Reviews

Smaller countries always had problems with film production because their market is small and even cheaper movies can hardly return the invested money. While in USSR politicians decided which movies were allowed to be made and ensured money for all of them - so even totally noncommercial art movies were free to be made without having to think if they would ever come to theaters (except festival ones) as long as enough propaganda movies glorifying war victory and communism have been produced in the same year – authors from other countries had very limited resources. The smaller country, the more problems: movies could be even very successful when analyzing sold tickets compared to total population, but the total amount was still small, and coming from small and unattractive countries these movies had no chance for appearance, let alone success abroad.

In fact, Yugoslavia had certain advantage compared to Iron Courtain. While, as a socialist country, in politically good relations to Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia made several movies in co-production with Czechoslovakia but, unfortunately, without expected results (Czechs gave good equipment and technicians, but none of their legendary authors like Menzel, Forman, Chytilova, ever participated) Yugoslavia also welcomed western movie makers who made films with plot located beyond Iron Curtain and didn't want to or weren't permitted to make them on authentic locations. However, unlike musicians who were big stars there, especially in East Germany and USSR, movies from Yugoslavia were less popular in other socialist countries, partially because they were created for local audience, showing local people talking on local dialects and living the life hardly understandable to people from other cultures.

One of the methods that producers used in Europe (not only on the East and not only in small countries) were tighter bonds between movie companies and television. Many movies have been made as a co-production where movie companies reduced the length of tracks editing them for theatrical release and TV companies used all the footage and made the mini-serials. This is something that probably never happened in overseas countries – in USA sometimes successful movies induces a TV serial but usually with other actors, writers, directors etc (MASH probably being one of the first and best known), and much later serials could become a movie, sometimes with sequels, Star Trek as the best example. This, usually, didn't happen in countries like Yugoslavia.

But usually leaves a place for exceptions. „Servantes iz malog mista" is one of there rare ones. It was made a decade after the final second season of „Naše malo misto", one of biggest hits in Yugoslavian TV history. Though made entirely by Croatian crew, with plot placed in typical and rather isolated Croatian island and made in local dialect not easy to understand even by viewers from other Croatian regions, this serial made a big success in whole Yugoslavia, and even now, more than 40 years afterwards it is one of two often repeated ones and never lacking audience (the other being „Gruntovcani", also set in small Croatian village but in different region with different culture and dialect). Ten years ago the producers understood the possibilities to earn more then just repeatedly broadcasting it. So they made this movie.

If you haven't seen the serial there is almost no sense to watch Servantes. The plot is settled somewhere in the middle of the serial, using even some scenes from it, and almost all the characters are taken from it in the way that the viewer is presumed to know them and their relations - otherwise you most likely won't understand them and won't be able to follow the plot line. There is even no developing of the characters because they have been developing (a very well done job!) during the serial, so as this movie was placed in the middle of it nothing important could have happened to them, otherwise it would collide with the serial. The writers understood these limits and decided to make the movie as a bunch of sketches with a rather loose plot.

It is interesting (and a bit weird) that the title character Servantes (a nickname given to the poor local poet who spent part of his life in Latin America planning to translate Cervantes works to Croatian) isn't the main role neither in serial nor in movie, and the original part of the plot that is related to the nearby located naturist beach doesn't include him at all. During 70's and 80's naturism ("nudism") was a very important part of Croatian tourist offer, but nowadays it's hard to say if it is decreasing or just not spoken about due to modern conservatism. Anyway movie seems to (mis)use a certain Dalmatian tradition: „galebi" („seagulls") are young men (and those who think they are still young) who live and prepare whole year for 2-3 summer months when their only task is seducing young (or less young) foreign female tourists and create them the best holidays they ever had. In reality „galeb" would never appear on a naturist beach and tourists using naturist beaches most likely wouldn't use their services, however this is comedy and doesn't have to be based on too much reality.

The movie had his audience in the beginning, but it was just because of sentimental reasons. Soon the audience understood that re-watching the serial is much better than watching its pale, weak offspring. Servantes disappeared and has been hard to find ever since (just in rare occasions TV uses it in very far from prime-times). But producers probably managed to get enough money to produce some other, I believe better movies, and that was doubtlessly the only reason Servantes has been resurrected.

The title of the movie suggests us what to expect. However, it is not that simple. The fact that the plot is settled in 1917 could make us unsure, because that was a war year and the year of revolution, and this year couldn't be chosen accidentally. Also, in those years there wasn't much a local doctor away from big cities could do but perform basic surgery and relieve pain with no modern medications, so morphine was the symbol of what a patient could hope for. Then almost immediately we are surprised and confused again, when we are told that the movie was made after Bulgakov's autobiographical story (what is only partially correct).

But the fact is that the plot is not as simple as our expectations could be formed based on the title. It is really a war time (although we don't see battles we see how former hard times became even harder), revolution has important influence to the plot (how could it not?), lonely doctor with no professional experience has to deal with patients in these impossible conditions, and the title is not misleading, the use of morphine is significant and a trigger to many later events.

