The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Had to fly stateside for a job interview of sorts. Nothing like a trans-Atlantic flight to catch up on some important movie-watching.

But they didn't have Cloud Atlas...dammit!

Instead, I subjected myself to...

Lincoln

With all the praise this film has received, backed with the monumental reputation of one Stephen Spielberg, I expected to see a fine contemporary classic in this film, on a level no different than his other esteemed classics. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and heck, even Catch Me If You Can, are all films that focus on extraordinary people caught up in some extraordinary historic era or event. Even War Horse was a whimsical but invoking exploration of a character, just in horse form.

I couldn't help but to shake a certain feeling, however. Ever since I read a quote from Spielberg around these forums, something along the lines of "I'm sick of doing action. I could direct action in my sleep."

What...the...frakk?!! Steve, come on! You did so well with the action in all four Indy movies, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, SPR, and even the Vaudeville stunts of Tintin. The action has always been a phenomenal chain of events, always one thing after another, and you've done it so well, with such childlike zeal. To hear these words makes me think that you've lost the edge. You've become so enamored by being "mature" that you're stripping all the fun out of things. I could always count on your films to entertain.

Until now.

Lincoln is a long, slow-moving drama based entirely on dialogue and politics. There's maybe a minute of war scenes in the opening shot, but from then on, it's straight-up talking. The vast majority of the film takes place in the White House, or in Congress, or in some other indoors setting, with very little variation. Conflict is strictly political; people struggling to get the 13th Amendment ratified, and lots of debating ensues.

To be fair, the film has its bright spots. History buffs might relate to the film the best; those who actually take an interest in the politics, the history, and the characters involved. The film seems to do decent justice to everything. A few scenes stand out, and the dialogue is quite sharp (although it is quite old-fashioned as well).

If you're like me, however, you may also find yourself nodding off or losing interest pretty quickly.

Interest in the story will depend on how well you like the whole history of the 13th Amendment (although since the film uses that single legislative battle as the core conflict of the story, I'm left wondering why this film is even called Lincoln, and not The 13th Amendment; it's not like a biography of Abraham Lincoln or anything, he's just the story's protagonist, more or less). In spite of that, I think the actual plot of this film is thin. The best that can be said is that it's populated with quality characters, who seem to adhere to historical depiction and fact quite well. I was relieved to see that the actual political stance of the film is appropriately neutral; the film never slanders or puts a spin on Republicans or Democrats, but portrays them objectively. With the 13th Amendment as the sole subject of the film, the film digs up a lot of themes to reinforce Lincoln's ideals of equality and freedom.

The film looks slick and polished, with top-notch photography, editing, and a very lavish array of sets, props, and costumes. Acting is effectively perfect, and the writing is great. Music is alright.

A fine film, but watching it felt a lot like watching Oliver Stone's JFK without the conspiracy theories or the freakiness. I really wish Spielberg could put his heart back into making movies entertaining.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Marginal | Story: Average | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Best recommended for fans of this era of history, fans of political movies, fans of Spielberg, fans of the actors, or fans of Oscar-bait movies in general.

Notes

• The opening shot is a thing of beauty, watching those Civil War soldiers stabbing and stepping on each other. It's the perfect thing to underscore the conflict between the north and the south, and the pressing need to end the Civil War. If Spielberg could amplify that scene for a whole movie (like a Spielberg Gettysburg movie or something), it could be the awesomest thing since SPR.

[jvince]

The Ghosts - YouTube

The Ghosts (2011)
dir. Eddie O'Keefe

The Good: Gorgeous black-and-white cinematography. Awesome soundtrack. Nice concept.

The Bad: Gets a bit too heavy on style.

The Bottom Line: With The Ghosts, O'Keefe has created an admirable and convincing replication of those greaser gang movies from the 50s. Well worth checking out for the splendid marriage of music and visuals.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest movie seen on an airplane: Beasts of the Southern Wilds

After the god-awful borefest that was Lincoln (), BotSW represented at least one step up in entertainment value. The film does move at an appealing rate; nothing too slow, nothing too fast. The film is pleasantly short and pretty briskly-cut.

