When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said, `there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert, but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork.

Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however, just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time of sickness.

Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird, wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible.

Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just `enthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very entertaining, something many dramas now can't do.

Northfork may not be the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it, you'll be extremely surprised, as I was.

My rating: 8/10

Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality.


A dreamy, stunningly atmospheric film takes place in a small town of Northfork, Montana in 1955. The government officials arrive to evacuate the town about to be inundated by a new hydroelctrical dam. There are the other visitors in the town, the angels from another time but they only seen by a dying boy Irvin. A local priest (Nick Nolte in a quiet heartbreaking performance) takes care of the boy. Irvin pleads with the angels to leave the place with them...

There is some unearthly quality in the film, some dignified mourning and sublime sadness when you suddenly realize the inevitable finality of everything - humans and their relationships, cities, countries, civilizations, the whole world as we know it. Death and birth have something in common - we go through them in the ultimate loneliness.

I cannot recall the film that affected me in the same way and as deeply as "Northfork" did, the film so beautiful and so tender, so quiet and so powerful, so heartbreaking and so moving. Even now, after several weeks since I saw it, tears come to my eyes when I only think of it.

After I saw it, I had to talk to somebody about it. I sent a PM to one of my friends and I asked, "Please tell me what I just saw?" And my friend replied with the words, "You just saw one of the greatest films of modern times. One of these days others will see the light."


"It all depends on how you look at it we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.

The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goerthe most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the filmif you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.

What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.

At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.

At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spiritand therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.

At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.

The final layer is the social commentary"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.

To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).

The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences.


It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.

It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire."

The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.

My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.

But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.

"Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.

An easy nine stars.


The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of traditional dramatic structure, "Stick with it, Jack!". The plot is difficult to summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city, God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and experience. A great, great, great movie!!!


Michael Polish's hypnotic "Northfork" is a film that will stay in one's memory for quite a long time. This exquisitely crafted movie that Michael and Mark Polish wrote, is visually one of the best things that came out last year from the world of independent films. The movie is splendidly photographed by M. David Mullen, with a haunting score by Stuart Matthewman.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

The idea to set the film in Montana was a great coup for the Polish brothers. Never has the majestic views of the country and mountains been so vividly captured as in "Northfork". We don't need any color! The beauty is in the dark tones of the film that enhances the story of the desolation in this remote outpost.

At the center of the story is Irwin, the sick child under the care of the mysterious Father Harlan. This boy is seen in his bed where the kind priest is administering the medicine for his body. But is he really there at all? We watch him interacting with the odd group that we first encounter around the cemetery. There are two freshly open graves. Will one of them be for Irwin?

At the same time, another plot line plays parallel to this first theme. We see the six men in black that have come to the area in order to remove from the area as many people as they can. This will be the bed for the man made lake that will be created. Their reward is one acre and a half of lake front property if they move a certain amount of people.

The third story line centers on the mystical group composed by Flower Hercules, Cup of Tea, Cod and Happy. They are following a possibility of a link to an angel that has been injured in this area. When Irwin meets them at the cemetery, he offers to help, only if they take him away at least a thousand miles from here. We watch as the quartet examine the feathers the boy has placed among the pages of his bible. Could Irwin be that angel?

The closing sequence show us all parties leaving Northfork in different directions. The men in black riding their automobiles, perhaps going home to enjoy the newly acquired properties given to them as a reward. The mystical group is seen boarding a plane and taking off for a higher place. We also realize that the child in Father Harlan, in spite of the medicines and the care he received from the saintly figure, has died.

Michael Polish got one of the best ensemble acting from all the principals. Nick Nolte, as Father Harlan turns a low key performance in his portrayal of this kind man. James Woods, as Walter, one of the men working for the developer, does a fine job. The biggest surprise is Duel Farmer, who makes an excellent impression as Irwin. This child actor, with the right guidance, shows great promise.

