Ararat Reviews

March 17, 2017
Because of Egoyan's astute, cool intellectual powers and directorial finesse, the film cannot be quickly dismissed, especially if you're an Egoyan disciple. You do become concerned about the characters . . and the issues. If only you could feel them.
February 27, 2007
March 14, 2003
Egoyan's movie is too complicated to sustain involvement, and, if you'll excuse a little critical heresy, too intellectually ambitious.
November 27, 2002
In a strange way, Egoyan has done too much. He's worked too hard on this movie.
November 27, 2002
It's a deeply serious movie that cares passionately about its subject, but too often becomes ponderous in its teaching of history, or lost in the intricate connections and multiple timelines of its story.
November 27, 2002
Given the convoluted approach -- and tongue-tied delivery -- we're left to conclude that Egoyan's emotions got the better of him this time.
November 27, 2002
Has the obsessiveness and audacity of a film that had to be made or its filmmaker would have combusted.
November 27, 2002
Only the most patient, sensitive and sensible of viewers will cut through the film's affectations and indulgences to come to the point.
November 27, 2002
Part impassioned history lesson, part reflection on the way entertainment distorts history, part extension of [Egoyan's] previous explorations of how desire and need distort our sense of self.
November 27, 2002
Egoyan's work often elegantly considers various levels of reality and uses shifting points of view, but here he has constructed a film so labyrinthine that it defeats his larger purpose.