Though the movie is divided by appearing titles into a dozen fragments, it is very coherent with a firm time line and the whole story happens within several months. These interfering titles do not break it, sometimes the story simply continues in the same scene, but emphasize some events or persons. This might be supposed to make movie look artistic, however I don't find it necessary or useful, but more needlessly distracting.

The movie doesn't take any side when revolution happens. Bad things happen during revolution, and we see them, but bad things happen also unrelated to revolution, and we see them as well. As for medicine work that we see, I am uncertain if a hundred years ago morphine was really used for treating allergies (though it is possible that in this scene allergy was just an excuse), and the complicated birth seems to end too easy; CPR as we see in the movie has been invented decades later; the rest of events in hospital looks very realistic for the time and place.

And as for addiction... This is one of brutally, graphic realistic movies and can be compared to German Christiane F. (Kinder von ZOO Banhof), Canadian H or – a bit less graphic – Croatian Ta divna splitska noc and Swedish Under ytan. Too bad that kids have to grow up enough to be allowed to watch these movies (because of censorship and age restrictions), because it will already be too late for many of them when they grow up enough to satisfy the censors.

So, this is Russian plain, cold, empty, large, as we have been told many times before. But this is not Mikhalkov, this is not dr Zhivago and for sure not Turgenyev. Some scenes are not easy to watch. The movie is very dark, but we expect is because new Russian generation (like Zvyagintsev) prepared us for that, and Balabanov (Pro urodov i lyudey, Gruz 200) as director guarantees you that you won't be left undisturbed. If you think you can handle it, then do it, you won't regret.

First: I really liked this movie, though I don't find it one of three or five best Swedish movies. But any among twenty best Swedish movies is better than top three of most other countries.

Nothing is perfect, including movies. However, I find some objections from other comments not important or completely mistaken.

It is true that people in the village (in choir or out of it) show a great range of different characters. It is true that they can be described as clichés. But this is not unrealistic. I wonder how many of these comments have been written by people who live and know the life in distant, separated villages. It is normal that you find very different people there, on one place. In big cities (where most of IMDb critics live) so different people usually don't appear together, they tend to be in groups with people of similar interests, education, social status, hobbies etc etc. In small villages people are rather unique, they can't be in groups with similar people because there are no similar ones, so any group contains different characters. Which can more or less look like clichés.

Sweden, as other Nordic countries, really pays big attention to home violence. But distant villages are again world of its own. Have you seen any policeman in the movie? We don't know how far away is the closest police station. Village lives their tradition rules and law. That's why Gabrielle stays longer with Connie than most city woman would. And it's not illogical to expect a person who was able to suffer and bare Connie for so many years to do what she has done when he finally had to face the law. Despite a comment that finds it unbelievable, people who are still more bound to tradition than to modern trends still have some ability of forgiveness, something that's unpopular and almost extinct in our culture. But if we look in books or movies made few decades ago, this wasn't such a rare and unbelievable characteristic, so it can still appear in traditional, especially religious communities.

What me leads to final and most important reason why I wrote this comment.

This is an deeply religious movie, and it must have been done either by a deeply religious or complete atheistic author. It rejects the cold, heartless demagogy and extreme pharisee-ism of narrow-minded fundamentalists that seem to be trapped in Old Testimony, and shows the expression of life and faith that can be reached once given a freedom and love (one that New Testimony offers). Such a devotedness to one final aim, closing circles of his life and simultaneously rotating in a spiral to its top, achieving the final point, the climax of his life, fulfilling everything he was living for...

That's why I can understand how somebody compared Daniel to some kind of Jesus. However, I don't see him as Jesus. David isn't sinless, sometimes he has hidden motives and isn't free of manipulation and vanity. But I can compare him to St Peter. His faith/devotion isn't equally strong all the time - something like Peter's when he denied Jesus. Jesus ended his life on Earth on the top of the mountain, while Daniel's death in the basement looks more like St Peter's crucified upside-down on a Roman square, now basement of St Peter's Basilica. And Daniel's work looks more like following Jesus' words to Peter: "you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock I will build my church": he had his work done, he was a rock firm basement of the choir that doesn't seem to be turned to dust after Daniel's death.

However, Daniel's devotion was not to faith or God but to art. On the other hand, he finds his fulfillment through church choir and the more we follow his work, the more we see that he accepts religious music to achieve his aim. So it is up to each of us to interpret if it is music and art, or it is faith and God that fulfills one's life as the final and eternal aim. And this is why, depending on the premise, I can't tell if the authors are truly religious or completely atheistic persons. But no matter what is in their hearts and soul, their movie is a true art that gives us freedom to chose for ourselves.

Decades ago actors (and, certainly, actresses) often used to quit making movies, to retire and be remembered for what they've done while being young, strong, beautiful. Some decided to reappear for a special occasion, like James Cagney, some kept their decision till the end. Greta Garbo and Cary Grant come first into my mind.