What makes it stand out will be a certain charm the film has. It's a pretty bizarre animal of a film: it's set in the ugliest, dirtiest, most primal environment imaginable, but the characters revel in it like pigs rolling happily in the mud and chowing down on gruel. Because the film is shown through the eyes of the little girl, Hush Puppy, and she provides the narration, the film overall takes on a childlike sense of whimsey and wisdom that permeates through the film, roughness and all, and really makes the Bathtub out to be the happiest place on Earth, even though it comes close to looking like District 9 in the swamp.

Honestly, I'm still a little lost as to how to interpret the film's settings, much less how to classify it. I went into expecting a fantasy, because I could have sworn I saw it compared to Pan's Labyrinth. With the premise of

[Show spoiler]the ice caps melting and wild beasts being unleashed,

I wondered if this was meant to be the near or distant future, thus making this a sci-fi picture. In the end, I realized it's probably just modern-day stuff with exaggerations, but I still find it hard to accept that the Bathtub could be a real place. What's shown on screen lends itself to a fantasy-like depiction of a real place, and without additional information, it could be taken any number of ways. I kinda wish the film was more specific as to whether this film is meant to be a real-life place and time, or if it's near/distant future, or if it's pure fantasy with modern stuff in it.

Regardless, the film plays out as a modern tall tale, and it does so phenomenally. There's not a whole lot to the plot, but it's enough to make the characters shine really well and make them relate-able. (In spite of Squiddy's complaints ), I did find it a little distracting and disconcerting to see the father figure acting so cruel and crazy. It's a bit of a necessary evil, to deliver a strong theme of "survival of the fittest," and to ultimately underscore strong themes concerning nature, human nature, and the relationship between the two.

If there's anything to complain about, it's just how incredulous it is to believe that people could live in such conditions and be so happy about it.

One other positive thing I will say is that this film does everything right that Where the Wild Things Are tried so hard but failed to do. I think the two could stand side-by-side.

The film looks pretty rough, with some herky-jerky camerawork, but for this film it accentuates the rough and wild settings perfectly, and the camera moves rarely become agitating. I enjoyed the acting and writing. This production makes good use of pretty simple sets, props, and costumes. Music is appropriate.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Give it a try.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Ohh you're doing the 4-movie thing? The links there are to already released titles.

Oops. I got those confused with two others. Sorry.

BUT, I have not seen those yet because netflix doesnt have them on Blu-ray.

You need to see Les Mis. I guess it's almost out, but it was a good theatrical experience.

Aint gunna happen. ever. Musicals are my Kryptonite.
There are only two movies with singing and dancing that I'll watch. The Wizard of Oz and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest movie seen on an airplane: Chronicle

Decided to give this one a try, seeing as reviews from yesteryear were positive.

As one of those "found footage" movies, it certainly does have its share of rough, annoying camera shake and movements. Fortunately, it's a lot more bearable than stuff like Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, which were jittery to the point of being unwatchable. Part of Chronicle's gimmick is that the camera often "floats," allowing good, stable, solid shots (probably on a crane or dolly or something) inter-spaced with all the hand-held stuff. In spite of that, Chronicle is quite watchable, despite the occasional pedestrian shot or sudden jerkiness.

It's also a short picture that jam packs plenty of story into it. It moves briskly and never fails to maintain interest. The last act packs in some impressive action, some of which did manage to take my breath away.

The story in this film could have used more background (what was that thing in the ground anyway?), but as it is, it offers enough to run with. Characters are what makes it work: the main character has so many problems, it's hard not to feel for him when he gets beaten up, and to root for him when he takes revenge (

[Show spoiler]even if it does go too far

). Other characters are interesting to watch. What makes this story great (imo) is that it tackles the common themes of superpowers with good attention to moral implications, and realistically considers how emotional and abused teenagers would use superpowers when given the chance.

As expected, the film has some annoying camera moves, but also plenty of good shots. Editing is purposefully screwy; a little annoying at times, but appropriate for this type of film. Acting and writing are fine and dandy. This production has okay sets, props, costumes, and special effects.

As it is, Chronicle will likely stand as one of the better, if not best, found footage movies I've seen. The only thing topping it would be District 9, but I'm not sure if that really counts. Compared to a whole world of other crap, it's phenomenal.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Ever since I read a quote from Spielberg around these forums, something along the lines of "I'm sick of doing action. I could direct action in my sleep."

