Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Balthazar_Bresson This movie is quite informative... I'd say too informative, and the reason is that the writer/director lagged on endlessly on making the characters explain way too much instead of allowing the medium of film and image explain it. That's something I've always been against, the excessive ultra intellectual dialogue which makes the plot come across as unreal. Yes, there are people all over who know topics and issues, but when you bring that to a screen it becomes another version of The Da Vinci Code, before or after the latter's production. The acting isn't good, not even Christopher Plummer's or Elias Koeats'... but that can be attributed to the writing and direction. The acting was stilted and preachy on most sides. The information provided was great and the scenes from the Armenian Genocide are shocking. No complains there. Directors and writers MUST understand that jam-packing dialogue into a 120 minute piece only makes a movie unwatchable, unless you're interested in the topic, of course. Cramming lines doesn't work in a visual medium. 12 Years a Slave is a perfect example of how to rely not on dialogue but on the subtlety of camera movements and the talent of a well chosen cast. Anyways, that's my take on Ararat to which I'm still awarding 7/10 although it should be a 6.5/10

Arnet818 This is an excellent film, and one that truly shows the thematic power and artistic depth that springs from Egoyan's sensual style and non-traditional narrative.The story's plot follows the production of a fictional film, a conflicted son in search of meaning, a retiring Canadian customs official, the artist Gorky, a scholar, and an entire history of a people plagued by genocide. Each plot line and most of the central characters are woven together in the most adroit, symbolic, and meaningful fashion, making the film a comprehensive study of truth, family, art, culture, history, and identity.If you are interested in a specific, historical account of the Armenian genocide or a biography of Gorky, this is not necessarily the film for you, since each character and topic is filtered through the cinematic prism of Egoyan's more personal vision. However, if you're a fan of Egoyan's work, you will likely enjoy it immensely. Many of the fine actors that repeatedly appear in his film are present, giving performances that each fall somewhere between good and great. Those relatively new faces that appear also fit well into Egoyen's familiarly styled tapestry. While it is true that some scenes come across as somewhat emotionally and psychologically untrue, it is a very intentional part of the film.Many of the cornerstone's of Egoyan's work are active in Ararat with great force and exceptional detail. There's a deep Existentialist angst and keen awareness of the postmodern condition. The film is overloaded with symbolic and abstract meaning, at the direct expense of concrete, tangible truths. Emotion and history, accompanied by acrimony and taboos, permeates every aspect of duologue and character so that even inanimate objects fail to convey exact, firm meanings. Egoyan's knack for keeping his films superficially neat and stylish, despite tumultuous inner struggles and an often troubling cinematic picture is at its most compelling.If you're searching for a film with few questions, easy answers, a conventional story with even more conventional artistic devices, then this is not the film for you. However, if you're searching for a film that questions the very fundamental structure of society, history, and art, and one which provides infinitely more questions than it does solid answers, then this is a good film for you.

futures-1 "Ararat" (2002): Atom Egoyan is one of my favorite writer/directors ("The Sweet Hereafter", "Exotica"). He normally deals in fictional dramas loaded with slow, deep pain and understandings. "Ararat" is also in this style, but he attempts to blend accurate history with speculation with fiction. The common thread is the 1915 slaughter of Armenians by Turks. Egoyan seems to have a more direct connection to his material, with a greater need to educate us to a horrific episode. Because of this, the film moves between various moments in time, people, circumstances, and realities. Although interesting, I think he pulled what I call a "Wim Wenders" – i.e. took on at least 2 or 3 batches of thought probably better served in separate films. I may retract this statement as I walk around thinking it over (which I am always willing to do for Egoyan), but throughout the film I had a sense of too much Agenda getting in the way of Art – a difficult balancing act for any artist, and often wisely avoided. The old "Aesthetic Distance" bugaboo was lingering around every corner.

hakopt I enjoyed the film's thoughtfulness. There was a lot of symbolism (a lot) and metaphors used in the film. Egoyan also used wonderful transitions form one scene to the next which made me admire his creativity.I thought the movie was very fair to Turks. It wasn't a simple history movie, it was about the complex relationships people have with one another and within themselves. There were many occurrences that were told through various eyes, and we saw how the story would manifest depending on who told it. I believe this was the central idea of the film.The movie has this focus on a woman's hands in a circular manner throughout the film, it begins with a mothers hands and ends with focus on a mother's hands embracing her child. Reading many reviews here, I notice that the "bad reviews" seem to only critique the historical aspects of the film, and miss these wonderfully meticulous attention given to the artistic aspects of the film.It really upsets me that reviewers are so shallow in their film watching...sorry. I feel bad for them because they miss all these profound themes that Egoyan conveys: ongoing theme of "parent and child" conflicts, truth as a matter of perception, surviving travesty in one's life, finding meaning in death, vindication, and redemption....this film was sooo throughout....Most of the negative reviews are based on biases (as are the positive ones by the way) but the few critiques of the film as an art, are spot on. It's not a perfect film, but how can any film as complex as this one be "perfect?"Don't use science to bash an artistic gem. --- that's mine, but feel free to use it ;)Although, I believe Egoyan, personally thinks what was done by the Ottoman government to the Armenians in 1915 was Genocide. He showed how the Turkish government as well as modern Turks might believe otherwise, how it would be so hard for modern Turks to believe that their ancestors could do such malice.It was not just a one sided documentary-type movie. The movie shows the modern views and beliefs of both Turks and Armenians. Egoyan is at his usual best with multipler perspectives and the back and forth timeline in the movie.The one thing the film was lacking, was some sort of historical background to the Genocide. I believe this is the central reason it was not a huge hit. While the movie is flawless in its acting and direction, it is very esoteric. There should have either been some sort of epilogue or some kind of introduction to the Genocide, because otherwise the film just made it seem like Turks were just raping and murdering, but why? And how? "How could they hate us so much?" This needed to be addressed at the beginning of the film. But nonetheless, Arart is brilliant as far as movie making goes.In my humble opinion.