Today the times have changed. After Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Jack Lemmon, Henry Fonda and others that didn't want to waste their last breaths, many actors that have approached the years where traditional lover and action hero roles don't fit much any more not only keep on playing, but aren't satisfied to get supporting roles for new young stars movies – they even make movies where all top casting positions contains their peers. And while Clint, Tommy Lee and others decided to go to space, Kris, Peter and Keith's movie takes place in (similarly isolated) American wilderness.

For Kristofferson, as a country composer and singer, and as a "Heaven's Gate" star, this is a natural environment. Carradine also had his share of roles that took him to middle USA, "Nashville" and "The Long Riders" among best remembered. And for Fonda this may be the kind of landscape that he rode along in "Easy Rider".

Though their best years are behind them they are still capable of making a good job. They are not stars like Jones and Eastwood (and, unfortunately, never have been – just a step behind, having maybe just a teaspoon less luck to make few successes in a line), and they don't get first class productions. However, taking what's been offered, none of them disappointed us. There was no need for a big theater type of acting, the three men are small people from small town and big gestures would be overacting.

Though the story keeps running in the limits of solid TV production, the writers made some unusual and funny jokes (stolen dead body, agent Collins' enthusiasm...) and avoided making the conflict between worlds of a teenage computer fan and his grandfather from isolated farm become a center point of jokes (so many times repeated in movies like "Crocodile Dundee", "Coming to America", "Starman", "Les visiteurs" etc) – screenplay is definitely better than one would expect seeing that long list of writers. However, the directing seems rather slow and too mainstream, leaving some scenes underused and a lot of potentials partially ignored. As it could be expected, the end is too sentimental containing no surprises, very TV-ish, but doesn't ruin the integrity.

Anyway, it is always a pleasure to watch those three next-to-top stars and, without having to big expectations, those who like all or some of them won't regret.

It's not a month since I've watched "Laila" and I had to check what the movie was about. That explains how deep is the impression this movie makes. It's not that bad – otherwise I'd remember it for being a disaster; it simply doesn't stay in memory. It is so full of clichés, acting average or a bit below that, looking like British TV serials from early 70's (with a difference that those serials had good plots and souls), it simply slips out of one's memory.

This movie can be considered an insult to old Germany vampire tradition that started when Murnau made Nosferatu; however, avoiding it (or not knowing it at all?) authors in this oversimplified story portray vampires that would fit better in modern American cinema, from Buffy to Twilight.

The only thing that was slightly interesting was comparing humans and vampires, their motives and methods, and you can't tell the difference – vampires don't have to be monsters, and humans can behave like vampires. It could be a message of the movie that vampires symbolize dark side of living humans, and people are so afraid of vampires because they know that vampires can do things as bad as their neighbors, friends, family members can – just without pretending they are friendly and moral, as humans usually do. But, having in mind the whole movie, I can, however, say for sure that this "deeper meaning" was a coincidence. This movie is as anemic as if vampires took all the blood form it; and one can't imagine the authors able to put any message in it.

Settled on a non-existing Adriatic island (but definitely in Croatia) and not mentioning the time (but definitely in early 2000's) with unreal politicians on screen (but mentioning real politicians from history) "Pravo cudo" is an unusually coherent, logical Croatian movie with an ending that is, unlike average Croatian movie, also logical and fitting the story and the genre.

Stories about preachers and healers, outcasts from official religions, are nothing new in world cinematography, though Croatian authors have never focused it so far. However, Toma, the hero of "Pravo cudo" is not a typical one. He has a gift (and this movie has some fantastic elements) to heal people, but he never pretends to be a saint. This gift enables him to earn enough money for him and his son, enables him a life style that surely won't remind us on saints, but he sometimes finds this gift being a burden. He doesn't pretend to be a prophet, a God's messenger, but he knows that his gift is given by a superior being, therefore he is not allowed to ignore or abuse it. So he isn't a cheater as most movie (and most real) healers and preachers are; but it is not easy to balance between demands of soul and demands of flesh.

Rade Serbedzija is a perfect choice for this role. Unlike another Croatian international star Goran Visnjic he was a famous local actor before appearing in foreign productions, and this reputation with sparkles of international success gave him a special status in small Croatian cinematography. He can play anything and just his name will make a movie almost untouchable, unquestionable. It can be compared to de Niro's status in USA. And, as de Niro does, Serbedzija gives his best in return, even when the movie isn't exceptional and role not an inspiration, he will be high above its level.

It's really hard to imagine anybody doing a better job as a tired old man, torn between human, carnal pleasures and gift given from above, followed by fame that gives him opportunities and by his vices that destroy them. Unfortunately, though Croatia never had a lack of talented actors, the casting in supporting roles managed to avoid them. So, as Toma is a God's gift to Adriatic island, Serbedzia is a God's gift for this movie.

Unlike majority of Croatian movies whose problems usually start with screenplay, this is one of the best stories, and among the highlights of the movie is the photography – focused on characters and plot, using nature as the integral part of the story avoiding the trap of picture postcard type of advertising that frequently ruin the balance of the movies (probably when local tourist offices appear as co-producers).

Mostly because of unusual character created both by good script and magnificent performance, this movie should be watched. Mostly, but not limited to...

