Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

tkk3107 Oliver Stone sounds like a journalist you've heard of before and hence one would assume he has some kind of credibility to his name. This documentary proves that he does not. In the entire four hours of interviews Oliver Stone does not manage to muster up a single critical response to anything Putin says.It is natural for a journalis to try and charm their interviewees before asking critical questions, but Oliver Stone seems to have grown old and timid otherwise he has simply forgotten the reason he arrived.

stefanhagenbinder-48178 I liked those hours with Putin. You don't have to like this person nor his work, but at least you should listen to this man. He is unagitated and articulates his view and interests. Also it's an opportunity to get a few insights of a man and a country which most people will never visit and only watch in the TV or read in the newspaper. Well, you won't learn much about the country but maybe some will realize there are other countries with interests too and like Oliver Stone did it: listen to them, you don't have to agree, but dialogue is the way we should choose.

obucinac This is like a question/answer session paired with beautiful views of Kremlin inside and history lessons, presenting RF President's view of many hot political issues. While you may see that Mr Putin is well prepared, there is no doubt that he is presenting us dangerous reality we live in today.People like me, interested in foreign policy and following it on daily basis, will be familiar with many of presented views. People, like me, who had the unfortunate opportunity to see and feel some of the things they are talking about (destroying government structures, devastation of country's economy, economic sanctions, tycoons, inflation, unemployment, bombing, colored revolutions...) know why it is important to hear what this men have to say and think about it.

sonnygoten Having seen all 4 parts, the first thing that I noted is the highly interesting differences between Putin as opposed to his Western counterparts in style of presentation. I found Putin's style to be less glamorous, less glitzy, and less artificial compared to western (read: USA) politicians. There's one scene in which he sits rather awkwardly and keeps tapping his feet, so you see his knees bobbing up and down; and another in which he keeps picking at his finger. I also found that in his manner of behavior he seemed much less desperate for approval compared to USA politicians and, rather than delivering fast one- liners that sound good, he takes his times to answer, even making pauses and wearing facial expressions that (to me) seem awkward. I don't know if he's just THAT good of an actor or if it's simply a cultural difference, and I can't judge whether the USA style is better or worse than Putin's style, but the difference in self-presentation is still very striking to me and interesting to see played out like this.Concerning the manner in which Oliver Stone conducted the interviews, I definitely liked it. They were done in a casual manner and with room for humor (I laughed my butt off at that coffee scene in the 4th part), but at the same time they allowed room for serious topics. Sometimes Oliver missed an opportunity to ask further critical questions; sometimes he tried to agree and please a bit too much to get Putin comfortable, but I liked the overall absence of any preconceived judgmental attitudes that many western journalists/interviewers have when interacting (read: arguing) with Putin. This allowed Putin to express his viewpoints in a relatively relaxed setting without the constant need to go on the defense; and it allows us viewers to make our own judgment on the man and his ideas, without being forced into adopting the viewpoint of a patronizing interviewer.My conclusion on Putin himself: There are some points that I agree with in his vision and some that I don't, and I also think that he portrayed himself and Russia in... let's just say 'highly glowing terms that are not always deserved', but that's a given considering his current position as Russian President. I absolutely love the way he insists on calling his USA counterparts "partners", though; it feels equal parts ironic, patronizing, and yet also re-conciliatory; and I'm pretty sure Putin intended it to be that multi-layered. The man definitely has a sense of humor that I can appreciate.Lastly, I should mention that I was rather shocked by some of the news segments interspersed in the interview, especially in the 3rd part; they were highly graphic in nature and I hadn't been notified of that beforehand. So, viewer discretion is advised. If you plan on showing this to children for educational purposes such as politics class, debate teams, etc. there should definitely be an adult present in the room; and, while I'm all pro-free-information-flow and pro- education, I would even then not show this to anyone under age ten, because it's graphic and it's REAL, not ketchup.