It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

As a disclaimer, I have already seen Russian Ark numerous times; it happens to be somewhat of a favorite of mine. Multiple viewings have not made this film any less impressive than it was the first time. It is done in a single, uninterrupted shot. Elaborate ballroom scenes, precisely timed entrances, poetic pans of the camera that end up exactly where they need to be, and the massive amount of planning that must have gone into this illustrates the skill of Alexander Sokurov and his crew. The intricacies of the technical aspects are matched in the plot, too. For Russian history buffs, Russian Ark is a delight; one is on the edge of their seat, dissecting each scene to discern (before the narrator and "the European" discuss it) what is being seen or heard. Many highlights appear: the Greats-both Peter and Catherine-Mikhail Glinka, the last Tsar, Pushkin, WWII in the Soviet Era. The film appears as a whole representation of Russian culture and its containment in the Hermitage. It is important that this ark of Russian culture is explored by a European outsider, especially one who scrutinizes Russia so closely. The culture is examined by the "Marquis" as a European veneer is attempted to be scraped off, and the issue of Russia's history being ambivalently European and also not-quite-European is discussed. The narrator, when questioned as to the Russian authenticity of arts or music or confronted with vaguely Russophobic leading questions, only ever seems to simply confirm that "they are Russian". The degree to which the country's history is tinged with European or Asiatic influence is never acknowledged, because regardless of how much that might be the country is still characteristically different. Perhaps this is why it is so puzzling, and why Sokurov represents it as an ark to keep "sailing forever", never to be discovered in truth.

A film in one take! Of course let's not forget Murnau and "The Last Laugh" made 75 years before. It is a technical feat to be sure but it runs out of steam not too long into the film. We figure the trick out early on and visually, the film just seems to ramble. It feels at times like a guided tour of a huge museum where there so much great art the mind simply turns off. Trying to fit a plot of sorts into such a project is hard enough as it is, but an uninteresting story line... I enjoy long takes - please don't get me wrong on that issue - but we have been spoiled by some virtuoso directors who can use them and cut brilliantly as well. Bravo for the technique but one viewing was more than enough.Curtis Stotlar

First off, I was shocked to see that the film was made in 2002. I'm watching it in 2015: Where has it been all this time? Why did not ONE soul (or that soul's print/online recommendation) get through to me about this?This almost isn't a film. I come to IMDb to rate and comment on story, editing, direction, acting, pacing, production, etc. All I need to say about this flick is that it's technically flawless. And, beyond that, it well, well, well over-pays its dues with a profound seamless metaphor that surges and metamorphoses like a slo-mo rolling tsunami wave, conceptualized by an acidhead. And all this functions as a mammoth commentary on the very concept of time, albeit specifically as it relates to human experience.I had lots of feelings while watching, but one thing that came back, again and again, is the by-design pauperization of American global understanding that was the Cold War. The stateside architects of that propaganda blitz must've known that something precious was being lost, but probably convinced themselves that the (global) village had to be destroyed in order to "save" it. I'm not saying I'm entirely sanguine about post-War Russia--Stalin and all that--and I'm not waxing romantic over Czarist Russia. But all that remonstrance is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of humanity--physical and spiritual--that engulfs us from start to finish in this flick.Watch it.

The unseen narrator wakes up to find people in costume clothing. It's his POV. They move through the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. He learns that he embodies a 19th century French aristocrat. As the narrator and his avatar moves through the palace, they encounter various Russian characters.It's most notable for being one continuous take and having such an impressive place as the Hermitage to film it in. It's a magnificent feat but that doesn't make it a good movie. It's an experiment at best. The disembodied feel makes this like a backstage pass to a grand stage play. That would have been more exciting than this. This movie is interesting for awhile but it's very monotonous. The floaty camera moves don't change. The movie just keeps going and going. However the setting is quite impressive and the movie works on a travelogue level.