At the moment when I write this review The Iris Effect has one of the worst rankings I've ever seen on IMDb - 2.2.

When seeing such a ranking it's more likely that a person turns a channel. However, I (can't explain why, maybe because my wife didn't want to watch shooting and fighting that had been offered on other channels) decided to give it a chance.

And I didn't regret it. No, I don't say that I wasn't disappointed. In fact, I was maybe more disappointed than the other reviewers. Not because the whole movie was bad, but because it was so good in some points and what was bad was so bad that it ruined everything. So much wasted, so much spoiled.

The story was not that bad as some comments accuse the writers. If you like stories on the edge of supernatural there is no reason not to like this one. Some great borderline horrors and some great love stories have been made using some premises just beyond reality, from Don't Look Back and Milagro to Angel-A and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and with no real chance to ever be challenged let alone beaten Marianne de ma jeunesse. If you want to keep your head clean and don't expect anything except pure reality, you simply must stay away from these movies and won't be disappointed. But if you accept this playing on the edge of some different kind of existence than you can buy the plot of Iris Effect.

Some flashbacks that appear within the movie are rather clearly marked being mostly b-w, some nightmares are not marked but you understand that it was a vision or hallucination at the moment it stops. So this won't disable your ability to follow the plot. Unfortunately, the bad editing in some scenes and even more bad directing make certain scenes hard to understand, and though everything is mostly revealed at the end you still won't be sure what (and why) happened then. If it was for the bad screenplay the director could help it, but it seems that the director couldn't handle the script in his hands.

The best thing that the director did was to give open hands to director of photography. Not just for creating mood virtuosically using the old streets and buildings of Sankt Petersburg, but for many other moments, pictures, colors as well. Some of these photographic solutions create by far more magic, more suspense, more feelings and more supernatural romance than anything director did in the rest of that hour and half.

Alas, the directing was still not the worst thing in the movie. It was acting, maybe the worse acting that I've ever seen in a mainstream movie made in any country that produces more than five movies per decade. Their acting could be best describes as a torture, and though I mean primarily they've tortured us, I can't get rid of the feeling that the actors felt tortured as well. Have they realized that the movie is going to be a failure? Or have they been pressed by their agents to do it, with not a grain of their own free will? The words that they've been saying have sounded less realistic than you can hear on primary school kids performance. They had to say it, but they gave not a bit of soul in it.

It was a pleasant surprise that Americans talked English and Russians talked Russian (unlike most modern movies where everybody talks English including aliens), but the way these actors talked was worse than usual dubbing (have you ever heard dubbing made for Russian or Polish audience?). Kip Pardue had a great opportunity, because his character could be (because of the plot) the most interesting, but he acted as if he was afraid to reveal some secrets too soon. Gregory Hlady was unconvincing as a psychiatrist, as a lover and no more convincing as a Rebecca's secret accomplice. Agnes Bruckner didn't get enough footage, but at least she had from the first appearance let us know there is something secret about her and make us wonder what it is. It's weird how did Russians let some of their characters who were supposed to be officials (and represent the country) like detective Kateuzov (but not just him) look completely ridiculous like caricatures, something we could expect that Americans would do making fun and deriding people from some distant third world country.

And finally, there's Ann Archer. I believe there are several million women around the world that would do this job better. All I'll say is that if she were such a wife to Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction, it would be more than than normal for him to commit not only adultery but to assist Glenn Close in murdering her as well. And we'd support him if he did it.

Now I have to conclude it by something that I've never thought I'd ever write. I have been opposing making remakes from the first moment I've understood that they exist, but now, I wish that among so many not only unnecessary but adverse, noxious, absurd remakes that Hollywood permanently produces somebody remembers The Iris Effect and brushes its screenplay just a little, and then gives it a chance with new director and actors that won't even remind us to the team that made it in 2005.

Harrelson, Kline, Streep, Jones, Madsen, Tomlin… great names, each of them would make me consider or even force me to watch any movie. And there is Altman himself.

Well, if it were not for Altman, probably this movie would stay within USA borders as a cult movie that nobody of us "foreigners" would hear about, except in those stars' filmographies. We would put it in a ladder with other strictly USA projects like Saturday Night Live and similar and mostly forget about it, while Americans would praise it as a highlight of their culture – and I guess they would have all rights to do it: we, across the ocean, simply can't completely understand and recognize it, can't feel it and can't develop enough emotions for it.

And this is a deeply emotional movie, unlike most Altman's works that open us a part of the reality, show it, analyze, but usually from the point of a spectator, a chronicler. Here Altman includes even supernatural elements, very unlikely for his other works. But in this movie he expresses sentimental feelings for the subject of the movie which, as usual, is not one or few human destinies, but some community, place, event, society etc. The trouble for non-Americans is that we can understand Nashville because, no matter how deeply American their elections are, we are well informed about them, either by daily news or by so many movies that give us really wide perspective (and also all of us have some elections traditions, events and affairs in our own countries), and besides Altman doesn't expect us to feel something about Nashville; but we can't feel Prairie Home Companion because it is too different from our experiences, and Altman tries to induce emotions in his audience, emotions that you can have only for something that has already touched you in childhood or some other sensitive phase of your life.

