È difficile essere un dio

Based on a novel by Arkadiy Strugatskiy, Hard to Be a God, is an incredibly radical sci-fi film that stretches the meaning of all possible descriptors. This film is not for contemporary popular audiences. This film's audience (if you could say it has one) are the squirrelly, anti-social filmophiles that are too deep down the rabbit hole to be brought back. They're the people who have spent half their lives in darkened rooms and use film as a reference point for life itself. In other words, it a movie just for me.

Knowing Hard to Be a God's production history automatically creates a modicum of goodwill towards the film. Director Aleksey German shot the film over six years and took another seven years to edit it before succumbing to heart failure at the age of 73. Yet even before his last film, his career is littered with long-gestating movies that in some cases were put on hold for years due to Soviet censorship. While the USSR ultimately crumbled 27 years ago, German's insistence in making movies his way is still met with accusations of impenetrability and art cinema navel-gazing.

Hard to Be a God's narrative is not a concern here but for the sake of cogency I'll summarize. Our protagonist Don Rumata (Yarmolnik) is a human, one of many living on another planet stuck in the middle ages. It's never made clear if he's there to help the planet's fledgling culture but what is clear is everyone seems to have a fundamental distrust of intellectuals and a hatred towards science. Perhaps because of this, Rumata has assimilated himself as a noble with God-like powers and thus is feared by all.

These God-like powers by the way include having the ability to swat spears away from his face to the gasping amazement of dim-witted centuries. It appears that Rumata has given up on logic long ago choosing instead to abuse his most loyal subjects in an attempt to make them understands the basic truths about germs, economics and whether or not fish like milk. Yet to designate Rumata a classic anti-hero would be far too simplistic. He, like the rest of the idiots populating the screen is wholly unlikable but in a drastically different way.

Hard to Be a God, to put it succinctly is two parts Andrei Tarkovsky, one part Terry Gilliam and a tiny bit of Idiocracy (2006); though summarizing German's mis en scene through text is completely impossible. His images are so textured, so grotesque and so bizarre that it is unlike anything I have ever seen let alone anything I can describe. World-building seems to be German's biggest strength. We not only see the chaos happening around the characters, we feel the coarse mud, smell the putrid bile and rotting corpses and taste the blood and sinew on the half cooked chicken they consume.

If one were to point to a glaring problem with the film it's that at nearly three hours, the film is simply too long to endure more than once. Scenes of little consequence could have easily been cut to make way for a tighter story and an ending that sticks the landing with devastating aplomb. However, say what you will about the film's leisurely pace, the constant injection of intense medieval grotesqueness supplies the film's audience with enough imagery to fill several nightmares.

While illustrating the problems of a faraway planet, Hard to Be a God is a damning condemnation of humanities struggle with its own ignorance. While certainly not for everyone, the film's warped, layered and visceral vision of medieval life is rivaled only by Marketa Lazarova (1967). Hard to Be a God is a must-watch contemporary classic whose reputation will only grow in the years to come. If you're on its wavelength, I recommend you check it out.

I almost never post a review of a film here on IMDb unless I've watched the entire thing. Upfront disclaimer about this review of "Hard to Be a God": I did not finish the movie. In fact, I only watched about a third of this movie. So feel free to stop reading now and move one, or to read my review and discount it. I forgive you.

Now, why am I posting a review about a three-hour film of which I only watched about an hour? 1.) Because an hour is all I'm ever going to be able to watch of this film, so it's either post about it now or never; 2.) I have a feeling based on what I saw and what I've read about the film that watching the other two hours wouldn't much change my opinion, as what you see is pretty much what you get for the entire running time; and 3.) what I did see was compelling enough to make me want to share my opinion about it.

"Hard to Be a God" is difficult to describe so I won't even try. It is astounding in its visual detail and its authenticity in recreating the period look of the Middle Ages in all its scatological unpleasantness. Framed against this backdrop is a cacophony of human activity, swarms of people wandering on and off screen, sometimes interacting with the camera, muttering, shouting, barfing, pooping, peeing, spitting, farting, you name it. It's disgusting, intentionally so, and while I won't go so far as to say it's all pointless, it certainly feels that way. Or rather, the discomfort in watching humanity at its grossest isn't worth sticking with the thing long enough to find out what its point might be.

But that said, it did make an indelible impression on me and kept me thinking about it. I'll leave it to people smarter or more patient (or both) than me to watch the whole thing and decide whether or not it deserves the idolatrous praise critics have heaped upon it. But having watched only the bit of it I did, I can say it's certainly SOMETHING.

From the very beginning we're greeted with scenes both stark and beautiful in the squalor they capture. We just as quickly get exposition that sets up the film, and it is imparted so rapidly and casually in the voiceover narration that if one isn't paying attention, it will be missed entirely. In this same minute span of time we see actors look at the camera, or are treated to obvious and haphazard camerawork, which is either deliberate and inscrutably brilliant, or incidental and horridly amateurish. Given director Aleksei German's career spanning several decades, I'm inclined to think it's more the former than the latter, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How much one is able to engage with 'Hard to be a god' is going to depend on willingness in light of these considerations, yet it also gets even more niche from there.

This much is certain: German approached this project as an art film, with the most substantial emphasis by far on visuals. The picture is entirely in black and white, and was accordingly filmed gradually over the course of several years - presumably with intent not just to bring the vision to fruition, but to realize it as completely as possible. Filming locations, set design and decoration, costume design, makeup, effects, and props are given the greatest of attention, and significant detail goes into everything we see on our screen. At nearly all turns the imagery before us is intense and arresting, with some fine shots and scenes arranged. Pervasive use of fog, mist, or rain effects, or lighting, serves both to provide atmosphere and in some instances to guide scene changes. 'Hard to be a god' is first and foremost a feast for the eyes.

