Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

tao902 A city family take a holiday in the country, staying at a remote house in the Russian countryside for a. Alex's wife, Vera, reveals to him that she is pregnant by another man. He struggles to decide how he should respond and what should be done, eventually deciding that an abortion should be arranged. His wife kills herself with an overdose immediately after the abortion. However, Alex then finds out that he was in fact the father and that in fact his wife had never felt close enough to him to be able to regard him as a partner.An intriguing story but slow, in the style of Tarkovsky, maybe too long.

Paul Martin I have only just learnt that Zvyagintev's The Return was his feature film debut. It really impressed me with it's sparse and elusive narrative, filled with mystery and ambiguity. It is visually spectacular, with a strong Eastern European aesthetic that one can't look away from. The Banishment is no less a film.This is a much more ambitious effort than Zvyagintev's debut. Again he has crafted a story that is highly enigmatic. It stars Konstantin Lavronenko, who played the role of the absent father returned in The Return. Alex is a man with a shady past and his brother Mark (Aleksandr Baluyev) is of the same ilk. When Alex's wife, Vera (Maria Bonnevie), reveals she is pregnant and that he is not the father, a sequence of events unfolds that will have you on the edge of your seat. "If you want to kill, kill. If you want to forgive, forgive", says Mark.The tension is palpable, magnified by the sparse dialogue. In one sense, words are not needed as the body language says it all. Yet in another, the inability of the protagonists to bring out into the open what needs to be said leads to unforeseen consequences. This is both thematically similar to Nuri Bilge Ceylan's similarly excellent Three Monkeys and stylistically they also share much in common. As in Ceylan's films, Zvyagintev shows great confidence in telling a story, taking his time to create a palpable ambiance. At 157 minutes, the film is quite long, but always engaging.The cinematography is stunning throughout, with excellent use of the widescreen. There is one tracking shot in particular that left me breathless as the camera seemingly floated through space. I can recall only twice where the camera movement impressed me so: the caravan sequence in Noise and the various tracking shots in Soy Cuba. The use of darkness, light and shade are used to great effect. The music is haunting, reminding me of the Gothic sounds of the music of Enigma. It renders the film with a sense of tragedy of biblical proportions.Zvyagintev is a magnificent talent that just can't be ignored. If you see only one Russian film this year, make it The Banishment.

