Nonureva Really Surprised!

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

raidatlanta You can't excuse every bad movie, and shouldn't try. I tried to appreciate anything in this movie for three quarters of it's length until I finally told myself "it's just one of those terrible situations where you have to give up and accept that you've wasted time in something which isn't worth any of it" - saying this, I try to always be very optimistic.The one star minimum that one has to give, I dedicate to whoever worked on the decors. ecstatically, some scenes in this film aren't so bad. The director of photography didn't do such a bad job either.Other than that, lets start with the actors. The main actor in this movie is mostly known for his theatre (and TV-series?) work, and we can notice it very much by his over acting in space, gesticulating and such. He might be good on stage, but all I can say is that when it comes to cinema, he should either take a few classes or "hang his vest". most of the other actors I can't judge so much, not because they were good, but because it is difficult to judge people forced to play such cheaply written parts.On this note lets move on to the scenario, which is nonexistent. Saying this, I would like to note that i am very admiring and often won over by the work of directors such as Dziga Vertov and Jean-Luc Godard. The scenario which over uses many clichés like the old "woops, it was just a dream" trick to make some things happen, over-juggle cheap symbolism (ex: a violent butcher (ex?)boyfriend who turns into a man-beast because you are what you eat) and contains no story line whatsoever. the ideas expressed in the movie are either extraordinarily cheap or barely palpable (though not being Latvian, maybe some references eluded me). There is no story, there is no point in the events happening - I tried to interpret symbols, meaning, etc. until I finally told myself "You can't excuse every bad movie".I could of course go on, wining about the cheap melodrama soap opera "dilemas", series of "events" and directing, the "unpassionate", random, useless sex scenes or sexual elements, or basically every thing else. I can say that this movie had a way too big budget for what it is, and that I cannot for the life of me understand how this film is so highly rated on this web site.

redanemone2009 MONA is an extraordinary co-production of Latvia and Iceland. It is not a standard drama feature, although it does not really fall in either of its sub-genres - erotic, thriller and mystery. It blends all of the categories becoming a surrealistic tale. Being an inter-genre mixture, MONA contains many details but there are couple of central elements and characters. Main characters of this film are a woman (Mona) and slaughterhouse (existentialism). Femininity is undoubtedly exuded from this film in many ways. One can sense irony and unpredictability of a woman throughout the story which is full of tension and unexpected twists. That is why you will catch yourself watching the film with growing interest even after you have seen the scenes that gave you an impression you knew where it is leading to. Despite the veil of femininity, the passion and visions here are very much masculine. Obsession and desire for something that turns out to be phantasmal and dubious are torturing characters in this film.Blood seems to be one of the unifying themes. Slaughterhouse makes us suspect a grim, bloodcurdling thriller or at least some gore that indeed comes true to a certain level yet leaving the horror fans hungry. Blood here is a metaphysical substance symbolizing both life and death. Another subliminal theme might be the message delivered by one of the characters on the karmic relationships between slaughterers and the slaughtered animals. In a subtle way, this story has its Lynch moment and trifles with the viewer's understanding of reality. Nevertheless, not many questions are left open and director hasn't used a blurry art-house technique to make everything seem endlessly deep in meaning. Altogether MONA is an entertaining movie and will captivate the viewer with visuals as well as with music and rhythm. Cinematography and music score by H.Ō. Hilmarsson is absolutely fantastic. I have to note that it is not a film about Latvia or a typical Latvian or Icelandic film, the story and everything around it is timeless and placeless. MONA offers something for every taste and that is a strong asset. I assure you for one this film will not bore you with predictability and ordinariness of its plot line.

rusher-5 Due to the ever present money shortage for Latvian cinema this movie was being made 7 long years. Although the director Ināra Kolmane (for whom this is the first feature film after a successful career as a documentary movie maker) tried to glue all the parts of the movie together seamlessly, there was still that feeling back in my mind that a part of the movie was being made quite some time ago, the main actor's outdated cellphone, the hand-held tetris game console a child was playing with and... I don't know how to explain it but the mood for some parts of the film was really pre-recession or even pre-book Latvia-like.Taking into account that the author herself has stated that the themes of the movie are still relevant even today (and I have no doubt about that) and that the movie was intended as some kind of a modern day fairytale, I could look past that thing and it really isn't the movie's real weak point. But let's start with the good things.Soundtrack... is it only me or Latvians are getting better and better at making their movies sound really great. Well... not really Latvians, this time it was a renown Icelandic composer but anyway. I've watched Amatieris and Seržanta Lapiņa atgriešanās (haven't seen Kolka Cool yet) and I've noticed these positive changes. The soundtrack is simply beautiful and complements the film.The visual aspect... I'm not the first person to say that but it's one of the most beautiful (visually) movies ever made in Latvia. And I'm happy that, unlike in Amatieris or Serzanta Lapina Atgriesanas (both visually beautiful movies too), a Latvian, Uldis Jancis was responsible for cinematography. That means we can expect some beauty for him in future too. There are some scenes that are still in my head and will stay there for a long time.Sensible story... it's sort of sketchy but at least I could follow what the movie was about. With other, IMHO, good Latvian movies I've seen before, Amatieris and Serzanta Lapina Atgriesanas, it wasn't as clear as to what the filmmakers wanted to say.These are the movie's strong points. Now about the weak points.The intro- it wasn't clear to me what was happening and why it was happening at the very beginning. That's a problem many Latvian movies have. The love story - I guess the author tried to show us a love story. However I must say that it didn't get through to me. I felt that there wasn't really much love between the characters, just lust and passion... The love story just wasn't that well developed.The density of it all - as some other people have pointed it out (and I invite you to look at movie's summary on the front page), there's so much stuff in the movie that most of it isn't developed much at all. On the one hand you have the love triangle- check, then you have a businessman trying to escape from the urban jungle- check... and then you also have a slaughterhouse and a question whether it's good to kill and eat animals, you have dreams and nightmares and signs written in the sugar accientally poured on the table... At some point there's just too much stuff taking place in beautiful locations (and Latvia is, indeed, beautiful), that you cannot comprehend whether or not there's some meaning in all of that or not.But in any case, it's another at least watchable Latvian movie. I'm happy that the age of Streičs and other old school directors is nearing its end as, all due respect to the great filmmakers of Soviet era, cinema has made leaps since the 70-80s and some of our directors seem to be still stuck in that era even now, using boring angles while shooting their movies and employing musicians who can only compose drivel for their soundtracks... and have nothing new to say about this age that is so obviously not theirs.