For me personally, this movie is another prove of Altman's genius, because I had no previous emotions for the subject and he still managed to give me breathless scenes and a create a mood that I felt even more than in many of his movies that corresponded better with my knowledge, feelings, culture. But I am a person that also understands and appreciates words of Queen's Radio Ga-Ga better than the music. I'm glad that I've seen this movie, but I won't repeat it, and I'm not sure to whom could I suggest it if living outside USA (except, of course, Altman's fans, but they've probably watched it already).

There are persons, things, events that simply don't have luck. As any other forms of art, movies can be unlucky as well.

So many things were announcing that Stella could be a successful movie, for local level of course (movies from Yugoslavia got a lot of festival awards and critics' praises but apart from festivals never appeared in foreign theaters). Director Krelja was famous for his documentaries, co-writer Pavlicic is one of best modern Croatian novelist with several great movies made after his novels, music was written by Arsen Dedic, a great poet, songwriter and singer with career starting in late fifties and now in 2010's he is still an active star in Croatia, the story was a drama (with topic partially following Krelja's 1979 movie "Godisnja doba") with some elements of crime and just enough political criticism to be interesting and still safe from banning by still leading Yugoslav communist regime… And then the war happened.

People who were living in cellars, listening to sounds of air-raid and artillery, and a lot of them abandoning their homes (lucky ones going to relatives abroad or maybe less dangerous parts of country, less lucky ones to refugee centers), people who lost everything they had including very often some members of their family weren't interested in any movies at all. Even those who lived in rather peaceful regions spent several hours daily in shelters and their only reason to watch TV was to hear the news and the direction of enemy flights, to know when to expect next alert. Nobody cared for drama on TV, drama and tragedy could be seen through the windows and not rarely in their own homes (but they didn't survive to tell us about it).

And as it always happens, radio and TV presented only programs related to war. If it was movie, it was a war story or some other big drama or tragedy supposed to make people brave and ready for sacrifice. Stela had nothing of that. Even worse, it had several Serbian actors in cast. And for years that were coming no Serbian singer and no Serbian actor appeared on radio programs or TV screen in Croatia. Even those who opposed the war and Serbian government were banned because traumatized people could hardly distinguish them from the rest, and Serbian language in songs could be experienced as provocative.

Once the war was over Stela was forgotten. Croatia had too many fresh wounds, to many traumas, people with PTSD, war invalids... So many topics for new movies. Yugoslavian milicija from Stela was replaced by Croatian police and new audience didn't care for it any more, as well as for corrupted politicians or disillusioned communists, and now with so many homeless children, children whose parents were killed in war, Stela's destiny didn't seem so harsh as it was supposed to look back then in 1990.

Maybe now the war is enough far behind and Stela could try its luck once more. Maybe it's not the best thing that Pavlicic wrote (surely not like Ritam zlocina) but it is, for Croatian movie, a surprisingly coherent story with enough interesting characters both as main and supporting roles, that keeps the good, stable rhythm during most of its one and half hour, something that most Croatian movies don't even try to manage.

And, just one objection… even now, 20 years after war, IMDb still tries to convince us that this (and many other) Croatian movies from Yugoslavia years were made in Serbian language.

As there have already been several comments written about this movie, I'd like to add some information that seem to be unknown to all the comment authors so far.

One of them praises Delbert Mann for giving role to Susan Blakely. This certainly wasn't Mann's choice, because "Against Her Will" is a sequel of 1990. movie "The Incident" where Blakely plays the same role of Matthau's daughter-in-law. As death of her husband (Matthau's son) is a part of the first movie's plot, it is natural that her new found love in the sequel has to be reflected in her relation to her father-in-law.

The last movie in trilogy "Incident in a Small Town" was also made by Mann, but this time without Blakely (and without child SF star Ariana Richards playing her daughter).

The first movie wasn't made by Mann, but by another well-known director (working mostly for TV) Joseph Sargent.

This movie is a pleasant surprise that returns faith in American movie, the faith that has been suffering for a long while, recovering just rarely by Tim Burton's work or movies like "Eternal Sunshine..."

We – especially us who live outside USA – have been exposed to so much Hollywood vain, shallow, plastic movies in range from superhero action violence and funless teen comedies to the worst movie blasphemies - remakes, that we use to forget that there are small movies untouched by Hollywood lethal sauce. Even masterpieces like Big Fish, Edward Scissorhand, Chocolate, Green Mile (or already mentioned Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind) have a clear Hollywood sign, and after all those Rambos and American Pies, comics based blockbusters and remakes of French movies (what is additionally ironic because average American movie consumer would rather see a rattlesnake on the floor than French movie on the screen) this touch of Hollywood became odious, what is a tragic decline for this old temple of movies... just few decades ago the touch of Hollywood style was the best praise a movie could be given.

Adrift in Manhattan is more European style than any American movie I've seen for a long while; even more, it is more European style than many European movies made in last two decades. Too many European movie makers make movies to fit into Hollywood standards, hoping it will sell better; now, American authors teach Europe a lesson how good a movie can exist without Hollywood sugar, false glamour and forced tears.

