MovieChat Forums > Leviafan (2015) Discussion > I had to shut it off 18 minutes and 40 s...

I had to shut it off 18 minutes and 40 seconds in

posted 9 years ago by tim-arnold777
41 replies | jump to latest

If I had to suffer that rambling Russian bitch of a magistrate drone on for another second reading from the court record, I would be hell-bent to saw through my scrotum with a rusty reciprocating saw and pour boiling vinegar on the wound to distract me from the excruciating agony of that soul-less blather. Holy mother of all fugugly prostitutes. Who in the hell awards such high praise and accolades to such an irritating and tortuous piece of cinema? I would rather several billion female pinworms make a vacation resort of my anus than have to watch the rest of this movie. Call me what you will. I didn't give it a chance. Yeah. So what. IMO it didn't deserve one.

[–] oktjabr 9 years ago

Talk about short attention span. It it certainly meant to demonstrate the kafkaesque character of the judicial system. Then again, I suppose if a three minute scene riles one enough to quit, maybe arthouse cinema in general is a bad choice.

[–] JacintoCupboard 9 years ago

While the OP might have been hyperbolic in their specific criticism, this film is dreadfully slow and ponderous and laboured. We got it that the court was going thru the motions in a perfunctory and pre determined way. Not only is that scene over long it is REPEATED later in the movie.

And I have no idea how many total minutes we spent watching vehicles move along desolate roads. A lot. Shots to establish mood and atmosphere don't need to be that long unless you are conceited about your vision or think the audience is stupid. This movie is filled with this sort of indulgence.

[–] oktjabr 9 years ago

The scene repeating had an obvious point - land dispute or murder trial, same crammed legal lingo is poured on the individual.

As for the slow pacing, that is perfectly reasonable criticism. I think the film would benefit from being half an hour shorter, but I also enjoyed lingering shots of rugged, slow moving and uncaring arctic nature.

It just seems that the op simply pirated the film and gave up after few mins and proceeded here to spout childish profanities for the sake of it.

[–] TermlnatriX 9 years ago

While the OP might have been hyperbolic in their specific criticism, this film is dreadfully slow and ponderous and laboured. We got it that the court was going thru the motions in a perfunctory and pre determined way. Not only is that scene over long it is REPEATED later in the movie.

You seem to not understand or appreciate the idea of a motif.

And I have no idea how many total minutes we spent watching vehicles move along desolate roads. A lot. Shots to establish mood and atmosphere don't need to be that long unless you are conceited about your vision or think the audience is stupid. This movie is filled with this sort of indulgence.

Well then my friend. Kubrick was conceited and indulgent as well then with the ending of 2001 and other films. Yet he is praised.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::
http://bit.ly/11DHMHW

[–] oktjabr 9 years ago

Indeed. I suppose say Tarkovsky must be either conceited or condescending director. Or perhaps the cinematic tradition differs from the on that dictates how long scenes "need" to be.

Interesting, in a way, that all three foreign nominees of this year (Ida, Leviathan, Mandariinid) have people complaining about pace too slow. All three seem to come from rather similar Eastern European cinematic background.

[–] humanist27 9 years ago

People complaining about Movies having a slow pace should stick to watching mainstream Hollywood-crap. They would never understand movies by true cinematographic geniuses like for example Malick, Bergman or Tarr.

[–] EurasianEyes 9 years ago

Dude...you don't have to make scenes that never ends to appreciate the landscape. It was obvious that the director is proud over the nature in Russia and it came out in a bad way in the movie. For god sake...i live in Scandinavia and been up to the north several times, but i'm not that proud that i enjoy watching scenes of the landscape that never seem to end. Further on there were more scenes, totally pointless long scenes of a car or two cars coming on the road. You call all this cinematographic? I guess you don't understand the difference between cinematography and lousy film making.

[–] hajj628 8 years ago

i think the fairest explanation here is that the film simply isn't for you - it's not that the filmmaker made some sort of aesthetic misjudgment... in all honesty, it's more likely that you just don't get it, because it's not the right kind of filmmaking for you.

and i highly doubt the filmmaker is really proud of russia's nature. i think he was just trying to emphasize the geographical and social isolation of the characters.

[–] EurasianEyes 8 years ago

I think we all understand the geographical and social isolation of the characters without two cars coming on a road for about 45 seconds. These kind of scenes are hard to watch regardless of what the movie is about. You are right in one thing, there is no right or wrong. It's just a matter of how we interpret scenes.

[–] TermlnatriX 9 years ago

Talk about short attention span. It it certainly meant to demonstrate the kafkaesque character of the judicial system. Then again, I suppose if a three minute scene riles one enough to quit, maybe arthouse cinema in general is a bad choice.

Bingo. Someone who gets it.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::
http://bit.ly/11DHMHW

[–] lesdroits 9 years ago

i thought it one of the more artistic aspects to the film -- SPOILER ALERT -- which gets repeated later, bringing us back to this awful, impersonal world.

[–] jonathonwisnoski-856-217430 8 years ago

To be fair, Kafka made bureaucracy entertaining. No one here seems to be of the opinion that those scenes were anything other than boring and monotonous. Are they required for the film to work? Sure, but typically we like our directors to make film scenes enjoyable to watch.