The mystical group is brilliantly acted by Daryl Hannah, Robin Sachs, Ben Foster and Anthony Edwards, the man with the funny spectacles. Peter Coyote, Mark Polish, Ben Foster, and the rest of the cast are flawless under Mr. Polish direction.

The beauty of the film relies in its simplicity. Mr. Polish's vision will haunt one's memory. The images of Montana, as perhaps an unreal landscape is one of the best things in American films in quite a while.


The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian fable/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and fascinating "Twin Falls Idaho"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the future.


It is a rare and fine spectacle, an allegory of death and transfiguration that is neither preachy nor mawkish. A work of mature and courageous insight, Northfork avoids arthouse distinction by refusing to belong to a kind. Unlike the most memorable and accomplished film to impose an obvious comparison, Wim Wenders' 1987 Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin), it sustains an ambivalence in a narrative spectrum spanning from the mundane to the supernatural. This story of earthly and celestial eminent domains in the American West withholds the fairytale literalness that marked its German predecessor in the ad hoc genre of angels shedding their wings with obsequious sentimentalism. Its celestial transcendence, be it inspired by doleful faith or impelled by a fever dream, never parts ways with crud and rot. This firm grounding redounds to great credit for writers and directors Mark and Michael Polish.


Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.

Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.

This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.

I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.


At first glance a film like Northfork, a town set to be flooded in 1955 and a group of 6 characters who are sent out to evacuate the remaining townspeople, could be just an ordinary film. As we soon meet a remaining priest taking care of a sick child, a greedy land owner, we could be set up for a simple story we could all easily digest. However, when one is first introduced to this film, you notice the amazing wide open cinematography and a scene involving a church hall missing a wall that opens up to the pastures and scenic view of the mountains with cattle grazing. It soon becomes clear that after this scene and a few of the towns peoples introduction, that this is no ordinary film and no ordinary story, it is something very special and unique.

At first glance things are not as clear, but the cinematography and landscape that the viewer is witness to is stunning, and the characters that inhabit this small soon to be extinct area are just in word amazing. It's what can either draw you in closer to this qwerky film, or either have you bored sitting there waiting for something to happen.

The films deep spiritual and dream like qualities, give it a slow and methodical approach which I am sure will bore some viewers, but if you are patient with it and see the bigger picture, the film is great to witness.

Rating 8 out of 10


I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers.


After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before, it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven...

"Being so sick of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can take it all in!

The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do exist.

My thanks to all involved in the making of this film."


I loved the movie "Northfork". I knew nothing about the movie before watching it. Therefore, I had no outside influence or information to guide me in what I was seeing unfold on the screen. In retrospect I would advise anyone interested in the movie to watch it if for no other reason than the quality actors who appear in it. Do not read anything about the plot, story line, or evaluation of the movie. In fact STOP reading anything further in my comments although I believe they are general and would not spoil the movie for you, I don't want to diminish the value of the movie to you. Find your own path of meaning in this film or it is diminished in its potential.

In general, I found the 3 benign strangers in Northfolk puzzling. As the movie unfolds, they could qualify as three entertaining escapees from a mental hospital or, the dreams and hallucinations of a sick and feverish young boy, or three angels "sent" to find the "lost angel".

The sick and perhaps dying boy works to convince the three "strangers" to abandon the search for the lost angel, become his guardians (mother & father), and take him safely far away from Northfork (no less than 1000 miles). He even declares that he is the lost angel to try to manipulate them all to be his guardian. Only one of the three responds to the boy on a positive basis. The other two have no real enthusiasm or passion for this involvement.

The priest who is nursing the sick boy demonstrates a depth of caring for people and a deep conviction toward his faith. He transcends the desolation and emptiness of Northfork and its people; he is the light of goodness and hope to both Northfork and to the movie viewer.

Near the climax of the movie, the boy and new guardian journey over land to a field where a plane waits. They board to find the other two strangers also on the plane; in fact one is the pilot. The engines start and the plane takes off.

