The Worst Film Ever

Redundant and unnecessary.

An unexpected masterpiece

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

What a great way of portraying a rarely spoken but well known sad fact of today's society: in the modern family usually the man is the one responsible for the crime of abortion and also all the consequences this brings with it. The woman is weak: she needs the love and protection of the man to survive. She can not live in a fake relationship, she can not perform acting in a "live" theater.And the lack of affection for the wife as well as the environment surrounded with love and protection that would encourage the wife to give birth and raise an other child, is what determines the woman to choose abortion.The death of Vera after the abortion is also a symbolical representation of a psychological and spiritual reality: even in the abortions that have no physical consequences, the women will not be the same afterwards, a part of her dies along with the baby.Embedded in a tender and short scene is the answer to all the problems. Before going to sleep, Frida reads from Paul's Epistle the definition of love while everybody listens. Unfortunately, Alexander is "sick" and his sickens spreads death all around him. This scene is far from him, both in physical and spiritual space.He remains sick although he admits the mistake of asking Vera to kill the baby, and although his regrets about not accepting and not loving her. After two deaths he is ready to commit an other one, by going to Robert with the gun, prepared to get revenge. This demonstrates the brute force of the darkness and how one can fall from bad to worse.

I watched this film on the basis of having enjoyed The Return. How wrong can one be. It would be generous to say that it makes the films of Bruno Dumont seem like action films! You can tell when a film is a deceit by the opening shots. Long takes of roads and trees are nothing but a waste of film and the viewers time. A walnut tree does not a film make. Creating atmosphere is one thing but suffocating the viewer is another. And so the rest of the film goes on in the same way: ennui seems more debilitating than euthanasia and that is what this film engenders.Tell me: how many children have you seen who, going to a new home, albeit dilapidated, show no excitement? Are we saying that Russian children don't run around exploring every nook and cranny with yelps of delight? And so having flicked through chapter after chapter to see if their was any movement - a rabbit skipping across the grass would have been fine - I decided to call it a day and put on a DVD of Tom & Jerry.Good films I enjoy. Pretension I detest.Zero

Giants of Russian cinema included Sergei Eisenstein (The Battleship Potemkin, Alexander Nevsky), Andrei Tarkovsky (Ivan's Childhood, Solaris) and the emerging Aleksandr Sokurov (Russian Ark, Father And Son). All three are recognized as the leading Russian filmmaker of their generations, consistently producing works of immense quality and value. The director of The Banishment, Andrei Zvyagintsev, is one of a few who shows potential to be another great voice of Russian cinema. His previous effort, The Return, was a soporific excursion into the Russian wilderness; though cinematographically stunning, it fails in its ability to completely engage the viewers.The Banishment shares the same characteristics. The difference is that it is a whole lot longer, running at nearly a-hundred-and-sixty minutes. The story could have been wrapped up in a taut ninety-minute drama but Zvyagintsev chose the more abstract route to film the picture. Only time would tell whether his choice was sound. At its heart, The Banishment has a pitiful story to tell. However, it is told at such a snail-like pace that it appears almost lackluster and feels like it is not making any storytelling progression especially during the final two-thirds of the film.The character developments of the three main characters are palatable enough to pull viewers through the lengthy film. Each one of them struggles with problems of high emotional intensity, often as a result of miscommunication, selfishness, and jealousy. Zvyagintsev opts to use long static shots of these characters' faces to capture their inner feelings and juxtaposing it with the unpredictability of the Russian wilderness. One top-notch sequence involves a five-minute reverse tracking shot of water flowing downhill into small streams and eventually into a big puddle that shows a reflection of something that is of immense significance. Its monotony is ultimately broken by the onset of rain.The Banishment while sporadically exhibiting glimpses of promise unfortunately feels too long-winded. It is a commendable piece of cinema and has the potential to become a great character study if Zvyagintsev decides to do a director's cut with a trimmer runtime. The Banishment is made for the art house crowd and yes, for one with a hell lot of patience.SCORE: 7/10 (www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com) All rights reserved!

A respectable family drama with its style and lethargic editing its main drawback, "Izgnanie" will also definitely test the patient, even Andrei Zvyagintsev's most loyal of fans. Insecurity over the plot is palpable as film overextends its welcome with pondering and introspective filming that doesn't quite translate well on screen. Plot and cinematography, especially in the countryside, offer some solace to art house fans, however audience will wonder why it took too long to make the point.Film follows a middle class family as they go to the pastoral countryside, presumably where the paternal character, Alex (Konstantin Lavronenko) grew up. Plot only advances approximately an hour in the picture as a reveal is introduced. Character and story development is sporadic, definitely welcome, as it reminds audience that they aren't watching paint dry. The final act in the film, a flashback, carries the meatier part of the movie as it emphasizes the tragedy that happens earlier. Adultery, abortion and family secrets are aplenty, however seen and are better executed before.Best actor nod for Konstantin Lavronenko at Cannes 2007 is somewhat deserving. It is indeed a subtle performance, however doesn't hold a candle to other actors vying for the same gong.With an abundance of establishing shots and transport moving in and out of frame, the film could have easily eliminated 30 minutes of its 2 and a half-hour running time. Anna Mass, the editor, has puzzled together a film that wallows in atmosphere and creates images that are borderline pseudo-cathartic. Such scenes include a 3-minute trailing shot of water flowing from a water source that stopped delivering hydration before. May have functioned as time change and indication of liminal moment, but overly indulgent nonetheless, as it feels that it's delivered as art for art's sake.Adapted from a novel by William Saroyan, it is clear that translation is also a problem. With the production of the film being abject to the characters, audience is clearly not allowed into these personalities, only as observers. This abjectivity produces lack of engagement that a plot like this could easily flourish on. From the outside, characters are clearly sophisticated enough and it is curious why connection never gets there.English title is marketed as "The Banishment" as it may signify a plethora of themes and undertones in the movie. It straight up refers to the family's eviction from their 'idealised' Eden in a midtown neighborhood (although clearly far from it as it is depicted as violent and drab), but also refers to the individual isolation of the characters from one another. They are all devoid of communication or any sort of outward emotional connection, except for hate, contempt and the chains of nuclear family. Film becomes a burning effigy to families that are only bonded because they have to.What could have been a beautifully insightful movie on the danger of disregard of family bonds, film overachieves in being meditative to a fault: dragging its run time to way beyond its limits, diluting its intended purpose. The patient will find satisfaction but will still notice the film's over the top brooding by overstuffing it with non-consequential establishing shots, pretending to be worth more than it is.