Obitaemyy ostrov

Can't understand all this negative hysteria. Most of which is actually about nothing ("crap! oh, such a crap! totally crap!" often mentioning that Bondarchuk is a bad director). Well, I can partly understand those who admired the original book (which is really worth reading) as they may have imagined everything in different manner (this is particularly true for sci-fi adaptations). But very often I read comments of people who seemed to be negatively oriented even before they really watched the film.

The movie is not piece of art. It really takes a lot from classic sci-fi movies (from costumes designs to city views). And directing sometimes is confusing. But the film has one strong point - the plot, original story that authors reflected rather well. Special effects are good (they were performed by American specialists), acting is not bad (dramatic acting usually is not required in sci-fi action movies). In essence, the movie is good and worth seeing. Don't take negative comments for granted.

BTW as far as I know Boris Strugaztsky (the one of two brothers who is still alive) liked the adaptation.

First things first: Make sure to see this in the 227min original (two-part) version. The international (one-part) release is a hack job with many crucial scenes missing, and a new cartoon title sequence that doesn't quite fit the mood.

The movie's greatest asset is certainly the Strugatzky brothers' nuanced story about a planet corrupt to the bone and the hero's moral imperative to intervene. The story is largely treated with respect, and while I can relate to some of the criticism aimed at the movie - there are some continuity issues, the casting might not suit everyone's taste, as won't the Matrix-style kung fu - this is a well-realised sci-fi flick that's worth watching for the strength of its story alone.

Yes, Tarkovsky would have made this a different movie, and I'm surely going to watch Aleksey German's 'Hard To Be A God', but I for one didn't mind this movie's bubblegum aesthetics while pondering existential moral dilemmas.

... for the movie cooked from all possible clichés. Let's call it "a movie of the future": no interesting dialogues, no interesting character dynamics, sexually decent, a product. Not only lacking a point, but totally chaotic at the end. Much like a ruined orgasm. Actually, there were lots of completely confusing moments all along. Main character was so artificially angelic beautiful - in a nonsense commercial-romantic way, that it was almost disgusting to watch.

The only positive things was a vision of the perverse futuristic world, dark, totalitarian, rainy, muddy, technocratic, but also kind of futuristic baroque. A bit reminding me of 5th element, or Chronicles of Riddick. (Or just today.) So much more interesting plots, events, interaction could have been set in this environment.

It's 2011 ... and you want a science-fiction? Watch Aliens, Avatar, Abyss, Terminator or at least Matrix.

This attempt at bringing a Strugatski brothers novel to the modern Russian screen is without a doubt a success.

A little about the plot: young explorer Maksim Kammerer crash lands on Sarakhsh, a world enveloped by nebula gasses where people have never seen the stars. The Unknown Fathers, a group of local oligarchs, brainwash the population to fear and despise surrounding nations. Kammerer, aloof in his assumed superiority, sets out to free the people of Sarahksh of oppression and paranoia.

I wont ramble on - suffice to say that Bondarchuk has done well considering the scale of the novel. Vasiliy Stepanov (as Maksim Kammerer) is sexy, cool and a blond head taller than his alien companions (a fine nod to the novel and a detail I did not expect). He was also most excellent in the action scenes.

Bondarchuk shines in his portrayal of Umnik (The Clever One). I really enjoyed the scenes of him writhing in agony in the bath. A great performance. I am compelled after reading some of the other comments to say that the novel, like this movie, is quite comical...

Direction-wise there are some minor continuity errors and a few places where pace slows, but the film sticks quite closely to the novel and this may not have been avoidable.

Compared with the contemporary adaptation of the Strugatskis Ugly Swans by Konstantin Lopushansky the film is of course rather crude and soulless. But it's good fun done right.

I recommend it to everyone and will be waiting for film two.

Those who have watched the film may remember the following episode – Guy and Rada are sitting in front of TV during the Entertainment Hour and goggling happily. What is entertainment on Saraksh is visions and dreams of ‘psychotic’ individuals.

It struck me that ALL the film industry the way we know it is projecting nothing but visions and dreams of certain individuals, too(and sometimes these visions and images are no better than those shown in ‘Obitaemyy ostrov’). And book fiction is the same. So what’s the difference between Earth and Saraksh in terms of culture then?

And the towers are here, too. Look around – here are the TV towers and radio towers. They project these visions and dreams to the same effect as on Saraksh. Scary, isn’t it? Where are we?

On the other hand, where would the world be without this day-dreaming and wool-gathering? Do culture and a sort of hypnotic suggestion go hand in hand? How free in our minds are we really?

Sad smile.