GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Micitype Pretty Good

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Samiam3 Although there is probably some room for improvement, Ararat remains a thought provoking and intelligent piece of art filmaking from the bizarre mind of Atom Egoyan. It is regarded as a fairly controversial film, some loved it, some loathed it. Perhaps it was too closely compared to his masterworks Erotica and the Sweet Hereafter. It is a very different movie. Ararat is Egoyan's strange memorial to the Armenian massacre committed by the Turkish during WWI. Ironically, Egoyan's script features a handful of people attempting to make a feature film about that. Ararat zooms in on an art historian, who has been hired as a historical adviser for the feature. Her son has just returned from the motherland having shot some second unit footage, or so he tells the customs officer when asked what is in the containers he is carrying. Convinced that the boy is smuggling drugs, the officer takes him behind an starts questioning him. What he gets in more than a few answers from this kid. He gets a whole history of a people that to this day Turkey denies have anything to do with.One thing about Egoyan's movies is that they set challenges for the actors. While Ararat is less dimensional and creative with character development than previous films, the acting is nonetheless impressive. The narrative is a little messy, but not as the result of bad filmaking. Rather it is the result of a director's choice, trying to put some distance between the viewer and the screen. That may sound odd, Egoyan is an odd director, but one with method in his madness. See Ararat and decide for yourself.

jexline Atom Egoyan's "Ararat", my fourth film from the auteur is a very well-written, well-acted film detailing the Armenian Genocide from different perspectives. Raffi (David Alpay) is the son of art historian and expert on Arshille Gorky, Ani, played by Arsinee Khanjian. He is sleeping with his stepsister and is stopped by a Canadian customers officer David(Christopher Plummer) coming back from a trip to Turkey with a film can, although not wanting to show the contacts of the case. Edward Saroyan (Charles Aznavour) is making a film about the genocide. Plummer's son Martin (Bruce Greenwood) is playing the main role in Aznavour's films, which also features his lover Ali (Elias Koteas). Another man, Rouben (Eric Bognosian) acts as the middle man between Khanjian and Aznavour. The film features a great many of Egoyan's troupe of actors (wife Khanjian, Bruce Greenwood, Elias Koteas) and has a large number of themes from his other films (customs officers, incestual relationships, heritage), but conveys it poorly in comparison to his earlier films. In his earlier films, he focused on character's motivations and enigmatic plots. Now he seems to focus on religion and heritage, which I suppose is the kind of film he wants to make. I personally prefer his earlier puzzle films myself ("The Adjuster" and "Exotica" being prime examples).The acting is very good. Khanjian is good in every role she's done and you never think she got the role just because she's married to Egoyan. Bruce Greenwood and Elias Koteas (who played nemesis' in "Exotica") make great lovers. Christopher Plummer carries a strong presence and a contrast to the other characters in his role. Alpay conveys youth and innocence very well, as well as hiscestuous relationship with Celia (Maria-Josee Croze).Overall, a well-done film, but don't expect anything close to his earlier films. 7/10

bigbadwoolf2 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 dialogue 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.

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.