[–] jakov-duzevic 9 years ago

You seem to miss out the point of the artistic expression in this movie. Being too much exposed to the Hollywood production might have set your taste in film in a way that you always expect the story delivered in the same direct way. The way other cultures developed their direction of the film art is in many ways different than American way. Most european (and in this case russian) great movie producers use an approach where the opinion is not directly presented through the dialog of the characters or the scene in focus of the camera, but rather through indirect scenes like the one you are complaining about. The point of that scene is for you to realize how faceless and inhuman the legal system is. Reading the court record with such superficial emphasis is intended to provoke your understanding of the hopelessness of an individual who is caught in a conflict with a corrupted system.
I am sorry to say this, but it takes some patience to develop the taste for understanding this kind of art, and many, like you, don't even try to understand it, and call it *beep* immediately. Your loss man. You are missing a great deal with this one. This really is a great cinematic achievement, for those that are willing to seek more than just entertainment in movies.

[–] Pond_Lilian 9 years ago

Ah, cut it out. Nowadays I can film the grass grow or paint dry and folks like you will find motif in it, existential struggle, and artistic expression.

Do not insult Russian cinema masters (like Tarkovsy, etc) by even comparing them with this crap. Cinematic achievement? Give me a break! Pointless, Russia-hatin' propaganda movie from talentless hack of a director.

[–] TermlnatriX 9 years ago

Ah, cut it out. Nowadays I can film the grass grow or paint dry and folks like you will find motif in it, existential struggle, and artistic expression.

Really? and you can back this assumption up? Oh and by the way, there'd be no motif in your growing grass and paint dry examples - just for starters. Existential struggle would have nothing to do with those, and artistic expression would be judged by its context.

"Russia-hatin' propaganda"

well - it's easy to spot you're a native Russian, or a Russian living in the West.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::

[–] R_Redbeard 9 years ago

talentless hack of a director.

This must be why his films win awards and have such high ratings even though he is still relatively obscure...

[–] humanist27 9 years ago

Lol, Zvyagintsev is only the most important russian movie director together with Sokurov since Tarkovskij.

I bet you've never seen a Movie by Tarkovskij or Sokurov or Zvyagintsev. I'm pretty sure you've never Heard of any of them before just until Zvyagintsev won an Oscar for best foreign film.

[–] R_Redbeard 9 years ago

I've heard of all of them, numbnuts. I've seen films by all of them. I've owned The Return since it came out and was unaware that Zvyagintsev won an Oscar because I don't pay attention to the Oscars. I count Stalker, Come and See and The Return among my favorite films. It's not like it's hard to go watch a Russian film if I want to... And Zvyagintsev is still relatively obscure, you can't change that fact with a sentence on IMDB.

I don't even know what kind of comment that was suppose to be besides a stupid attempt at trolling. If someone can be a 'true elitist' by watching movies in a box in their living room and bragging about it online then the human species has surely reached the end of its evolution...

[–] csj2332 9 years ago

You definitely don't pay attention to the Oscars, because Zvyagintsev never won an Oscar. Other than that, I think Zvyagintsev is great, too.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] R_Redbeard 9 years ago

It's supposed with a d at the end

Who cares...? You forgot the period at the end of your sentence, jackass.

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

[–] sevastokrator 9 years ago

jakov-duzevic:

The point of that scene is for you to realize how faceless and inhuman the legal system is. Reading the court record with such superficial emphasis is intended to provoke your understanding of the hopelessness of an individual who is caught in a conflict with a corrupted system.
I am sorry to say this, but it takes some patience to develop the taste for understanding this kind of art, and many, like you, don't even try to understand it, and call it *beep* immediately. Your loss man.

Let me say something from my point of view. As a direct witness of such Kafkaesque trials and ruined human destinies in real life, the slow and corrupt judicial systems that waste years of human lives, I found this film unbearable to watch. I stopped a couple of minutes after Kolya was detained, after he reported harassment from Vadim in the police station. I could see his total life ruined and him destroyed, without him anticipating it because that is how people like Kolya end up in real life.

I don't see this as art, but more as an educational film. I would strongly advice those who naively believe in law and administrative justice to watch it, especially those in South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Or in any other corrupt country. To me, it was unwatchable.

[–] hafaball-1 9 years ago

The "rambling" makes more sense if you get to the end of the film... but from the look of your post....

Time is a poem, the world is a verse, people are a word, I am a letter

[–] bpollen 9 years ago

I'm guessing the movie is better than your so-called review.

[–] rhadoo32 9 years ago

Read Kafka, then you'll be smiling through it.

[–] scarsick 9 years ago

I feel sorry for people like you

[–] lafingas 9 years ago

What a great film. i loved every slow minute of it, i think it reflected the drawn out misery of the situation. Maybe there will be a sequel, when old scores get sorted out.

[–] mail-2217 9 years ago

The magistrate reciting the ruling was, IMO one of the -best- parts of the movie. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's a tradition in Russian law that goes back a looooong way... the idea is that reading out the judgment shows that justice is being done fairly. (Remember that most people in Russia were illiterate until very recently.)

The idea is to critique how officious the system is... and that criticism goes back to Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Everyone gets screwed, but the 'letter of the law' is strictly adhered to.

[–] dragmio 9 years ago

That was the best scene in the film, you fool.