Maybe he's just bored of doing the same thing over and over again. It happens.

To hear these words makes me think that you've lost the edge. You've become so enamored by being "mature" that you're stripping all the fun out of things. I could always count on your films to entertain.

IMO, He hasnt lost his edge at all. He just wants to move on, or perhaps more accurately, move around and do different things.

I dont understand why people dislike it when an artist wants to evolve. Similar to when Metallica went through an evolution (a quite natural one that comes with age) and everyone accused them of being sellouts.

Our tastes for art (all kinds) change over the years. Is it wrong for an artist's tastes to change as well? IMO no.

Schindler's List was not fun. Was it entertaining? I cant speak for others. Was it a brilliant film? Yes.

I like a director who can do a wide variety of films. It's a great skill, like an actor with great range.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Maybe he's just bored of doing the same thing over and over again. It happens.

IMO, He hasnt lost his edge at all. He just wants to move on, or perhaps more accurately, move around and do different things.

I dont understand why people dislike it when an artist wants to evolve. Similar to when Metallica went through an evolution (a quite natural one that comes with age) and everyone accused them of being sellouts.

Our tastes for art (all kinds) change over the years. Is it wrong for an artist's tastes to change as well? IMO no.

Schindler's List was not fun. Was it entertaining? I cant speak for others. Was it a brilliant film? Yes.

I like a director who can do a wide variety of films. It's a great skill, like an actor with great range.

My review probably had more ranting and raving than is warranted.

You are right though; artists do change and mature as they go on. I can see that Spielberg is moving on, maturing, learning, changing, and probably is doing what he enjoys or finds interesting. I just see a younger, bolder spirit in his older works than in the newer ones.

Just as if you compare Seven Samurai with Ran, the older work is really fun, simple, spirited, reckless with the violence, while the later work is brooding, serious, and rather slow. Or, if you compare A Fistfull of Dollars with Duck You Sucker!, Sergio Leone's earlier films were usually quite witty, violent, funny, and adventurous, while his older work became more enamored with complexity and morality. I guess it's a transition all respectable artists go through.

Your heavy metal parallel is appropriate (people haven't taken too kindly to Linkin Park's changes over the years either ). Singers and bands seem to change a lot as they go on too.

I think I'm mostly ticked that Lincoln didn't engage me as thoroughly as Steve's other films; not as entertainment or an experience.

[SquidPuppet]

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

2011 / NR / 157 minutes

Astonishingly beautiful night cinematography and lighting. Truly gorgeous.

Fantastically effective moody use of ambient sounds.

Great subtle performances.

Wonderful, memerizing, superslow pacing for 2 hours and 37 minutes.

A truly haunting film that sucked me in with its style.

Then it became, and remained, very boring.

Story? None really. Nothing that really mattered anyway. Through a series of meaningless (the topics themselves) conversations, we learn a little bit about each characters past, and who they are. None of which is pertenant to the films actual "plot". Sure, we learn that a couple of the main characters can weave deceptive tale about their own life. But that facet of the character connects, in NO way, to the film's story or themes.

This is another movie without and ending. Actually, this one doesnt have a meaningfull beginning or middle either.

The events of the night itself, and the "procedural crime story" are boring, and I'm confident that they were meant to be. So I am left to study the characters themselves. I enjoy character studies, but only when they are about fascinating people, or, ordinary people dealing with extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Castaway). The main characters in this film are just regular guys, with regular lives, with regular problems.

In short, I experienced no emotional highs or lows, I was neither in danger nor sublime peace, I witnessed no great events or places, I visited nothing historically important, I learned nothing, and I met no interesting characters.

Rcommendation? If you enjoy watching good actors talk (not always truthfully) about pasturized cheeze vs natural cheeze, the smell of buffalo yogurt, prostate problems, and their wives and neighbors, this is the film for you. If you desire a traditional story, told via traditional methods, resulting in a coherent climax, this wont be something that you will enjoy.

2/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

My review probably had more ranting and raving than is warranted.

But you gave it fair praise as well.

I think I'm mostly ticked that Lincoln didn't engage me as thoroughly as Steve's other films; not as entertainment or an experience.