The basic thing that connects main characters in the movie is loneliness. Though set on Manhattan we don't get the feeling that the big city is the prime suspect for their loneliness, they would probably be lonely everywhere on Earth. Not only that, but somehow New York eases their pain and helps them find each other, find them the way to tomorrow. And this is one of those things that are so often in Europe, a kind of love stories between director and his city, an ode and praise to it, something that American authors so rarely give us.

The second feeling mutual to the characters (besides loneliness) is guilt. They all carry a burden of old mistakes on their conscience – even if they aren't really guilty (from our point of view). And their loneliness grows not only because this burden presses them too hard, not only because they are ashamed, but mostly because they are afraid to share it with anybody. And only learning to open their souls to another person – whoever it may be, the more unknown stranger the easier it can be done – can give them hope, a chance for redemption and leaving this guilt behind them. Sharing a burden reduces the pressure. And as we follow these people, we will see how some relations terminate because of total loss of communication, while others appear and develop once the shell softens.

There are no breathtaking performances in the movie, but all the actors made a good job. Personally, I find Dominic Chianese a bit above the others, but it was a most interesting character so the role offered more chances, more challenges. The unobtrusive music was well aligned to beautiful photography, camera loved both the actors and the city.

This movie gave us a picture of some other New York than we usually see, and a completely different picture of American movies than we are used to watch.

It is not easy to find a novel by Pavao Pavlicic that couldn't be transferred to a movie. And it is impossible to find the movie made after his novels that was a failure. Finally, it would be very difficult to find a director that could feel Pavlicic's novels so well, so deeply like Tadic had.

It is a pity that Pavlicic was writing and Tadic making movies in a country that is not rich enough to use all those potentialities – in some other cinematography it's easy to imagine Tadic making one movie per year and at least half of them making after Pavlicic's novels.

In "Ritam zlocina" Tadic feels not only the soul of the novel, but the soul of Zagreb suburbs where the movie takes place. Suburbs that have mostly vanished by now, or will in only few years. Suburbs that have their own soul, their own life, that have existed in almost every big town in the world, that have been villages a century ago, and have been slowly approached, then surrounded and finally swallowed and digested by their big neighbor. But in those few decades when they were in process of turning from villages to towns they developed some special characteristics, where people kept their gardens as miniatures of old fields and meadows, still digging a little and growing carrots and tulips, keeping old close relations to the neighbors, knowing every person living two streets away, not only by name, but knowing names of their distant relatives somewhere in Germany or America, knowing what these people do for life (officially or illegally), knowing what church they go to (if they do), what will they kids become in their lives (often better than their own parents). Life similar to life in some streets few blocks away from the centre of smaller towns like Virovitica, Bjelovar, Vinkovci, Koprivnica... But people in those small towns have to walk five minutes to reach the centre that has few big buildings, one theater, one big and several small stores, a hospital and a police station, some public services and a soccer stadium and a hall for handball and basketball. People in big town suburbs have to take a tram or bus and suddenly they are in another world, another space. So many possibilities offered, so many choices. But, in the same time, so many dangers, so many temptations. One square big as their whole suburb, one park bigger than all their gardens and schoolyard put together, one skyscraper giving homes to more people that will ever live in their area bounded by three avenues and a river. Magnificent and frightening, astonishing and threatening, seducing like Delilah, like Circe, like Sirens ready to swallow too incautious sailors. So they prefer to stay in their little shell, hoping that big, strange and perilous world won't touch their small community – though deep inside knowing that it is inevitably.

(This vanishing world of Zagreb's suburbs was shown in "Tko pjeva zlo ne misli" and "Snivaj, zlato moje"; but both movies take place in former decades – before or just after WWII, and how these suburbs look like today can be seen best in serial "Smogovci", and partially in "Ispod crte".) And then the day comes when machines come and in only few days the century old streets, houses, gardens disappear to make place for heartless 10 or 20 floor buildings same as in every town on the Earth. Those small worlds that each have its own soul, ow spirit are replaced by one same world that has no soul, no spirit.

"Ritam zlocina" has to be seen as an ode or epitaph for those worlds. And the original title of the novel "Good Spirit of Zagreb" expresses this mood much better. Everything in the movie is less important. But not less great.

This movie preserves this world forever, keeps it for the history. And in the same time, the movie is one of the most prominent stones in building of Croatian movie history.

For somebody, war is few air-raid alarms during several years. For somebody else, war is years of hiding in a shelter, or even cellars because there is no place in shelters, and leaving the shelter is life threatening, because city is exposed to all day long gunshots or bombing from the other side of river.

But, no matter if living in the middle of battlefield or somewhere far from it, war inevitably changes lives of all people, making them all victims.

We can't blame Australians for having no real war activities on their territory (we can maybe only envy them). And we have to give appreciation to authors who didn't make a typical war movie, who didn't fill it with soldiers and weapons, but shown how the war can touch people who – looking from distance – don't seem to be affected by war at all.