Who are the 3 strangers? If only one stranger was interested in helping the boy why were all three on the plane? Where is the plane going? Did the other two find the "Lost Angel"? Is there a lost angel and if so who is it? Who are the six men dressed like undertakers? If all of this is just the sick boy's feverish dreams, how did one of the 3 strangers end up reaching out to help one of the men dressed like an undertaker when he jumped and hit his head(neither the boy or strangers had contact with these men)?

One or two sentences written under the title telling people what this movie is about is a tragic mistake (this is not a spoiler, it's statement about advertising only). So if you haven't seen the movie, Northfork, the questions above show only a few of the interesting and fun forks in the road of thought when you view the film Northfork. If you read the advertising summary of the plot of the movie before you watched it previously, maybe you ought to look at some of the questions above and watch it again... I know I will.

Terry


NORTHFORK is above all a masterpiece of widescreen cinematography. For this alone the film is well worth one's time. The stark, wide open plains and badlands of eastern Montana are captured in the spare, muted earth tones of autumn or early spring. The gigantic grey cement Fort Peck Dam is the film's protagonist. The film comments both subtly and not so subtly on about a dozen issues of Western Landscape. The dialogue can be trying at times, yet the images and concepts are powerful enough to lift the film. The 1950's period works so well here and is executed so well. I think that the passing years will be kind to this film.


An Eko-centric episode the "?" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery.

An excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns.


The second "Mr. Eko" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the first ("The 23rd Psalm"), but in just about every other department it is one of the best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology/background as well as the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes Locke's transformation from a believer ("Orientation" - after the end of the film: "We're gonna have to watch this again") to a doubter ("S.O.S" - "Did you push that button, Henry? I need to know") to a non-believer ("?" - after the end of the film: "Do you want to watch this again? - "No, I've seen enough"). Terry O'Quinn's performance is powerful as usual ("every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of "?" are a startling, unique dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot possibly know its true meaning. ***1/2 out of 4.


In this episode, Locke and Eko go searching for the "?" symbol that we saw during the lock-down on a previous episode. Michael, having shot Ana Lucia and Libby, struggles with his actions as Libby inches closer to death.

The most interesting thing about this episode (I think). Is during the commercial break. Locke and Eko find a hatch under the plane that killed Boone in season one, and a new training video ends with "Copyright, The Hanso Foundation, 1989" In a following commercial break, a rather bizarre and nondescript commercial advertises "The Hanso Foundation" (a planted commercial), and the website advertised (www.sublymonal.com) leads the visitor through a world of information about life on the outside of LOST's storyline. A must see for all fans!


While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.

In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


Uzak (2002), a Turkish film shown in the U.S. as "Distant,"

was directed, produced, written, and filmed by Nuri Bilge

Ceylan.

This movie is a gritty and somber version of the clash between a "city mouse," Mahmut, played by Muzaffer Özdemir, and a "country mouse," Yusuf, played by Emin Toprak.

Both men are superb actors, and the plot allows them to demonstrate their acting skill. (Tragically, Emin Toprak died in an automobile accident shortly after the movie was completed.)

In most country cousin/city cousin tales, the contrast between rural and urban life styles is portrayed in a humorous fashion. In this film, there's little humor or even warmth. Both men

have lost touch with human society. Mahmut 's work as a

commercial photographer for a tile company gives him no satisfaction. He has divorced a woman he clearly

still loves, and has no satisfying human relationships.

Mahmut has lost his job because of a factory closing in his small town, and doesn't have the skills or the energy to find work in the city. His human interactions are primarily confined to silent observations of the other people who cross his path. He's clearly a warm and caring person, but can't express these qualities in an urban environment.

The cousins don't relate well to the world, and they don't relate well to each other. Neither makes an effort to act in a way that would provide an opportunity for bonding or closeness.

In a sense, this film portrays an opportunity wasted.

Conceivably, each cousin could have provided at least part of what was lacking in the other's life. Instead, they steer parallel unhappy courses. The two men are distant throughout, which is a situation suggested by the film's title.

