sheif thank god ilya K made this film, even though it doesn't add up to anywhere near as much as it could have.This is in many ways a very talented first-time directors art-house showcase film, pinching ideas willy nilly (not least from a certain Russian photographer) and rubbing the audience's face relentlessly, and to some degree a little unnecessarily, in his inventiveness. If it was calculated to make him the darling of festivals, which I'm sure was hardly the main point, it worked.Does it hide its shock tactics structural weaknesses (the second half is a real, repetitive mess) behind notions of the auteur, of interpretive demands that must be made on an audience, on "social comment", and the usual avant=gardist stuff? Yeah, it does. That doesn't mean it's worthless. You just wish that Ilya K and Sorokin, apparently a great novelist, had thought a little more about cinematic narrative forms and what you can do with them.That said, it's an unforgettable, beautiful mess of an artwork.

acrh2 The first hour is interesting. The second hour is pretty disturbing - Russian poverty, alcoholism, the works. Surely, not your regular Hollywood popcorn flick. Normally, such movies would have a main element or idea, around which everything would revolve. I couldn't really find it in this one. Seemed like a shocker made for the sake of making it.What was up with huge, monstrous drawn out scenes of walking in the mud? Were they really necessary? Yes, it does get pretty muddy in the country, especially if you have to walk. We get it.Well, if you really have to dig for something, there may have been some kind of a message hidden deep within. Something about people not being what they seem, or say they are. Maybe? Too bad I had to fast forward 50% of this ridiculously long movie.

shusei I have just seen this film by Russian DVD. Technically it is a very interesting film. It is a really a contemporary cinema art, in the sense that we now live in the time after the cold war, after the end of typical genre films and studio system.This film has nothing in common with classic cinema before 1980s. From aesthetic point of view it is a clearest example of a Russian postmodernist cinema,which has existed. in fact, from 1980s.Before the beginning of the Perestroika such a stream was limited in the circle of independent filmmakers and officially banned films of some directors. Now almost all the films of that trend is available to Russian and foreign people. Yes, they are not banned, people can see such films on VHS or DVDs,if not in theaters. I wonder if contemporary Russian film-goers can see in this work someone sympathetic to, or even somewhat common with, themselves.Well, we have heard and read about the Past of Soviet Union, cruelty of the totalitarian regime. We have watched it in the cinema of Alexei German. I know my Russian friends today live utterly normal life. I cannot understand why this almost fictional harshness must be shown to viewers today. Well, it is a postmodernist film, such as that of Michael Haneke or other intelligent Europen filmmakers. This is really a respectable cinema art, but I feel something missing in it, especially when compared it with old Russian films(they are called by Russians as "nashe staroe kino"--"our old cinema"). This simple word expresses ideal relationship between film and film-lover. "Andrei Rublyev" and "My friend, Ivan Lapshin", for example,have been favorite films of many Russian people. They loved these films. But I can not imagine my Russian friends, who are normal and intelligent people, could love "4".Maybe I am not right. Maybe someday "4" may become one of favorite films of Russian people. But if it will happen, surely not in such a way, as with "nashe staroe kino".

rasecz I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.