Benutzerrezensionen

Was this Andy Warhol's "Pets or Meat" ? or Henry Jaglom's "Motel Hell"? Possibly Mike Leigh's "Night of the Living Dead"? Anyway, this film has my nomination for best ever use of clones with crones, and also for best use of crones overall. Did you know that if you play this film it matches up very well with Mussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain"? No? Well maybe it doesn't but it should! Try it!

I found this film consistently involving even though it became increasingly unpleasant and difficult to categorize or interpret. It appeared to have two distinct halves, each with different pacing and tone. The lively and stimulating first half took place in the city (Moscow?) and showed the stories of several characters unfolding. The 2nd half focused on one character and a separate set of people she knew in the country (until the very ending bits). This 2nd half was more claustrophobic, squalid, and disturbing.

After the Seattle 2005 screening during the Q/A session with the director, one Russian woman ranted at him for an act of "treason" in this disturbing portrayal of Russian life, and said it and he were "dirty!", asking him where he lived *now*, he must have been well paid for this, etc. He responded that unlike her he still lived in Russia, that in fact life was *harder* than he portrayed and that Russians drank *more* than he portrayed, etc. After she walked out, he explained that her reaction was typical of the culturally *soviet* people in Russia, who were brought up to always present the best face of Russia at all times.

Don't worry, I'm not going to give away the ending- couldn't even if I wanted to. Not really sure what the ending was, the screen went black & the house lights went up but that was the only clue I had the the "story" was over. Let me put it this way- during one scene an entire row of people got up and left muttering things like "This isn't a movie! I don't know what this was but how dare he!" and "Go back to Russia" That's when I knew that the director was really on to something. Again, not really sure what he is on to or into for that matter but this movie is definitely worth seeing. It's beautifully shot, one scene more enthralling than the previous one, the acting is great especially since I don't think any of the actors are actually actors & the sound & music brought on an acid flashback. All pluses in my book. It's not for the faint of heart or vegetarians. Good luck. (FYI- my spell check tells me that I write at a 6th grade level so what do I know-)

The screenplay of "4" is credited to edgy contemporary Russian author Vladimir Sorokin, and in case you think movies aren't serous business any more, reportedly everybody who worked on making "4" was beaten by angry viewers. It may be that Khzhanovsky went a little haywire in the latter part of the 2-hour-plus film, losing some of Sorokin's structure because he became a little too taken up with a lively and colorful group of wizened crones who are the actual inhabitants of the remote village to which protagonist Marina goes for the funeral and wake for her (twiin?) sister. Did the crones actually get drunk on the vodka they are shown swilling in the wake scene and thereafter? Was the camera-work meant to grow increasingly sloppier? Warning to young filmmakers: don't let colorful locations run away with your picture. Nonetheless this is a humdinger. Dangerous to be so provocative with your first big feature film. It made him famous (or notorious), but it was six years till he finished another film (Dau, an epic biography of the scientist Lev Landau, which is now in post-production).

The film begins slowly but intriguingly with a half-hour sequence of three people telling lies to each other at an after hours bar, inventing fantastic occupations. Marina, who is a whore, pretends to be in advertising. A stylish, somewhat effete man who is really a meat dealer claims to purvey spring water to the president. The other man, deadpan chain smoker with a crewcut who later admits to Marina he's a piano tuner, tells a preposterous and revolting story about being a geneticist involved in cloning of humans that he claims has gone on since the Stalin era. "4" refers to the habit of cloning double twins. When he gets into a tale of homosexual rape among black clones in a slum the meat broker goes off in a huff. His discovery of "round" piglets sold at a fancy restaurant is assurance, if needed, that "4' is bizarre and surreal. Everybody has written about it. The Times called it "mysterious" and "mesmerizing," and Jonothan Rosenbaum wrote about it favorably (though I can't access his review -- some of the online archives don't go back as far as 2005 or 2006).

