Koktebel

Koktebel is a very poor film made by obviously inexperienced directors. It centres on a father and son as they make their way from Moscow to the Crimea. Without money, they have to hitch lifts, get work when they can and rely on others' generosity. The film has enormous potential that is almost completely wasted by the directors. The cinematography (which clearly could make a film like this wonderful) is bad. The directors take the 'banale detail' camera-work to a new level in a clear imitation of better Russian directors (like Tarkovsky or Sokhurov), but carry it off badly, so that it becomes boring and sentimental. This is a real shame, since the Russian landscape is exceptionally beautiful in its sparseness and this is hardly captured at all. The directors are probably trying to show the the point of view of the 11-year-old protagonist, but it results in a pretentious and cloying film. Neither the script nor the acting are so bad, but the directors make unfair demands on the child actor playing the son, spoiling what would have otherwise been a solid performance. There are occasional good scenes, but the narrative lacks continuity and is horribly self-conscious (social stereotypes appear from the wings, making it seem like the directors have a tick-list of emotions they want to convey). The continual use of music (not a bad, but an inappropriate piece by Chick Corea) compounds the sentimentality of the film. Avoid it.

Quite simply this is one of the truest, finest films ever made. To say that it is about a journey to a ' better ' place which in this case is a a seaside pleasure resort in Crimea is to simplify. It is a place called Koktebel and a young middle aged man and his eleven year old son intend to reach it, and it is above all the young son's dream to get there. Father/son relationships have been depicted before in Russian cinema in many different ways, and their significance is probably difficult to understand in Western culture. In the West directors like Bogdanovich and Wenders have depicted daughters, whereas in Russia ( it seems to me ) male bonding has a stronger pull. In ' Koktebel ' the father who has fallen on bad times has to find a place to live and as his wife is dead he bears sole responsibility for his son's future. No spoilers but after many troubled incidents the two break apart, and the son alone in a desolate muddy field has a critical breakdown, sobbing that ' it is finished '. I interpreted it that his real childhood was finished and that he was too young to bear that. The actor who plays the son is superb, and for me he was the tragic focus of the film. Alone he continues the journey. I wondered as I watched about the true meaning of this cinematic masterpiece. Is disillusionment the fate of all of us who travel in life ? Is the journey better without the hope of a place where life will supposedly fulfil our fantasies and needs ? Many have written of the visual beauty in this film, and yes there is a beauty in the landscapes and also a beauty in the ' things ' however ' ugly ' that surround the various characters. All of this is here in ' Koktebel ' but for me it was the loss of childhood innocence of the son - and yes, of his father in his own youth that moved me to tears. A great, great film that needs many viewings and finally I feel its major achievement is in the not so simple fact that each and all of us must move on, and that finally our personal Ithaca is totally different from what we hoped for.

One should be in a relaxed mood when going to see this film. Be there to tranquilly cherish the moments of life and the film will open itself and offer you all its hidden prizes.

Someone mentioned the landscapes are bleak... The film is isomorphic to its landscapes. Bleak and lovely at the same time. Little bit depressing for those who choose to stay at a distance, to look at (film or landscapes) as at exhibits. For those who step in, it becomes precious in its touching ugliness. As you enter, ugliness is redefined. We are able to adore and love what we thought ugly before when we lived in the world bombarded by artificially selected beauty. We appreciate the naturality, the simple yet awkward reality of landscapes, of characters and of situations. The directing and actors are both excellent and succeed to achieve this reality so difficult to balance on screen!

There isn't more talk than necessary, more expression of emotions or velocity of thought than a real living person would allow - not any of the tricks directors have to use to keep us interested. Yet the film is not boring. Because we can feel and understand the characters on screen as fully as we can a human being next to us! We can recognize little parts from the happening in the memories of our own life.

Memories otherwise we'd never pay attention to.

This movie really appealed to me. All of the characters are authentic and likable.

The main theme (what the movie is all about) is the terrible struggles and situations an alcoholic struggles with. One of the best scenes occurs when he runs out of vodka---so completely authentic.

It is an intelligent movie done by a director who makes visual points with just the right amount of emphasis to tie things together...look for the ladders and the umbrellas. The idea of flight... it is subtle and carefully thought out.

It is the story of an alcoholic aeronautical engineer and his 11 year old son who are penniless and trying to get to Crimea to live with a relative ---but there are so many levels...the place they are going to is a famous aeronautical gliding site. The father's career/life seems to have never taken off... you can read so many things into this movie.

It is the best one I have seen for a long long time.

A film like this just couldn't be made in America, where action must occur at a slam-bang pace, and children must be either pitifully ignorant of life or else caricatures of evil. Here, there is exquisite attention to detail -- a countryside, a vase of flowers, and long periods with no dialog at all where a mood is simply allowed to develop. The passage of time may not be in equivalent "real time," yet it passes noticeably. And what a skilled performance by Gleb Puskepalis, a boy with, as often seems to be the case, a distinguished acting history in legitimate theater. His character is master of his fate and of the plot, and he himself is master of the camera and the cast. I like this film especially because it is the boy who is rational, determined and self-directed, while the adults, as in reality, are continually made fools by their alcohol, aggression, and just wanting "to f*** each other" all the time. Bravo!