One of my friends mentioned the masterful way in which Ceylan builds detail upon detail. These details ultimately tell us more about the characters than we might have learned by simple exposition.

Uzak was shown as part of the Rochester Labor Film series. It's not a "labor film" in the traditional sense of that genre. It is a labor film because it demonstrates the harmful effects of unsatisfying work (Mahmut) and unemployment (Yusuf).

This is a quiet, absorbing, dark film. Although it doesn't make for happy viewing, I walked out of the

theater realizing that I had seen a truly creative and

important movie. This film is worth finding and seeing!


People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.

Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.

I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself.


It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about.

Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life.

Through all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2 particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know how long.

In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true heartbreak.

What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single breathtaking second.

Rating 10 out of 10.


I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN. and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word. UZAK/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu (downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes into see "Vanilla Sky." As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty, yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun (Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film "Yol." Many of Guney's films, including "Yol," "Suru- the Herd" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and "Baba-The Father" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made. Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last film, the 1983 prison drama "Duvar-The Wall"), "Distance" captures the essence of Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films!


Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent!


It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village Yusuf.

It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much emotional tension as in the paciest thriller.

Just to be clear, there's no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than anaesthetised.

Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan) are not opposed.

Much of it is true the world over: country cousin Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf.

Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman.

Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message that "The world is like that", but instead I got "This is how we sometimes treat each other."


Hysterically painful; perhaps the kind of movie Chekhov would have made had he made movies. What's really funny is that the two cousins have so very much in common (many descriptions of their relationship on this site are dead wrong).

What's really funny and uncomfortable about these characters is that they just can't bring themselves to talk to each other - or anyone else! It's horrible. If you've ever been too shy, worried, self-involved, or just plain scared to talk to someone (and who hasn't?) you'll definitely see yourself in this film. And it won't be pretty.

It holds a mirror up to the audience and says, "If you don't like what you see... change it".


For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus.


When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.

The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart.


This is a film about loneliness and how the distance  physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.

The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel  nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...

Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.

There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.

Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.

Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.

But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.

All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes  but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very limited conversation.

I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him And, I guess I was, in a sense.

I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone  just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...

Highly recommended for serious movie buffs.


The first time I saw the poster, I was stunned by its tranquility and beauty. Then the city of Istanbul has been haunting in my mind ever since.

Not much dialogue, not much music, the whole film was shot as elaborately and aesthetically like a sculpture. It itself is a landscape.

Actually there are a lot of things going on in the film, but the director deliberately omitted most dramatic parts and leave them to our imagination, thus creating a really flat life. **(mild spoiler)One can see Mahmut's ladylove crying in the toilet and then going out without a word but not their fight; one can see Mahmut accompanying his mother in the hospital but not her struggle from illness. The most dramatic scene in the film to me is Yusuf laughing out loud for the toy soldier he bought for his niece,** and that's when it almost broke my heart to see this boring, lonely life bursting out in such a way.

With all the trivialities in life weeded, the story presents us with pure inner world of all the characters, their sadness, anxiety, loneliness, regrets...And as the story unfolded, I sort of finally grasped their desperate situation where their emotions were really no way out if no outer things intervened, which is exactly every loner tries to keep at all cost, especially for an irresponsible artist like Mahmut.

I've just finished my second watching. Last night, I crouched into my quilt, had some Vodka beside my bed and went through the whole film in a trance. I felt two real lives going on, one outside the screen, one inside the screen. I felt free from all those loneliness and anxiety 'cause the people inside were experiencing it. I just had myself removed from all those things.

We cannot deny the universal problem of communication, and loneliness even puts us far towards it, and it becomes a vicious spiral. I bet Mahmut still didn't figure out a way of living in the end. That's why he stepped out of his room to try to find the answers from the outer world, the coldness and landscape.


Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.

Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously observing young women he never approaches.

The film's title is translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.

Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.

Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task.


Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.

Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!