There is something in spirit of the movie that remind us on Weir's "Picnic at Hanging Rock". It is not the same time, not the same part of country, there is no war in "Picnic", but there is something that discretely tells us that it is the same culture, same soul. It is like comparing Boorman's war coming-to-age drama "Hope and Glory" and movies that show same surroundings in times of peace, coming-to-age dramas from suburbs and old fashioned schools like "Kes" or "Ratcatcher".

It is the character (Emma) who is so similar to girls in Weir's movie, it is the school, it is nature; it is also film's rhythm and photography... add some mysticism to "Emma's War" and it could look as if made by same authors.

But, while in "Picnic" the girls disappear, in "Emma's War" it is life that disappears, it is childhood that has to go away – though at Emma's age it would leave soon anyway, war made it vanish in a moment. Yes, we can wish that Anna Frank had no more problems in war than Emma, and that her final fate was no worse than Emma's, but during their war years their problems were similar, their abrupt cutting off ordinary life, their accelerated growing up show that, though the level of real jeopardy can't be compared at all, the human soul passes the same paths and tunnels, hopes and despairs, challenges and compromises.

So, the movie tells us that no matter if Emma lived in Australia or Rwanda, Vukovar or Manchester, Sankt Petersburg or Vladivostok, war would terminate her childhood, ruin her teenage years and leave scars forever.

Lee Remick's character, Penelope in temptations, should have been either given more screen time and better developed, or made just a supporting role. Both due to screenplay and Remick's great acting, Emma's mother Anne becomes the most interesting character, but rather neglected in second part of the movie (Australians are, unlike French, Canadian or Scandinavian directors, more successful in portraying adults than kids and teenagers). If the movie was a bit longer (as it is quite short, 10 minutes more wouldn't make anybody feel bored) we could have seen Anne as a complete personality. But, on the other hand, this movie is "Emma's War", and Lee would have probably transformed it to Anne's war...

But, being Emma's war, it is a real coming-to-age movie, one that would French make with more eroticism, Czechs with more humor, Italians with more noise, Americans... well, Americans probably couldn't make it at all. However, this is Australian movie, the one that only Australians could make. And that is a very, very good recommendation for it.

Reliable. This is the word that has probably been most related to BBC. Movies they make can be great, good, watchable, but never a waste of time, a disappointment, a complete disaster.

"To the Ends of the Earth" is a typical BBC work. Time, place and circumstances that most of productions would use for a romantic story BBC again turns into a cold reality, slapping us in face by facts that those were tough times, and in some moments we almost expect a narrator to tell us facts about the ship, the organization of the navy, the geographic data related to position of the ship. They show us that this is neither a "Love Boat" nor "Bounty", and that a good story doesn't need such extremes to be told.

And as the story develops we accept the fact that this is the same hard work and bad conditions as Dickens or Zola would describe us in factories or mines in novels taking place in same years. This was their world, their reality. In these circumstances some traditional rules of well behaving change, some traditional interpersonal relations change as well. This isolated world with its past abandoned, present threatening and future obscure looks like Antarctica base in "The Thing", spaceship in "2001", desert island in "The Blue Lagoon" or post-apocalyptic enclave in "Testament". They all know that most likely they won't see civilization ever more, and even seeing next day is questionable.

The captain is strict and seems cruel in some scenes, but can't be compared to Bligh. Early years of 19th century are not remembered as blossoming democracy, and ship almost sentenced to sinking is impossible to save without a firm hand. And seeing wild crowd of drunk, heartless sailors (that is for sure closer to reality than crew in "Treasure Island" or Errol Flynn movies where almost all pirates follow their code of honor) you may get a feeling that the ship needs a real dictatorship to get any chance of reaching so distant destination.

This harsh reality is melting in the second, weakest part of the mini-series. Watching it we are not sure if we see what is happening, or some imagination or hallucination of the main character. Too big deflection from the style of opening and closing parts.

In the last part we are finally witnessing changes in characters, they become more human and not only figures that the ship must contain for realism in semi-documentary movie. Here we start feeling them, understanding their motives and behaving, expecting what will happen to them. The cruel and dangerous nature, the lack of humanity and the ship itself are still there almost palpable as characters, but not dominating any more - now we have alive persons to see and hear.

Unfortunately, the ending is too sugared. We, certainly, did expect that the ship will successfully reach Australia, but last few minutes are a typical 19th century too romantic final chapter, with a list of characters, good and bad, and their destiny, that was more or less obvious and expected before they saw the coast. Just saving their lives would be a very happy ending (almost a miracle), but that wasn't enough... I know that the director had to follow the old story and that brought in my mind the illogical and forced happy-end of "Great Expectations", still... any modern slimy American romantic comedy could beat this ending.

"To the Ends..." might be a bit too long (middle part!), but in spite of its end it is worth watching both for the story and for understanding how people really sailed, conquered and settled the last wild pieces of the Earth. At least it will be less boring than just reading history and technical articles about it.

This could have been one among so many very good Scandinavian family movies. Better than average for Norway (somewhere along Ulvesommer, not too far behind Ikke naken).