Although at the one-hour mark, with the film half over, things only are beginning to happen, and that's not very good, the opening sequence at the bar, even if over- long, is atmospheric and intriguing. One excellent and admiring review by Ty Burr of the Boston Globe described the scene as a surreal, futuristic Russian version of Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" "come to life with a script by a post modernist prankster"(and Burr identifies Sorokin as "one of the more controversial voices in post-Soviet literature"). But it's scary and provocative rather than dreary. It's interesting to begin with three characters who are quite mysterious. Unfortunately the film delves into the meat broker's life only briefly, and the pretend geneticist piano tuner not at all. Perhaps it was best to stick to one of the three, to give the film unified focus, but it still makes things feel structurally left dangling. Doubtless the round pigs, the shaggy-dog bar conversations, the Stalin-era meat preserved in a vast freezer at 28º (below?), the large dolls whose heads are made of chewed bread, are all products of the fevered imagination of Vladimir Sorokin. So too are the repetitions of doubling, doubling scenes, twins, the fantastic clone tales, hinting that the world has gone mad and gone bad. Unfortunately the barking dogs, the endless trek cross-country to a wake peopled by colorful locals already had the quality of déjâ-vu, maybe because I've recently seen similar sequences in Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia and the Bulgarian Konstantin Bojanov's Avé, and I think I've seen it before that. I'll bet Emir Kosturica did some sequence like this somewhere. This movie is accomplished, ambitious in its eccentricity. Some of it nonetheless reminded me of Harmony Korine's Trash Humpers. And it made me appreciate Sokurov and Zvyagintsev even more, and, in a more popular vein, Bekmambetov, who's an entertainer and a technical dazzler, and no slouch in the surrealism department. Certainly, though, "4" is very much in the Russian vein. The sound design, though typically grating and overblown, is technically the film's most original aspect.

I've seen this film some weeks ago. When i came out of the room, I was disturbed. The first hour is pleasant, showing us a funny conversation between three persons who are tying to create something interesting about their being. Then, the long trip in the strange land where degenerated old ladies live is mind shocking, repetitive and hard to see. But the effect is clear. When you felt the isolation, the promiscuity watching Dogville, Chetyre gives you the same medication with a ten times harder concentration. A few weeks after seeing it, you keep a clear and screeching memory. This film is an experience, it brings something different, some points of view are bothering, but a strange feeling added to gorgeous landscape remain in your head after seeing it.

I am not sure about this movie. In the beginning there was a long conversation in a bar. This conversation was so amazingly good. It really intrigued me and kept my interest.

Though I was watching this movie on a Saturday night. Normally I can keep focused even when a movie is a bit boring. This movie though was so amazingly boring that none of us could keep focused.

While chatting with each other I saw only parts of the movie and saw some really interesting camera shots. Also there were really weird, shocking parts and funny parts. The movie is real slow though.

For what I saw I would recommend this movie to people who like B-movies, independent and artistic movies. Though even then you should watch it on a dull Sunday or something.

For all other people I just wouldn't recommend this movie, because they won't like it. Personally I might be watching this movie again sometime as I was intrigued by it and am still wondering what was the real clue of the movie.

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.

For me, it is one of the best Russian movies of the year 2005. It takes to what is called "collective unconscious" - but I guess only if y're Russian about 30 y.o. living in large city:) I was really amazed by Ilya Chrzhanovsky's astonishing work because it's his first full-length movie. Vladimir Sorokin, who wrote the script, is very scandalous author who loves to shock audience. Besides, he is obviously postmodernist, so his stories are always full of different layers of meaning, contain a lot of symbols. Often you can't understand for sure whether he is kidding or being serious. The last but not the least, the movie is brilliant at camera work and has an amazing soundtrack.

Strangiest movie that brings us back to so-called "parallel cinematograph" that used to be in ex-USSR in 80-s. Wonderful hand camera (long and wide views at the same tome), actor playing, "parallel" artifacts and so on will definitely bring you a lot of pleasure, especially for those who used to live in that country. See also: - "Nastroyschik" by Kira Muratova; - some early movies by Yufit like "Daddy, Santa Claus is dead". What is something exceptional is its sound - full of screaming birds, industrial sounds. It pressed me down to feel the movie as i needed to feel it. Actor ensemble also deserves to be granted, specifically Shurov - leader of punk-ska band "Leningrad".

This is what we really can call "new Russian cinema".

My best recommendations!

