Reviews

It's not clear why so many critics love films where the main emphasis is on shots that are long and slow. Perhaps the director meant to emphasize the drudgery of police work, especially at night. The opening scene has several vehicles driving through the night in search of a crime scene. The night photography is done exceptionally well, but the viewer begins to wonder if anything at all will happen. Other than these long and slow shots, there is nothing in the movie to recommend it for an award.

There is an interesting sociological twist near the end: The prosecutor forces the coroner to change the details of the autopsy report, to reflect a less gruesome crime, in order to avoid clan feuding in the small village.

Another interesting, but not unexpected twist is the way the widow attracts the attention of the prosecutor. Despite being modestly dressed, the director clearly shows the sexual interest she elicits in the prosecutor.

Although I haven't seen many other films about mountain climbing, I would agree with some of the reviewers who say it is the best film ever made about this dangerous sport. Since 1935, at least fifty climbers have died attempting the north face.

It is based on a true story, if one believes the publicity for the movie. Anyway, Wikipedia (if you trust the contributors to the site) confirms this, while providing many details that help explain the action; some parts of the movie are so gripping that the viewer can easily forget details.

In one part of the movie the female lead pleads with a rescue team to reach the climbers, who got stuck for several days in a storm. They only agree to go on the mission when the she replies positively to a question, that one of the climbers is her man, although in the story it is not clear how developed their relationship is, apart and beyond a long-term childhood friendship. They ascend in a cog-wheel railcar through a tunnel in the mountain, towards a tunnel window from which they hope to reach the stranded climbers. The camera moves from face to face in the railcar, and it becomes evident that the rescuers and heroine consider themselves as one family (or clan). It's not clear to me if the camera operator and/or film editor manipulated anything, but the faces do look as if they are from the same genetic strand.

***Spoilers below*** The film leaves out an important fact that sheds a different perspective on the chances of a successful return from the summit. The film plot would lead the viewer to believe the only back down is to retrace the route up. Given the perilous conditions, the viewer concludes that the climbers are crazy to risk their lives in this attempt. This is most likely true under any circumstances. However, from the top they could descend by the easy western route. This is what the successful 1938 team did; a four-man team of Austrian and German climbers reached the top in three days. Among them was Heinrich Harrar, author of "Seven Years in Tibet." A 1997 film was made of this true story, with Brad Pitt as the protagonist. In the foreword of his book, Harrar says that it was his dream to join the German-Austrian expedition to ascend the Diamir Face of Nanga Parbat (8125 m) in the Himalayas. Because he was a student from a modest family, he wasn't able to join the expedition as a contributing member, but, instead, felt that he had to distinguish himself in other ways and thus be selected to join the expedition. He decided to make a name for himself by climbing the north face of the Eiger. This he accomplished, with a team of three others, in 1938. The route they followed was the one identified by one of the 1936 team, and it includes the portion now known as the Hinterstoisser traverse. There is irony here: he wanted to be recognized as being capable for the ascent of the 8000+ m Nanga Parbat, and succeeded on the 3970 m Eiger where so many others had failed.

Also known as "A Talking Picture."

Don't waste your time seeing this film. The 96-year old director Manoel de Oliveira may be a "master of the medium" as touted by a major newspaper, but in my opinion this applies only to direction and not scriptwriting. The film starts as a travelogue, with the beautiful Leonor Silveira playing the role of a history professor taking her 8-year old daughter on a cruise from Portugal to Bombay. The sightseeing segments are too short, and the viewer wishes for more. At some point the dialogue between mother and child becomes tiring, as the mother has to explain concepts like "civilization" and "Muslim" to the child.

Much of the film is devoted to light-hearted dinner table banter among the other billed stars: Catherine Deneuve, Irene Papas, Stefania Sandrelli, and John Malkovich. The three ladies play roles close to their actual lives, and Malkovich plays the role of ship's captain.

OK, it's one thing for people at a dinner table to switch languages now and then, but the director overdoes it here, switching at almost every sentence. One expects worldly people to know more than one language, so it's not strange for an Italian to know French, and the ship's captain would be expected to know French, and all of them might be expected to speak English. But Greek? Irene Papas speaks Greek much of the time, and everyone seems to understand her perfectly. This is a joke on the viewer.

This is one of the few films where I was strongly tempted to fast-forward, mainly to get through the idle chatter. One gets the impression that one of the reasons for making the film was to give employment to some of the actors.

The film ends abruptly with an unusual ending that doesn't fit with the main plot, unless one is willing to make obscure interpretations of the travelogue part of the film.

This is a great movie for parents who have spoiled kids. They will savor the methods of the long-lost father (away for 12 years) to teach his two sons something about self-respect and being a man: take them on a wilderness camping and fishing trip.

If you have a chance to view this film in a theater, by all means see it while it's being screened. If not, find a friend with the largest big-screen TV and ask if you can view it at his house. The scenery, apparently shot somewhere in the northern parts of Russia or Siberia, is absolutely enchanting. The director seems to be a master at filming scenery.

The plot is based on the return of the father of a family after 12 years of absence. There are few clues about the reason for his absence (one always suspects a sentence in the Gulag), even fewer about his reason for returning. He takes his two adolescent sons on a camping/fishing trip. Along the way they encounter the apparently typical teenage street ruffians that rob people who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves.

The wife (and mother of the two adolescent sons) plays her role in the background. She comforts the younger son in an early scene of the movie, dutifully plays her role at dinner with the long-lost father, and upon retiring for the night displays a not unexpected "where the hell have you been expression."

The younger child is the one more troubled. One could sense if from the opening scene where he didn't dare jump into the water from a high platform; he seemed to be smallest of the group, so his reluctance is understandable. Anyway, he seems to be the clever one, always questioning, especially the actions of the father. His expressions of disgust and questioning of his father's motives are compelling.

The camping/fishing trip reveals the main purpose of the father. An unexpected incident near the end reveals to us the purpose of the father's return.

NO SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW

There are a couple of discontinuities, people entering from right when it should be left, but it doesn't detract from the message of the film.

You must see this film.