Sokurov does it again, painting in a dreamlike St. Petersburg a moving art-piece in which the relationship between the two characters trascends the rules of ordinary love. To me, the homosexual ambiguity conveys power and - yes - sweetness to the emotional palette. And the visual work is stunning.
Interesting film that I feel could be more effective and telling if it was a little less open-ended and a bit more captivating. I wanted to like this film as much as I hear so many others do, but I got bored with it fast, and ended it being slightly confused and not caring enough to look further. However, I respect the undertones of the film,and it is memorable, even though it sometimes could barely hold my attention
its strange why people ever saw even a tint of homoeroticism in this movie? it was a beautiful depiction of a misunderstood relationship.
An extremely strange film. The synopsis above is pretty well accurate, hinting at the film's homo-eroticism. There's no explicitly gay content, but lots of well-built men standing around looking really good as they discuss matters of great import to them but not to this audience member. Ultimately it comes off like a bizarro combination of Andrei Tarkovsky and Abercrombie & Fitch.
C'mon, what about the art cinema lesson given in scenes like the one with the son and his girlfriend seeing each other through the glass window at his military academy? What about the "oil painting" feel of each carefully light capture? Or the psychological tension between a father and a son who can't live with nor without each other after the loss of the spouse/mother? I'm sure you'd think different if you gave it a second screening. Just my humble suggestion...
