Watch Aelita: Queen of Mars For Free

Too much of everything

Lack of good storyline.

As Good As It Gets

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Considered the first Russian science-fiction movie, Aelita can be viewed as a combination of dream and reality, an intricate portrayal of different worlds and different topics. The film I believe has some memorable scenes, which can be regarded as good cinema, and also the film nicely experiments with techniques like flash-back and dream-like states. On the other hand, the movie has its flaws and one can only wonder how this promising work could have been handled by merely simplifying the overly-complex plot.Loss, a Russian engineer who is obsessed by deciphering an intercepted radio message, portrays the typical scientist whose dream is to conquer the planet Mars.One of the interesting features of this film is the nice blend of the fictional world with the complicated outer reality of marriage and Russian society. Loss seems to be happily married and in love with his wife. Reality is constructed around the two lovers, with characters interacting usually at their work places and having their own distinct worlds. Strengths of the plot are the humorous and ridiculous scenes that appear throughout, and which complement the more serious and dramatic ones. Many of them are not directly related to the plot. For example, we have the humorous discourses of the neighbors of Loss who share their nostalgia for the past, or the silly detective who tries in vain to get a job as a policeman. There are good close-ups capturing the inner lives of diverse characters. Society with its hardships is also portrayed (smuggling of sugar, bribes), a result of this being that we have a rich picture of personal and collective lives in 1920s Moscow.On another plane, there is the fantastical world of Loss's imagination where he pictures Aelita in love with him. She seems to give life to the planet through her curiosity, energy and practice of arts like painting or singing. She wants to touch lips with a man like people on Earth do. We may view the queen of Mars as a symbolic figure that replaces Loss's wife in the dream. Overall, the comparison between the two planets seems to emphasize the humane feelings and principles that people on Mars may long for. A political element is also introduced, through the revolution of the workers wanting to embrace communism. At this point, the film seems to be pretty propagandistic, although we are not sure if this point should be taken seriously or not (after all, it is in a dream). The setting and costumes are very interesting and create an outer-worldly atmosphere, which makes the overall dream scene successful.The main weakness of the film I believe is the combination of too many ideas and scenes, that although interesting complicate the plot too much. Many characters are introduced with subplots, which I am not sure serve a good purpose (there are some comical ones, but overall the subplots are too many and the viewer has difficulty following what is going on). I think there is too much drama at some point and several aspects of the movie which, if simply removed, would make the movie much more agreeable to watch.

After TRIP TO THE MOON (1902), only HIMMELSKIBET (1918) and FRAU IM MOND (1928) are the only titles, along with AELITA (1924) in the silent science fiction section of my video library.Aelita (Yuliya Solntseva) is a Frida Kahlo-like queen from Mars with unibrow and spectacular costumes! I am not sure she had 4 breasts, but one of the outfits did actually have 4 cups. Maybe we'll never know if martians actually exist or if they practice monarchy... According to what I see, martian women dress in elaborate and complicated gear, not friendly to use in daily life (designer Aleksandra Ekster) and the same go to buildings and other landscapes. I can not picture 3 or 4 women together inside an elevator with those headdresses, they could end up injured!I am sure this futuristic movie influenced other like METROPOLIS, FLASH GORDON, and who knows, maybe even TRON's costumes... I liked the segments that took place on Mars over all, and not so much the ones on earth... with the situation in Russia and all that.

On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.

I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...