Chris Knipp Not as strong as Zvyagintsev's haunting 2003 debut 'The Return'/'Vozvrashcheniye' (grand prize at Venice--I reviewed it when it was shown theatrically in the US the following year), this adaptation of William Saroyan's 1953 novella, "The Laughing Matter," is recognizable for its intense, slow-paced style and beautiful cinematography (by Mikhail Krichman). 'Izgnanie' (the Russian title) takes us out to a remote country house where there are thin roads, grassy fields over gentle hills, herds of sheep -- and old friends, because this is the childhood home of the protagonist Alex (Konstantin Lavronenko), who's brought his family out there for summer vacation. But before that (and a signal of a certain disjointedness of the whole film) we observe Mark (Alexander Baluev), Alex's obviously gangsterish brother, getting him to remove a bullet from his arm. this is also the first of a series of failures to seek adequate medical treatment. Now we move to Alex with his wife Vera (Maria Bonnevie) taking their young son Kir (Maxim Shibaev) and younger daughter Eva (Katya Kulkina) out to the country by car.Zvagintsev certainly takes his time with every action of the film. It's as if he thought he was writing a 500-page novel rather than making a movie. The effect is not so much a sense of completeness as a kind of hypnotic trance. Everything is marked by the fine clear light, the frequent use of long shots, and the pale blue filters that give everything a distinctive look. Some of the long landscape shots are absolutely stunning, and the interior light and the way shadows gently caress the faces are almost too good to be true.When another family comes into the picture and they all spend a day outdoors, the sense of familiarity, summer listlessness, and vague unease made me think of a play by William Inge or Tennessee Williams. That may seem odd for a Russian movie, but the names are only partly Russian, the location is deliberately indeterminate, and Saroyan's source story is set in a long-ago California, not in Russia. Zvyagintsev doesn't seem to work in the real world but in some kind of super-real nether-land. Whether it is unforgettable or simply off-putting seems to vary. In 'The Return' it as the former; here it is more the latter.Vera drops a bombshell, when she announces she's pregnant and that the child isn't his. The tragedy that slowly but inexorably follows arises from a derangement in the wife and a misunderstanding by the husband. To deal with the problem Alex wants the children out of the way and he is happy to have them stay at the friends' house, where they're putting together a large jigsaw puzzle of Leonardo da Vinci's painting, 'The Annunciation'. I'm indebted to Jay Weissberg's review in 'Variety' for this identification; Weissberg adds, "That... isn't the only piece of heavy-handed religious imagery on offer. There's Alex washing his brother's blood off his hands, Eva/Eve offered an apple, and a Bible recitation from 1 Corinthians about love ("It does not insist on its own way"), handily set apart by a bookmark depicting Masaccio's 'The Expulsion From the Garden of Eden.' OK, we get it, but that doesn't mean the parallels offer a doorway into personalities who offer little emotional residue on their own." And he is right: Zvyagintsev's fascination with Italian painting, and here also with the Bible, doesn't change the fact that the characters nonetheless remain, this time, troublingly opaque. Mark is an adviser and stimulus to action for Alex. Robert (Dmitry Ulianov) is a third brother who enters the picture later. I will not go into the details because the chief interest of the film is its slow revelations.And yet the revelations don't quite convince, because for one thing they do not fully explain. The wife's behavior remains unaccountable. And a long flashback in the latter part of the film seems to come too late, and to explain too much, yet without explaining enough. None of this is the fault of the actors, who are fine, including the children.Zvyagintsev's second film, then, is a disappointment and a puzzlement. I began to think after a while that the whole thing would be much more effective if it were done in a very simple style, with simply workmanlike photography, in a film trimmed of all externals, down to the bone, something noirish like Robert Siodmak's 'The Killers' or Kubrick's 'The Killing.' We are left to figure things out anyway, so why all the flourishes? Yet Zvyagintsev's style is nonetheless beautiful, and one only hopes he finds material that works better for him next time. I was thrilled with 'The Return' and wrote of it in my IMDb Comment: "This stunning debut features exceptional performances by the talented young actors, brilliant storytelling in a fable-like tale that's as resonant as it is specific, and exquisite cinematography not quite like any one's ever seen before." The excitement I felt about the first film is why the new one feels like such a let-down.Seen as part of the Film Society of Lincoln Center series Film Comment Selects 2008 (February 25) at the Walter Reade Theater, NYC.__________________

illustris I give it TEN STARS* at my scale.Additional remarks: This is not a thriller or smashing computer-aided million dollar blockbuster. Instead this is a genuine masterpiece of classical cinematography. Very profound characters, the plot is taking place out of time and geography concentrating our attention on the people's relationships and the mother nature's surroundings, like real life flow.The other title I would give this movie would be "The Destiny". There are moments in our lives when the certain acts that we perform or even conceive may irrevocably change our life. This movie is about this. Who we listen to, who we ignore, who we selfishly love, why meandering from our true self may destroy ourselves and even ruin everything one has built, and how perilous it is sometimes to be our true selfish self.Many people blame this movie for the slow pace and scenes of nature, but exactly these two things perfectly serve as background for the development of the events and characters like they were real living people. Even the children in the movie do their job very well. My advice is just to relax and flow along the plot, living together with the characters, at least for two hours.One incomprehensible thing, nonetheless the camera in the movie may seem unsophisticated the certain images remain branded into my mind, clear images, like in one's childhood. This is real magic pertaining to true cinematography.* --- I have an independent approach to rating movies. I use it myself and it proved to be helpful to my friends. This approach does not reflect any specific quality, nor playing of actors, camera work, director, script or even budget. Instead, it ranges the work as a whole, indicating its consumer value and time-provedness. The rating can be easily applied to other entertainment articles like music CDs, books or performances, thus making the method universal and simple for both using and understanding. It ranges from one to ten stars according to the statements:1*......... - I started watching but quit before the end. (I left the house).2**........ - I could hardly sit out till the end.3***....... - I saw it once. (It's worth watching once).4****...... - I saw it and would recommend it to my friends. (It's a discovery!).5*****..... - I would watch it again and could join a company. (Next time I can invite my friends).6******.... - I can go and watch it many times. (I must find out if they sell it).7*******... - I saw it and am about to buy a copy. (Happy to have it on my shelf).8********.. - I saw it and bought it, I enjoy re-watching selected episodes.9*********. - I saw and bought it - it comes as a source of citations.10********** - I saw and bought it, the source of all time enjoyment, my favorite. (Next generation will appreciate it like in 10 or 20 years as well).If you'd like to use the method please mention it as "illustris Star Scale"