I think you said it best yourself, that a history and/or politics buff would get more out of it. I found myself 100% engaged 100% of the time because the movie was 100% conflict 100% of the time, and I love all the arguing, wrangling, and attempts at resolution.

Oh yeah, I forgot, I agree with you about the title. Lincoln? Why?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Lincoln [/I]is a long, slow-moving drama based entirely on dialogue and politics. There's maybe a minute of war scenes in the opening shot, but from then on, it's straight-up talking. The vast majority of the film takes place in the White House, or in Congress, or in some other indoors setting, with very little variation. Conflict is strictly political; people struggling to get the 13th Amendment ratified, and lots of debating ensues.

I liked Lincoln a lot, but found fault in it for different reasons than you. Put simply, I found it was too epic for one film. There was so much going on (13th amendment, End of the Civil War and Assassination) with so many chess pieces, that 2 hours and change just couldn't get it done, Spielberg or no Spielberg. IMO, it would be like trying to cram the LOTR Trilogy into 120 minutes. Even the best filmmaker couldn't do it. Sure, in Lincoln, one may comprehend the plot, but not at a degree that is warranted, given the importance of the subject matter. I'd still give it 4/5, but no more than that. To be fair, I'm likely projecting John Adams onto it - the 7-8 hour HBO Mini-series, and probably unfairly judging it on that scale (subconsciously). But oh well. I just felt that the story is too important to brush over in one swoop, especially in an age when we have sufficient budget for silly sequel and sequel like Scary Movie 9

[Show spoiler]One other factor which is likely contributing to my "120 minutes = insufficient" bias here is Squid recently recommending TV series after TV series to me, to the point that ANY 120 minute plot length plays like a 30 second commercial

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I liked Lincoln a lot, but found fault in it for different reasons than you. Put simply, I found it was too epic for one film. There was so much going on (13th amendment, End of the Civil War and Assassination) with so many chess pieces, that 2 hours and change just couldn't get it done, Spielberg or no Spielberg. ]

You will be pleased to hear that Spielberg and Tom Hanks (Band of Brothers and The Pacific) have begun work on another ten part HBO miniseries. This one chronicles the slave trade, The Civil War, the 13th Amendment, and lincolns assasination. It's being called "A Torn Nation"

[Show spoiler]Just kidding. Please dont kill me. Wouldnt it be awesome though?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You will be pleased to hear that Spielberg and Tom Hanks (Band of Brothers and The Pacific) have begun work on another ten part HBO miniseries. This one chronicles the slave trade, The Civil War, the 13th Amendment, and lincolns assasination. It's being called "A Torn Nation"

[Show spoiler]Just kidding. Please dont kill me. Wouldnt it be awesome though?

you b@st@rd!!!!! I totally fell for that!!!!

By the way, I think everyone in this forum will agree that Squid needs an HBO TV Intervention. SEriously, I think the guy is on comission.

[Show spoiler]no objection!! keep the recommendations coming!!!!

They should rename HBO = MK Inc (Movie Killer Inc)

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

A truly haunting film that sucked me in with its style.

Then it became, and remained, very boring.

The main characters in this film are just regular guys, with regular lives, with regular problems.

In short, I experienced no emotional highs or lows, I was neither in danger nor sublime peace, I witnessed no great events or places, I visited nothing historically important, I learned nothing, and I met no interesting characters.

SHOCKED that you made it to the end. Even MORE shocked that it sucked you in and then let you down. You seem to have good instincts on films (i.e., if they draw you in, you end up likin them). Sounds boring though!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

you b@st@rd!!!!! I totally fell for that!!!!

By the way, I think everyone in this forum will agree that Squid needs an HBO TV Intervention. SEriously, I think the guy is on comission.

[Show spoiler]no objection!! keep the recommendations coming!!!!

They should rename HBO = MK Inc (Movie Killer Inc)

I see more and more articles and reviews that say things like "Modern TV is delivering what Hollywood is no longer willing or able to, well written drama." And I agree.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

SHOCKED that you made it to the end. Even MORE shocked that it sucked you in and then let you down. You seem to have good instincts on films (i.e., if they draw you in, you end up likin them). Sounds boring though!