At the same time - to nearly the same extent, this is rather questionable. There is a sense of narrative, but it develops very slowly, with a great air of nonchalance and even indifference to any particular bearing. The blunt, unsubtle camerawork and interaction of characters with the camera, accentuated from the very beginning, are pervasive throughout the film, with no clear purpose except for that it's German's enigmatic intent. There are countless instances of something presented to us on-screen that has no apparent function, meaning, or goal except as a piece of scenery, adding to the setting: lines of dialogue, nudity, acts of cruelty, background characters, even some interactions between dominant characters. The filth, wretchedness, and violence of the scenario is inescapable, impressed upon us in every passing moment - but what's it all for? A somewhat listless treatise on the universality and inevitability of ignorance, brutality, and disorder? 'Hard to be a god' is hardly the only film to examine these ideas. Others have done so with less artistry or eye-catching spectacle - but also with less messiness.

I don't dislike this movie, but I also don't entirely know what to make of it. Clearly it has found favor with many other people, and made an impact; I am glad for them, and congratulate them. Painstaking work went into making this, and it should be celebrated for that reason, and for its artfulness. I just wish there were more definition and structure to 'Hard to be a god' than what we get.

Strongly recommended for persevering viewers who are receptive to material that's difficult to parse. Less recommended for anyone who is squeamish, objects to strong violence, or wants a snappy, easily digestible flick to entertain.

This film had by far the greatest amount of liquids and combinations of liquids in the history of film. Blood combined with mud, blood with snot, snot with mud, vomit and spit, vomit and mud, blood and liquified rotting corpses, piss and pion, blood and feces all combine into a true elegy of combines liquids.

Additionally, it features an extraordinary amount of faces. Extras constantly pass in front of the camera, and at least 1000 people get a close up, all with different, often disturbing faces, specifically ordered to perform as disgustingly as possibly, often projecting the aforementioned liquids, with a preference to snot. This manages to give an authentic feel to the medieval atmosphere of the film, with all the disturbing, disgusting and hard to watch elements completely intact.

Unfortunately, the story is very hard to follow, since the random dialogue by extras, while cementing Hard to be a God as possibly the most realistic film about the Middle Ages ever, also distract the viewer from the actual story. Also, the sci-fi premise is thin and doesnt affect the story too much, while it does involve some interesting nihilistic philosophic themes.

All in all, this film is not for you if you are a fan of sci-fi, color and interesting storytelling. However, it is really a technical marvel, with spectacular photography, costumes and set pieces, which manages to include the largest number of liquids and faces ever. If you are a face, liquid, or generally decadence enthusiast, you should watch this film as soon as possible.

I've never written a review here, even though I'm more than dozen years a user. And most likely will not write one ever again. But forgive me for boring you with the personal introduction, it's just coming out to show you how much for me is this piece of filmmaking worth writing at least a few words. And I can only hope it will be for someone else too.

The plot is quite clear: a man out of time. In every possible sense. A team of experts, including explorer/militant/scientist/philosopher/royalty? called Don Rumata, is set on a distant planet whose civilization's grey Purgatory of reality is similar to Earth's grim and barbaric Middle Ages. His mission: to protect the very few progressive minds he can get. Thing is, he can't show his advantages and in no case can he interfere killing, therefore allowing all natural history course of this parallel society. Like a spectator who can only touch on the surface and hurt inside, bright and impotent. It's not easy being neo-God.

This simple yet great story is what makes the book written in the '60s by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky ("Roadside Picnic" which became "Stalker") a great one too. But what takes all this to a new-wave level of greatness is Aleksei German's lifelong desire to film it and his magnum final result of a vision where you are almost the main protagonist, you breathe and think and feel and will probably bleed right beside him. A result which German died just before seeing officially finished and which is now in the form of three hours that took fifteen years in the making.

Three Russian hours from 21st century of black-and-white world of past, future, fiction, reality, chaos, mud, blood, vom*t, p*ss and sh*t and yet there is love and even music to be found in the filth of German's Inferno. Where I saw it at the Sofia International Film Festival, I witnessed walkouts, boos, applauses, tears of despair or joy. But what I experienced thoroughly was me sitting on the floor in the overcrowded theater in complete petrification, silent, a little confused and in awe. Confused by how much German added to the story, the ambiguity, the layers of detail and questions in depth he raised. And in awe of how was this shot, structurally and technically speaking. Even for a film student like me it raised only questions. To not spoil anything, I feel I should only say you have to watch it completely open-minded and forget about the book (which still must be read beforehand) or visual feasts such as, for example, "Birdman" and all the overpraising it got. Don't get me wrong about Chivo Lubezki who I adore, but this is a cinematic achievement way ahead even of its prolific time. Because by the end of all the daze and decay, you are completely unaware whether it's Don Rumata, you or the world around that is transformed. But into what? It's up to you to find. Just drain yo' self:)

It was released more than a year ago at festivals, theatrically and on the internet, but is yet due to receive the grand recognition it deserves. My take is this can happen in five, fifteen, a hundred years from now or maybe never: something I can not and will not believe. No one can now for sure, but anyone could easily sense that as far as narrative cinema goes, HARD TO BE A GOD is most definitely the timeless film of our present. You can thank the Germans (father and son) or the Strugatsky brothers; I choose to thank humanity.