, on peoples backs etc etc. Really, I could do that. We could not bear certain parts of this film because they were so boring. What was the narrator wittering on about? It was like listening to the last three guys in the pub, after 5 hours of dedicated drinking. Nobody saying anything worth hearing, and nobody listening to anybody else. Clichés spliced to banalities. My wife is Russian, and she felt ashamed at this splodge of a movie.

I have just finished watching this film this minute with my Russian fiancée and i want to keep my feelings going accordingly in one take with no cuts. My goodness gracious me, what a film! I thought Fellini's Roma was great or Satyricon or Kubrick's 2001. This is by far more powerful and impressive. I felt so lucky to have witnessed this. What a man this artist is to have faced this incredible challenge and pulled it off magnificently. This is a study of the conscience, a dream, this is Jung, this is the Ghost in Dicken's nightmare before Christmas, this is almost as great as Noah's ark. How grateful I am to have had this opportunity to live this with such personally idealistic guidance. Every moment of this movie was supremely done with supremely good reason from beginning to end. This film is in my opinion, flawless, from whatever angle you want to look at it.

A feature length single shot is indeed different, and a very clever idea that must have been a massive tour de force by the entire production team. But when I ask others what they thought of the movie, it is this single shot single fact that dominates, rather than actually what was in the shot.

I'm afraid that for me it dragged, perhaps partly because my limited knowledge of Russian history meant that many verbal and visual references were totally lost on me. Yes, a magificent building, yes, magnificent artworks, but in viewing them, all the movie camera did was try very hard to give us still shots. It was only the magnificent ball scene that redeemed it. A nice bit of costume drama with a big cast. So it's 3 cheers for the mazurka, and 6 out of 10 for the movie.

Glad I saw it on a freebie ticket.