The imagery is magnetic. I just wanted to stay and stare, so I did, and it was worth it. I gave it a 2/5 because as a whole I thought it sucked. But there is no escaping the fact that it looked good. Really good.

You might enjoy it. I dunno. It's theme and metaphor oriented.

Al the Strange should avoid.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

[Show spoiler]
2011 / NR / 157 minutes

Astonishingly beautiful night cinematography and lighting. Truly gorgeous.

Fantastically effective moody use of ambient sounds.

Great subtle performances.

Wonderful, memerizing, superslow pacing for 2 hours and 37 minutes.

A truly haunting film that sucked me in with its style.

Then it became, and remained, very boring.

Story? None really. Nothing that really mattered anyway.

[Show spoiler]Through a series of meaningless (the topics themselves) conversations, we learn a little bit about each characters past, and who they are. None of which is pertenant to the films actual "plot". Sure, we learn that a couple of the main characters can weave deceptive tale about their own life. But that facet of the character connects, in NO way, to the film's story or themes.

This is another movie without and ending. Actually, this one doesnt have a meaningfull beginning or middle either.

The events of the night itself, and the "procedural crime story" are boring, and I'm confident that they were meant to be. So I am left to study the characters themselves. I enjoy character studies, but only when they are about fascinating people, or, ordinary people dealing with extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Castaway). The main characters in this film are just regular guys, with regular lives, with regular problems.

In short, I experienced no emotional highs or lows, I was neither in danger nor sublime peace, I witnessed no great events or places, I visited nothing historically important, I learned nothing, and I met no interesting characters.

Rcommendation? If you enjoy watching good actors talk (not always truthfully) about pasturized cheeze vs natural cheeze, the smell of buffalo yogurt, prostate problems, and their wives and neighbors, this is the film for you. If you desire a traditional story, told via traditional methods, resulting in a coherent climax, this wont be something that you will enjoy.

2/5

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Show spoiler]The imagery is magnetic. I just wanted to stay and stare, so I did, and it was worth it. I gave it a 2/5 because as a whole I thought it sucked. But there is no escaping the fact that it looked good. Really good.

You might enjoy it. I dunno. It's theme and metaphor oriented.

Al the Strange should avoid.

Dang, with all the positive reviews floating around, I thought it was real hot stuff. But what you've described in your review pretty much underscores the type of film I usually dislike.

Thanks for the warning.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You will be pleased to hear that Spielberg and Tom Hanks (Band of Brothers and The Pacific) have begun work on another ten part HBO miniseries. This one chronicles the slave trade, The Civil War, the 13th Amendment, and lincolns assasination. It's being called "A Torn Nation"

[Show spoiler]Just kidding. Please dont kill me. Wouldnt it be awesome though?

lol, I almost fell for it too. It sounded genuinely convincing and awesome.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Aint gunna happen. ever. Musicals are my Kryptonite.

Is it the stage-acting that turns you off or do you just not prefer stories to be told in song and dance?

It is a very different genre for sure.

[Lepidopterous]

After the Oscars last night, I drew a connection between my two golden picks of 2012. Both films are about confronting something we avoid in life.

Amour forces us to look at old age and acknowledge just what enduring love really means. And the responsibility that that cliche desire to "grow old together" really entails.

Beasts of the Southern Wild forces us to look into the lifestyle of those that have had their homes pulverized down to primitive civilization. It reminds us how convenient it is to be outside of the "Bathtub" and just forget about it.

[KingRad]

Rambo (2008) - 3.5/5


I don't believe it to be as good as First Blood, this film is still one hell of a ride from start to finish. While the plot is simply "there" to guide us through the action, it's still not bad. At the very least, the film is able to illustrate a violent and gruesome representation of the genocide in Burma. Rambo shines most for its action. It's certainly the most violent, brutal, and gory of all the films.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest movie seen on an airplane: Beasts of the Southern Wilds

[Show spoiler]After the god-awful borefest that was Lincoln (), BotSW represented at least one step up in entertainment value. The film does move at an appealing rate; nothing too slow, nothing too fast. The film is pleasantly short and pretty briskly-cut.