4 stray dogs on the street open the film. 4 persons (3 customers and a bartender) accidentally meet at a bar late night. The three drinkers make up their alternate fictional professions. The woman among them is one of 4 sisters. This woman Marina, (played by actress Marina Vovchenko) meets up with two of her other sisters (played by real life sisters, if we go by their surnames and physical similarity). The fourth sister just died. Dogs are everywhere, following all the characters--at the meat factory, at the village to eat up the dolls (made up of chewed up bread!), following the thief who robs the watch on the hand of one of the initial three drinkers at the bar. There is a Muslim who breeds bizarre round piglets (genetically modified?) and kicks a dog (2 animals devout Muslims hate to deal with) and is promptly reprimanded for his action by a non-Muslim. 4 planes take off with prisoners who are forcibly trained to be soldiers. The village reminds one of the derelict world of Tarkovsky's "Stalker" The odd male in the all-female village commits suicide.

There is some fascinating elements to the film (script by Vladimir Sorokin. Does the film belong to the director Ilya Khrzhanovslky (his debut feature film) or to Sorokin or to both? The film is audacious and critical of modern Russia.reminding one at times of Joseph Heller's "Catch 22." Somewhere, the mad script comes together. Reminds one of another debut film --this time from China--Bo Hu's "An Elephant Sitting Still" (2018), This film could have had an alternate fitting title "4 dogs not sitting still."

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.

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".

I must say that the opening sequence is just stunning and brings you in a visually outstanding atmosphere. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the quality of the surface is not completely reflected on the inside.

Characters are well played but I wish they had something more interesting to talk about. The dialogues are probably just what they are meant to be: excuses to chat up someone in a bar and give your opinion about what's going on in your country...

The film moves from the city and its stories, to the outskirts and its rumours. Alcohol, boredom and desperation find always a way to be present. This movie is a bit like "City of god", without the effort of a positive story-line. What I've seen so far seems a fake (and gloriously good-looking) scoop on modern Russia. I think that the photography and the sound-design deserve a special mention. I also notice a fine creativity in some concepts (dogs biting dolls) but I still feel the lack of something.

I think that 6/10 is well deserved because the movie is well crafted but I definitely hope that Khrzhanovsky's next one will be better.

I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!

Having seen Ilya Khrzhanovsky debut film movie had the Rotterdam film festival, made me understand what Russia's cinematic potential is. Khrjanovsky's 4 is definitely a must see for every admirer of Russian cinema and the Russian spirit.

4 was banned or censored in Russia because of its controversial and power-undermining nature towards Russia's political decision makers. The movie is based on a script by Vladimir Sorokin, who is known to be a radical writer who has challenged numerous taboos in Russian culture.

4 follows the story in several episodes of 3 different people in Moscow. Because of their absurdity, these episodes are as much realistic as they are unimaginable. The opening of the film sets the whole atmosphere, introducing three characters who happen to meet in an anonymous bar. In the long bar scene, the viewer gets the chance to learn the intriguing and controversial details of their lives.

The bars scene is Khrzhanovsk's introduction to the question: "what is to believe and what is not?". Throughout the movie the viewer gets the chance to puzzle the pieces and to make his/ her judgment.

I most definitely enjoyed watching 4 and thought it was one of the best (if not THE best) movies of 2004. Ilya Khrzhanovsk's 4 won several prices in Rotterdam, tough be careful; this movie is not for meant for the average (Hollywood) movie goer .

9/10

Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.

So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.

The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).

If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.

The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.

I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.

Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.

I liked "4" very much. Its nothing to Hollywood-addicts but it really uses the media in great way. If you accept that the story is in some way a spherical aberration there's are lots of scenes who are really spicy. It shows in a humoristic and absurd way some views of maybe Russians prejudice but also intensified. The long walk in the mud is relay long but a nice and artistic way to show it. The party and drinking with the old Russians woman are gorgeous. The long dialog in the beginning is interesting and it works... The theme 4 (things) is an entertaining thread and many very very fine just nice scenes with a great photo. It's a Russian "shortcut"

The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness.

In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?

Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.

An extraordinary work that was written by an amazing Russian writer, Vladimir Sorokin, and directed by a young talented Russian director, Ilya Khrzhanovsky. This film is a real trip that starts of with being a funny story, but by the time it ends, leave the viewer shocked among the other feelings! The great directing and sound directing creates an astonishing atmosphere and visual beauty thought the whole film, making it a very "acid" experience. These combined with Sorokins madness, creates a real different trip, for the people who likes good/surreal/different cinema as much as I do. I watched this film many times, but i still didn't get enough. I hope non Russian speakers will enjoy it, and understand the symbolism of some things in it...the dogs, the tractors.....

I rated it 10, and for me it is the best Russian film since quiet a while...Check it out, you wont regret!!!