Ivan Yanachkov


This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best 'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of sincerity you'll find in Uzak.


This is the last film of a trilogy by the brilliant Turkish director, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, whose last film Mayis Sikintisi -which was very Cehovian- was shown in prestigious film festivals. Differing from his previous films, the story of 'Uzak' is set on Istanbul which is one of the most crowded cities of the world. However, in Ceylan's film, we do see only minor traces of that huge crowd. Rather he choose to focus on two characters, one photographer and one of his relatives who comes from his small village to find a job on transatlantic ships. The photographer, who -we understand that- has also immigrated to the city, seems to be inhabited the customs of the city life, not only in material sense. In his relation to his relative, we see him first as caring and tolerant, however, when he could not find a job, our suburbian character starts to be disturbed for sharing his private 'space' with someone whose leaving date becomes ambiguous. I will not reveal the tactics he develops in order to pull his relative out of his life to prevent any harm on your viewing pleasure, but it is enough to say that Ceylan shows us the tactics that we acquire within the routine of suburbian life; 'tactics' to keep our own private space, 'tactics' in order not to communicate with other people, 'tactics' to prevent our relationships from gaining a complex nature (since our own experience, we believe that, is complex enough).

Ceylan's film presents a clear picture of what a human being becomes within the borders of modern (or postmodern ?) city by depicting the two characters in different manners. But, he doesn't condemn any of the two characters for doing this, rather he uses the power of cinematic language to underline this difference. For example, in search of new opportunities, we always see the character coming from the village in open spaces. Even within the house, he prefers balcony as his favourite space. On the other hand, we see the photographer always within the closed spaces, and generally at his home. Although there are more than 10 million people out there, and lots of adventures, lots of interesting things to discover (or are there any?) he prefers sitting at home, watching TV, etc. His home is like his temple, a kind of sacred place.

Everyone living in a big city, and conscious of the experience he is living through, will find something belonging to himself in Uzak. If you like this film, I am sure that you will like Ceylan's other two films, Mayis Sikintisi (The Clouds of May) and Kasaba (The Town). Go and find them!.


Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that "distant" is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the art-house films I have seen, "distant" is the one that really stands out as a glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly lacking in "distant" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about "distant" is that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our commercialized world. Fortunately "distant" doesn't have that much to spare the audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings.


The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul.


A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and/or emotional states: isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too.

The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money (and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of life here - this is loneliness, warts and all.

The film succeeds in offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition. Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.'


ý thýnk uzak ýs the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise yo you will love this movie please watch it


Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was 1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways- plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul (the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and keeping them apropos to his own film's needs. Distant is a film whose title suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving. Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant does, albeit it at just the right length.


My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly. These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book. City life need not be like this.

I can see why some people found it boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't connect with people generally.


"Distant" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. "Distant" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)


so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of silence to bring out the feeling of isolation.


First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands by a fluke; some videostore/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how hard we laughed.

I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to this one.

Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends... We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-rateable one.

It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc.

For any cult-movie buff this is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems.

Raiting: As for craft it can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays and weddings.

As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10/10 should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our.


"Death Promise" is a lost 70's exploitation gem and deserves to be seen. Technically somewhat of a mess and boasting a stock of amateur New Yawk types, this film never bores. I highly recommend tracking this down. It's a hoot and a half.


This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome. If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail.


One of the classic low budget 70's movies, this film was found in a bargain video shop in London for only 50p. (interestingly, the package lists the star of the film as 'Charles Bone', who sounds like a porn star, but once the credits role it's obvious that the picture is aligned to far the right of the TV screen, so that all the cast members have the last letter missing from their names)

From the moment the narrator lamely introduces us to the situation that the desperate tenants of a grimy New York City apartment block, you know you're in for a rollercoaster ride of fromage. The direction is from the 'Ed Wood one-take' school - if one or two extras were looking at the camera crew, then what the hell?

The films finishes with a plot twist that puts The Usual Suspects to shame. Buy it now.


