Schaste moe

I don't think it's a 'social commentary' or a 'statement of the human condition' - it's a mess of a movie made by a potentially very skilled director who seems to get bored with the (admittedly rather boring) storyline and tarts it up in the last 40 minutes with a whole lot of disjointed events which we are left to piece together ourselves, however we may. Perhaps he couldn't think of a sufficiently clever ending and (just the same way as Picasso got bored with doing half-decent paintings) decided to let the New York Art House Set name it to be a work of intellectual brilliance (just in case it actually was). Worth watching for the Ukrainian scenery and faces and for masterful camera-work - but only once unless you want to learn the style.

Three main issues = (1) Incredibly irritating to follow unless you know beforehand that the movie is composed of a series of short stories from different time periods. What adds to this problem is that the characters are mostly rough looking bearded Russians sometimes shot in dim light, therefore, it's hard to tell when a new character is being introduced or if it's the same rough looking bearded Russian as before. (2) The short stories themselves aren't really stories but a series of violent occurrences. (3) Since the film is not plot driven it must be making some type of statement or social commentary; unfortunately, that statements been made many times before in better fashion.

First of all, I want to say that the film simply blew me away. This film, Sergei Loznitsa's first feature is not only the best film (and discovery) of the year, but one of the biggest and most important works in cinema of this century.

Before, Loznitsa was a documentary film maker and this effect can be seen in his fiction film. It is not only true and violent, but also very unconventional, different (truly ascetic, and here can be seen influence of Loznitsa's mentor, Robert Bresson), Loznitsa's use of long take is truly remarkable, in Russian cinema, long take has been used very ofter, beginning from Tarkovsky, then Shepitko, Sokurov, Zvyagintsv... but Loznitsa's use is different and unique, he absolutely refuses style (there is no disgusting exploitation of manner, that spoils Zvyagintsev's overrated, stupid and pointless "Vozvrascheniye"), he doesn't have style as a director, the film itself creates its style and language (and trust me, it's much difficult and much remarkable).

And Loznitsa does very bold thing: he destroys notion of deep shot. Yes, Kiarostami shot films with digital camera (as Loznitsa does), but his shot is extremely static and Loznitsa makes very long travelings with hand held camera, what's truly new thing and it also creates a feeling of claustrophobia, of closed circle, of No Exit and it's really conceptual use of primitive cinematic method.

It's extremely difficult film, but it's not art house and it's not the proud film, so called "not for everyone". It IS for everyone, but on the other hand, it should be watched very carefully: consider that you'll be shocked and maybe even depressed but I have one very useful advise: if you decide to watch this TRUE masterpiece, be patient and watch it till the end.

It's really worth it.

This is a rich, beautiful, sad film. A really brilliant take on Putin's Russia. As for the critics who think it's a "mess" or doesn't have much to say, "POOH" to them. Again I have to say this: just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a bad work of art. I've noticed a lot of people on this website really lash out at films they don't understand. It doesn't make you look smart, believe me. I don't know if I fully understand what this movie is saying, not being from the Ukraine, but that just makes me want to re-watch this beautifully made film. It obviously isn't for people who need constant action or a Hollywood ending, but I think the world will survive without another film like that.

Regardless of the good casting, acting and camera work, I left at 2/3 of the running time. Same did 20 others before me. Yet, no real exodus was at hand. I left roughly 750 viewers behind, and I did see no restless moves of potential followers. Am I wrong??

The story began as advertised with a truck driver who has a long journey before him. He has to deal with a lot of people underway, all with no good intentions whatsoever. At first that seemed to be the intended framework for this movie: a series of adventures in different areas as building blocks, having the truck driver and his journey as binding element.

However, I got lost after 1 hour. New stories appeared with new people. The common denominator of showing people with bad intentions stayed the main theme throughout, but the connecting truck driver was missing. That got me confused. I am prepared to accept that I may have missed something essential.

Aforementioned main theme was depressing. Maybe there was a happy ending, or some moral to tie it all together. If so I missed it, due to my leaving early. So be it.