What makes it stand out will be a certain charm the film has. It's a pretty bizarre animal of a film: it's set in the ugliest, dirtiest, most primal environment imaginable, but the characters revel in it like pigs rolling happily in the mud and chowing down on gruel. Because the film is shown through the eyes of the little girl, Hush Puppy, and she provides the narration, the film overall takes on a childlike sense of whimsey and wisdom that permeates through the film, roughness and all, and really makes the Bathtub out to be the happiest place on Earth, even though it comes close to looking like District 9 in the swamp.

Regardless, the film plays out as a modern tall tale, and it does so phenomenally. There's not a whole lot to the plot, but it's enough to make the characters shine really well and make them relate-able. (In spite of Squiddy's complaints ), I did find it a little distracting and disconcerting to see the father figure acting so cruel and crazy. It's a bit of a necessary evil, to deliver a strong theme of "survival of the fittest," and to ultimately underscore strong themes concerning nature, human nature, and the relationship between the two.

One other positive thing I will say is that this film does everything right that Where the Wild Things Are tried so hard but failed to do. I think the two could stand side-by-side.

The film looks pretty rough, with some herky-jerky camerawork, but for this film it accentuates the rough and wild settings perfectly, and the camera moves rarely become agitating. I enjoyed the acting and writing. This production makes good use of pretty simple sets, props, and costumes. Music is appropriate.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Give it a try.

Wild*

I like your comparison to Where the Wild Things Are. That film definitely crossed my mind as well.

Honestly, I'm still a little lost as to how to interpret the film's settings, much less how to classify it. I went into expecting a fantasy, because I could have sworn I saw it compared to Pan's Labyrinth. With the premise of

[Show spoiler]the ice caps melting and wild beasts being unleashed,

I wondered if this was meant to be the near or distant future, thus making this a sci-fi picture. In the end, I realized it's probably just modern-day stuff with exaggerations, but I still find it hard to accept that the Bathtub could be a real place. What's shown on screen lends itself to a fantasy-like depiction of a real place, and without additional information, it could be taken any number of ways. I kinda wish the film was more specific as to whether this film is meant to be a real-life place and time, or if it's near/distant future, or if it's pure fantasy with modern stuff in it.

Regarding the setting, I never interpreted the beasts as being real. The scene where Hushpuppy

[Show spoiler]interacts with them was purely symbolic to me and can represent a number of things. I thought of it as a "test" of life, and them turning away demonstrated that she passed and has enough bravery to last on her own.

If there's anything to complain about, it's just how incredulous it is to believe that people could live in such conditions and be so happy about it.

It's who is left though. After Hushpuppy and the gang demonized the rescue crew, it was clear to me that the only ones that stayed were those that chose to, because it is their home and there is no other moral choice for them. I think of them as "Bathtub natives". That's why the film was shot down for having a liberal agenda: they refuse to leave because they know that once they do, their homes will be forgotten and lost forever.

[Abdrewes]

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

Among the most carefully modulated and finely crafted work of the last year stands Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. What would otherwise be a standard procedural thriller is metamorphosed into a thoughtful rumination on the deadening of several public servant's souls and the inescapability of fate and the value of accepting the multifaceted nature of evidence. In one hundred year's what would be made of their grave turmoils? Will the barren land, which they occupy, remember the efforts of several policemen and a doctor?

On a clear night, amongst the numerous hills, a sinewy road is exposed. We are thrust into the action with meticulous detail for the search of a certain burial spot in one of the many empty fields. One stop after another is made as the suspects are reluctant in divulging any useful information. Once a desired end result has been met, to what extent is is zero sum and is is possible for the inevitable cranking of a gears to make more sense than their cyclical nature allows?

Doctor Cemal tags along while Prosecutor Nusret oversees the search. Above all, their relationship and numerous conversations provide the film theme and nuance. Their contrasting views on the deterministic nature of crime will be tested as the inevitable is unearthed.

This is an extraordinary film that will reward the patient. It's the rare film that's not afraid to detail mundane and small processes that comprise an investigation. It's well researched and pulls no punches. In place of a traditional score or overused character development methods, the film accepts the earthy details of the character's lives and the land which envelopes them. In the numerous establishing shots, the soundtrack is composed of natural sounds: the wind's whir, the crickets chirp and when the mis en scene veers into the metaphysical, the crackle of thunder.*

4/4: See this film!