A group of evil businessmen need to knock down a building to build a huge complex, but they can't remove the tenants. The tenants and businessmen with their hired thugs clash until the film ends with one of the funniest fights ever! The guy with the ginger hair who goes 'eeeeehhhh' every time he throws a punch and the other guy who poses with a knife in his mouth instead of fighting, only to be beaten off camera, make this essential viewing if you like to laugh at films rather than with them.


"Curse of Monkey Island" is a treasure; in my opinion the series as a whole was the holy grail of adventure gaming, not to mention LucasArts.

But to return to "Curse," whats beautiful about CMI is that its not afraid to be itself. It does deviate from the first two but still remains faithful to the Ron Gilbert productions (if only the same could be said about the 4th installment of the series!). The voice work is impeccable, with Dominic Armato playing our favorite protagonist Guybrush Threepwood. The animation, while quite different than the classic pixelated characters, is done beautifully. It really is just absolutely gorgeous. And the music is fantastic! Its never annoying and you never have the urge to turn it off.

Although I'm not too big a fan of romance, the romantic scenes and themes are not at all overpowering. They also have the rare ability to come off as sweet instead of cheesy. That says a lot from a girl who routinely falls asleep during chick flicks.

Then, of course, is the classic MI element of humor. CMI is quite adept at delivering deadpan lines, altogether absurdist humor, and simply good fun. Gary Coleman makes a cameo as a budding young entrepreneur, and world events are discreetly jabbed at without stepping out of the bounds of the game.

Its not entirely fair to compare CMI to MI and MI2 because it truly is in a realm of its own. Personally I can never find a favorite between the 3 as they all are quite different from each other. However, if you want a swashbuckling good time with the flair of the classic series, I insist you give this game a shot. You will NOT be disappointed.

10/10 stars, hands down.

- Emily N


The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were to make a movie/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all.


I had only written one review on IMDb prior to this, as I consider most games as unworthy of the time and effort...Curse of Monkey Island is different.

Having played and been impressed by Monkey 1 and 2, I had great expectations for the third release...and was not disappointed. The first thing that hit me was the substantially improved graphics. Don't get me wrong, for games made in 1990 and 1991 respectively, Monkey 1 and 2 were ground-breaking and provided the goods well, but CMI steps up and delivers a superb cartoon-style game-play which is both fun and satisfying. All scenes and settings have been carefully crafted and well thought out, and suit this type of game perfectly. The animation/CGI is a mixture of realism and exaggeration; a fantastic combination in this case.

For me the script has been crucial in the success of the previous two games. The CMI script is clever, appropriate and, above all, absolutely hilarious. Added to this, the script is now audio unlike the previous two where speech is displayed in text format at the bottom of the screen. Dominic Armato's voice is perfect for Guybrush: witty, clear and slightly naive. All other voice talents fit their characters perfectly, especially Earl Boen who is the voice behind LeChuck. I loved every single character throughout the game: not just their personalities and wit, but the way each character is animated superbly and distinctively. Whilst on the subject of audio effects, the soundtrack is worth a mention. The soundtracks for Monkey 1 and 2 were both monotone, and despite this were very effective at giving atmosphere and representing a change in mood. CMI's soundtrack is, once again, a step up. Each scene is complemented by a catchy, subtle, playful and piratey (if that's a word) tune. With a change in setting or mood, the music also adapts, adding to the entertainment and amusement that the game offers.

The whole idea behind Monkey Island is to solve puzzles and problems in order to progress. This might sound easy, but is actually devilishly tricky in many places. Some may be put off by the level of logic and amount of thinking that goes into Monkey Island, but in reality this makes the game even more entertaining and fun, and also adds to the replay value. The option of "The Curse of Monkey Island" or "The Curse of Monkey Island: Mega-Monkey" (which involves trickier and more abundant puzzles) suits players of all abilities and also gives good cause to play the game at least twice. Whatever difficulty level you choose, you are guaranteed a different game each time you replay, with numerous speech options and other puzzles to solve that don't affect the outcome of the game, but are just there for fun. The most entertaining section of the game is Ship Combat, and the sword "fights" that follow. These were particularly well thought out and make the game completely worthwhile. Add to this a stupendous story that is non-violent and suitable for all ages which will keep you hooked and wanting more until the very end.