And then, only 8 minutes before the closing credits, it suddenly went into completely wrong direction. A normal, modern, realistic story became a fairy tale, without any obvious reason.

Why??? Yes, the movie starts with a mirror, and first scene appears as if seen in a mirror with "Mirror of souls" written on its top. But later we completely forget about it. And the only thing that could remind us on fairy tales is a Queen. However, Norway is a kingdom, and this seems to be a very modern realistic queen, talking to her employees, using cellular phone etc.

The movie continues as a story that could happen to anybody. It has a even a rather strong message, showing exploitation of children for beauty contests (or any other occasion where parents use children to fulfill their own dreams) and chemical (pharmaceutical) industry that irresponsibly uses dangerous substances to develop new products for kids (in this movie some are having narcotic characteristics) just to make profit, so in some parts of the movie it seems to be addressed more to parents than to kids.

And then, after using cars, cellular phones, modern kitchen devices, seeing dark side of industry and media (looking for sensations), that all made us involved in a drama on the edge of crime, suddenly a magic "Mirror of souls" appears - and changes it all into a Grimm brothers style fairy tale.

The worst thing is maybe that it wasn't necessary at all. The whole plot could be developed and brought to end without any magic, supernatural or similar solutions. This is the moment where the movie fails in eyes of adults, but I'm also sure that most of kids won't like this change either. If it is a movie about animals, or cartoon, or classic fairy tale, or adventure with kids - children will accept it, but all these sub-genres are different and have their rules and can't replace one another at the end of the movie. It is so disappointing.

Ingrid Lorentzen seems to be overacting to caricature as a stepmother, but once this movie becomes a fairy tale this characters also becomes an evil Cinderella's stepmother, and justifies her way of acting. However, why wasn't the whole movie made in the same style, and all the actors playing caricatures or at least some typical fairy tale roles? At the end, of course, there was also not a trace of former criticism. Just a typical old style happy-end. And my rating 6/10 is very generous, only because of the first 80 percent of the movie, but the whole construction could be satisfied if given 4.

"Bratya Komarovi" brings back to memory a time that has vanished, that makes us wonder if it has ever existed. Yes, we still remember politics and USSR. And we can feel again their never-ending propaganda, even children movies were not free of it - in fact, they were saturated with the forced enthusiasm, promises, ideas supposed to be implanted in kids' minds to last forever so they would never lose faith in communism, leading Party and the only real way to prosperity.

They failed, this prosperity never came and enthusiasm was gone, now it is only a dim childhood memory of something that most people would rather completely forget that had ever happened.

However, together with the Party, the bright future, the best system (and all its enemies), some other things also stopped existing, and people don't even feel sorry, not so much because they might be connected with certain politics, but more because the new life wiped them away from brains and left them in the bottom of some drawer of mind that is never open.

Days of free childhood. Days when you, as a parent, could send your kid to summer camp without any real care. Days when you, as a child, could look forward to visiting these camps, to make new friendships and adventures without 24 hours a day total surveillance. Freedom and joy. No terrorist attacks, no rapists on the streets, no bank robberies, no kidnappers in the parks, no life threatening danger. Or maybe... Yes, probably these things existed, but both government and media didn't do their best to scare people, so they didn't spent their lifetime living in fear. There was something positive in the air, not only USSR or Eastern Europe, but the rest of Europe was also healing the wounds of the War and trying to create the better world. Better for themselves, and especially for the kids hoping they'd never have to experience the horror their parents still had in vivid memory - fear for life, hiding in shelters, hunger, police and army in the streets, insecurity in trivial things like going to school or shop...

But today those kids are not only grown-ups, they have their children and most likely grandchildren, and I wonder if they ever try to tell their offspring about the childhood which their kids will never experience. Or they hide it because these children might get some dangerous ideas like playing with other kids, going to meadows and woods...

"Bratya Komarovi" is a movie about the innocence. The innocence that is gone, maybe for good. The innocence that we feel from the camera, from the eye of the director, from the humans and nature. The innocence that even the newborns don't have in the 21st century, because in mother's womb they already gain all mother's fears and disappointments, stress and worry. The innocence that the oldest people don't dare to talk about because nobody would believe them, and they sometimes also wonder if it was real, or just a fruit of their senile imagination. The innocence that was so typical in European movies in 50's and early 60's (in Sweden or Czechoslovakia, Austria or USSR) with no big events, no heroes or villains.

The story about three brothers... no, there is no story: these are only fragments of their holiday, of joy and amusement, their new experiences - from wondering in the nature and meeting animals to helping a wounded peer. And a little, unobtrusive lesson about loyalty and emotions...

This is a movie for young children, those who can be impressed by seeing a frog or a hedgehog, who still find going to the ZOO the most exciting possible event, who won't complain because the picture is black&white and the music hopelessly inappropriate old-fashioned and too serious. And you can have an hour for yourself, with no need to keep an eye on the screen if something disturbing might appear. The only one disturbed person might be the parent who can realize that there was a different world outside fairy tales, but we let it slip through our fingers.