A response to moronic reviewers.The majority of the bad reviews here come from America, where it seems there can be no positive reaction to beauty of image, poetry, or an understanding of Russian cinema. It is lamentable that this film does not get higher ratings, but then I sense homophobia to be at work. Arguably the Russians have got used to coded images in their films, especially towards the beauty of the young male face and figure. From Eisenstein, through 'Ballad of a Soldier' to 'Father and Son', and if homoeroticism is there, under a cruelly oppressive series of political regimes, the code is necessary for survival. America needs no codes, it just ignores positive representation, and those that exist get lost in independent gay film which rarely gets seen outside of festivals.This is a beautiful film. Watch it as you would read a poem. 'Mirror' by Tarkovsky is applauded as a masterpiece, and this film, in all its glorious mystery of image and action, stands, needing no comparison. There is a place beyond traditional meaning, and that place is the imagination, and of course it is not a film that releases all its meanings, subtexts and observations on Russian life to a reductive interpretation. The homophobia of some reviews is never quite stated, but is there; what is less obvious is an understanding of the profound inner soul of Russian cinema at its best.

...but a slow-paced nightmare for the rest of us. I can't say the film "tries" to be artistic...it really is. The director clearly has been influenced by the works of Pierre et Gilles (consider this was created in 1991...just before the actual fall of the Soviet Union). The entire film seems to meander between several artistic/iconic (no pun) moments; almost like "a day in the life of a soviet soldier" if it were a gay man watching/picking out the scenes. The writer and directer make a very weak attempt at satire of "the system", but it just all falls short, since there is no real "message" here, other than someone really likes looking at young boys in (and out of) uniform. Once again, A for artistic vision, but it doesn't work as a film.

At first sight, comparisons with Tarkovsky and Sokurov are inevitable. However, although this film is visually striking and very atmospheric, it seems to lack balance between the cinematographic and the narrative parts. Watching this movie, feels a little like watching a slide-show by a great photographer.An interesting experience, great to look at, but something is missing. Some parts are obviously dreams or hallucinations, but then I'm still not sure what statement the director intended to make by these parts. Maybe it's all intended to be a dream, and it does indeed have nightmarish qualities. At times I felt like I was watching life shortly before and/or after a nuclear catastrophe. Despite my criticism about "the missing plot" I can't seem to get this movie out of my mind, so it might be brilliant after all. If not, it's still an interesting look "backstage" at how life may have been for soldiers in the red army.

I watched the film with my DVD player on double and sometimes quadruple speed and I don't think i missed a thing.Since when does the army(of any country)take the time to have each soldier laboriously sponge bath one another? Why, when a soldier comes into the barracks drunk and late while everybody is asleep, does he pee on another guys face? WHY DID EVERYBODY JUST STARE AT THE CAMERA!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, there were some artistically done shots, but they were not enough to make up for the three minute shots of absolutely nothing happening. For instance the time when the soldiers were all standing in a group. The camera panned across there faces, which took like two minutes. Then when the camera got the end it started panning back in the other direction. The whole scene took like 5 minutes and and I didn't even recognize any of the people in it.I've seen a lot of art-house films and a lot of art and film in general in my life, but this film was just kinda boring.