Finally in conclusion, a uniquely special mention must go to the designers of this game. The way each complex puzzle and problem is thought out is simply astonishing. Whilst gathering up items and objects during game-play, you can't see how each one is going to help you progress, but with a little thought and perseverance solutions present themselves, and for that the designers of CMI must be highly commended.

10/10 for the best game I have ever played (not an exaggeration)


The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a memorable and humouristic adventure.

Graphics wise the game is definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode.

The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk) and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup.

Michael Land's tropical and wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the game which I found very satisfying.


Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4.


On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push, pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse, etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful, mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. "Cartoony" is an appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including, but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care for the brand of play and/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime. Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs, as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8/10


The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the vote, keep up the good work lucasarts!


This was my second experience of the Monkey Island series, the full seven years after I had been shown the first game. What was my response? "Oh, great, we're playing a cartoon." I'm glad my brother shut me up then and played on, because the jokes caught my attention once again, as well as Armato's wonderful voice-acting of Guybrush - not to mention everyone else done well (I still think CMI's Elaine sounds better than EMI's). The cutscenes do well to illustrate something happening, and the art of both the game and cutscenes are excellent. When we found the CD with the originals, Secret and LeChuck's Revenge, we were both ecstatic and spent hours working through Revenge - one such moment was where we just sat down and blew half a day on it. However, CMI has to be the Monkey Island game I've played the most, especially for the return of swordfighting and combat on the high seas. That moment when you encounter Kenny and he tells you he's gone straight and then, "I'm running guns!" had both my brother and I in tears from laughter. And that's not the best part of the game, not by far.


Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it.


Being a huge die-hard Monkey Island fan, I fugured this one would be terrible since Ron Gilbert didn't make it. Boy was I surprised! Although it's still not as good as the first two, it has the comedy that I wanted. I was a little nervous about the new graphics, new SCUMM engine, and just the fact that it was on a CD. But it all came together, and it was interesting to finally hear the voices of your favorite characters. I especially enjoyed that SWORD FIGHTING had returned. And the whole story about finding the big uncursed ring was just incredible. Go ahead and try out this two-CD adventure. And now we can rejoice, because Monkey Island 4:Escape from Monkey Island is coming out REALLY REALLY soon! This fall!


What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid, but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The "You don't need to see my identification" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad!


First I played the second monkey island game, and I liked it despite the low quality graphics and sound. Then a few months later, I found out a new game was made. I tried it out and liked it a lot. First thing you notice is the great graphics. The areas are huge, colorful, and detailed, with lots to explore. The game requires you to use your brain, a lot, as always. The game is challenging, with all point and click games, frustrating. The jokes haven't gotten old a third time around. The animated cut scenes are a great addition to the game also. This is the best MI game out there, perhaps the best P&C game too! If you like cartoony games that play like a movie, get this game!


Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin.

Play the game and see how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality. You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.)


By now, the game's stale, right?

The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.

Wrong.

The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.

The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game by itself.


Michael Kehoe has accomplished quite a feat, especially considering it is only his second start as writer, producer AND director. Generally "first timers" lack vision and direction when helming a major production but "Dominion" proves Mr. Kehoe is going places in Hollywood! Set with beautiful scenery, Dominion boasts experienced cast members (especially Thomerson & James) who communicate Kehoe's vast vision with exceptional clarity. Few films can mix the slasher/horror genre with a genuine action/adventure feel, but Dominion accomplished this completely. This film certainly qualifies as one of the top-notch films in both of these categories. If you are looking for fast-paced action with more than a modicum of suspense, look no further. I look forward to Kehoe's future projects with great enthusiasm. Well done!!!


