Atlantis

A hard movie to watch, it's slow but gripping, bleak and aesthetically powerful. Unsettling, bleak and prophetic.

Intense, minimalist, and bleak. Features long and beautiful shots throughout. Ultimately there is a tiny glimmer of hope

I did not mind the movie being "slow" it was a well made slow burner and my friends and i all enjoyed it!

Well made but a bit slow movie.

Nice cinematography but movie is slow and has many repetitive sequences. Not quite what I expected in an award-winning film...

Though singularly artistic in its vision and earnestly noble in its intent, this Ukrainian offering about life in the near future after the end of its protracted conflict with Russia struggles to find its traction, endlessly meandering and relying on far too many pregnant pauses and excessively long, lingering shots to make the film work. This visual attempt at creating a sense of bleak yet profound insight, unfortunately, fails to successfully conceal what is essentially a thin underlying narrative about a troubled former soldier seeking to adjust to life in peacetime in a land that has been morally and environmentally decimated by the conflict. It also doesn't help that there's virtually no back story about the protagonist and little information about the war, which may leave many viewers out in the cold as to what they're watching. What's more, it's puzzling that this release has been misleadingly labeled a sci-fi tale when, in fact, it's more properly characterized as a piece of dystopian political speculation, one that metaphorically seeks to echo the fate of the fabled lost continent. In all, the picture is certainly laudable for its valiant effort at making a weighty statement, but, regrettably, its pacing and overall execution weigh it down, trying viewer patience rather than offering meaningful enlightenment.

Artistic visualizations within 106 minutes of boredom. They say there was a story here. If there was, it could've been told in a 1 page comic strip. Yes, the cinematography in this film was outstanding. The choice of colors and the sets made this film an artistic visualization. But 106 minutes of a goes-nowhere story makes you want to fast forward to the end, then replay it on mute with your favorite music blaring over the stereo. Critics are raving at writer and director Valentyn Vasyanovych's work, but are naive to the obvious; 90% of this film are simple far and wide still shots on a tripod. Woopty-doo... some real talent needed for that I guess. Anyone can put an iPhone on a tripod and start recording, even a 5 year old. Yes, the use of machinery and sets was well used, but how hard is it to find a steel factory in a war-torn poor part of the world as your setting? Unimpressed. Even the use of heat-signature video at the start and the end is lame, amateur and pointless for a story. CAT (the construction equipment company) has a cell phone that does that. Maybe that phone was used for those shots instead of the iPhone on the tripod. Again, woopty-doo. Then we have the 106 minutes of boring, illogical and convoluted story telling with no real beginning or end, as well as long dragged out pointless and unnecessary scenes. How was this film even classified as a sci-fi? Is the year 2025 an upcoming alien era we don't know about? I guess for those few that crave poetic art-house cinema may enjoy this, but I for one was zero entertained and very unimpressed with this one. I've seen and enjoyed many art-house films before, but they had a story, and thus I enjoyed them. I would've rather used that 106 minutes to organize my sock drawer with this sleeper. It's a very generous 3/10, all going to the cinematography - colors and use of the unique sets, and not to the laughably amateur tripod still shots.