This is a very well written movie full of suspense right up to the end! The setting is beautiful in contrast to the frightening action taking place there! It is not your typical suspense movie, but a movie well packed with interesting twists and surprises which leave you wanting and hoping for a sequel. I recommend this film to all suspense lovers!


This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see!


"Dominion" is a good movie,but not original.It blends some elements of slasher movie and adventure flick.The setting is wonderful,the acting is acceptable and the film is fast-paced and exciting.Highly recommended for any thriller/adventure buff.


I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much, but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc. Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran, but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see.


ABC's version of the life of the late Pope: They put it just slightly ahead of CBS's version and it may have suffered from that but the program itself was excellent. It moved fast since it only had two hours (with commercials also taking up time) to cover this great man's long life, but Thomas Kretschmann admirably was up to the challenge.He did a remarkable job in conveying the emotions and strife that John-Paul endured.He-unlike the CBS biopic- played the role from youth to old age and managed to seem "realistic" at both ends of the scale.His credibility never wavered.He has an amazing range and depth. It is a shame that the program could not have been longer and more detailed but working within the time frame they did have,I think they did an excellent job bringing it to the small screen.


Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the movies? And he only came to universal attention after "the pianist"? Of course he looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face. But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe me, go watch "Stalingrad". I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent.


When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.


I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours. The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh, felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if there's a possibility. You'll love it!


Currently playing at the 2007 German Film Festival in Australia http://www.goethe.de/ins/au/lp/prj/ff07/enindex.htm thanks to Peanutqueen and especially AriesGemini for her rundown on the actors in this ensemble cast.

In Australia these movies were sub-titled in English and while French movies here often get a mainstream release, German movies are still to gather that sort of commercial audience. But like BMWs and Mercedes when Germans get it right I really like their films. Like PQ the time here went so quickly, lots of laughs from the audience as each of the 9 men and 9 women moved down the speed dating line 5 minutes at a time.

While many films are overlong this one I could have watched much more of. It had the sort of characters and character development for a series. Given time I will re-read AriesGemini100 review and reference the actors I liked and their other work with a view to keeping an eye out from them. I agree....most of these actors will go onto bigger and better things. Some very good character actors in this fine film. I did see it in the program listed as a mockumentary. Mock or otherwise it felt very real. And quite romantic in it's way.

Viva la Deutcsh!


Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each person is subtly characterized, without falling into the cliché trap, something that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as "Workaholic" or "Stadtgespräch".

But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of "Shoppen" is good, too: Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do. Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them interacting together in "real life". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have been better, but all this is only marginal.

The most important thing about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11 will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done!

For those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!)

Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his "Flower garden" monologue, you can win any woman's heart with this one.

Anna Böger: A hell of a woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good. Listen how she pronounces "asshole" and calls the pink shirt guy a "Bürscherl"!

Felix Hellmann: The "Bürscherl" from above is fun to watch. The inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of "Sportfreunde Stiller".

Katharina Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her "do you want children" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no doubt.

David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as authentic as Paul Giamatti in "Sideways". I hope this is NOT method acting.

Julia Koschitz: The "good looking" woman in the circle. Julia used to play theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to come.

Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy?

Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in "Tatort" last year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her.

Matthias Bundschuh: I know these "write down everything"-guys back from school. I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding.

Mediha Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances here.

Thomas Limpinsel: The "nice and desperate guy" in the circle. Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called "comedians" on TV.

Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's "flower garden" metaphor. Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at the same time, wow!

Oliver Bürgin: The "good looking" man in the circle. No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he will appear in many TV series to come.

Julia Heinze: The "cute, conventional" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from naive to hurt to furious are great!

Stephan Zinner: The "nature boy" from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating  and good sex. Watch the body language between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician Söder on stage!

Anja Klawun: The "bargain girl" has some good moments, but, beg your pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen.

Christian Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich.

Tanja Schleiff: Plays the girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her. I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious.