Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Tauren Humnus This is a great film to watch if you have a short amount of time to live. You will feel like you've been watching for an eternity!! OK that's not entirely accurate. You may also enjoy it if you need help sleeping. The film opens with a beautiful shot of a seaside railway and takes the next 8 minutes showing zZZzZzZzZzzzZzZz. I loved the artsy vibe this film has but the long drawn out shots get old very fast. If you're a fan of things happening in movies, then you probably won't like this one. I appreciate the artistry of the film but that doesn't mean anything actually happens in it. After 34 minutes there weren't more than 10 to 15 lines of dialogue. I give this film an A+ if it was going for a pretentious coffee house artsy hipster vibe. Who knows, this might be right up your alley, it just wasn't for me.

luhlin I feel compelled to be brief in reviewing this movie; probably because I feel the need for a counter-weight to balance the confusing snail's pace set by the director. And, what for? I'm not sure I have the time to wait for an answer given this experience and test of tedium. That said, the cinematography is wonderful and exceedingly expressive. The movie, in the main, suggested to me that the director is a wannabe Bergman, getting the Nykvist part right with the rest a dismal failure and shameful waste of money.My wife and I wanted to like this movie and waited patiently to see it unfold, alas it merely folded.

Cosmoeticadotcom Style over substance.That is the plaint of many a critic when they come across a film or book or any work of art they simply do not like, but which has undeniable merit, at least technically, if not in a few other measures, as well. But, the fact is that my opening words have little to do with most of the gripes labeled such. In fact, the reality is that while there indeed are such artworks for which the opening plaint is valid, far more often the correct plaint is good style, poor execution. Perhaps I have not encountered before a better example of this than the latest film by Hungarian director Bela Tarr, 2007's The Man From London (A Londoni Férfi). Anyone familiar with any of the later films of Bela Tarr, when he reputedly became Bela Tarr- filmmeister, will recognize that, stylistically, this film is brilliant. Where it fails, however, is in the way most films fail- a poor screenplay; and in the way that great filmmakers often do, once they've reached a certain artistic level- they start ripping off their own greater, earlier works (and this is a Tarr work, through and through- despite the claim that Ágnes Hranitzky was a co-director).As for the DVD, put out by Artificial Eye, in Region 2, its subpar re: their usual quality. The DVD subtitles and dubbing, as mentioned, are bad, although only the subtitles would be the DVD's fault. The film is shown in a 16:9 aspect ratio. But the package comes with very skimpy extras- a mediocre interview with Tarr, who lapses between English and Hungarian, and not even a booklet nor theatrical trailer, much less an audio commentary. Even the DVD sleeve wrongly lists the film's time at approximately 90 minutes. This is true if 130 minutes, or 40 minutes' leeway can be considered approximate.Also annoying is scanning the reviews of the film and seeing so may critics caught cheating, yet again. I hate critical cribbing- the practice of not even engaging a work of art, but merely copying ideas or claims made by others and grafting them into one's own work. The two most egregious examples of this that stick in my craw are the claims regarding character names that simply are not so in Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup and Alain Resnais's Last Year In Marienbad. This practice shows why criticism has fallen to desuetude in most cultural contexts. In this film, the most repeated error is one grafted from the film's ad campaign- that there was a murder. Yet, seemingly no critics have watched the scene of the fight on the pier, nor recognized that there is no visual evidence of foul play in the presumed death of Brown. So, why repeat these fallacies? My guess is that, as film critic Ray Carney has often noted, most of what passes for film criticism, these days, is merely a variant form of the film's advertising campaign. And this ties back to the idea that this film is all about style over substance. Yes, there's not much substance to this film, but had it been better executed, in terms of the mise-en-scenes, the scoring, a lack of poor self-plagiarism, etc., the thin substance of the film would have been a non-issue. Some defenders of the film even try to gloss over the poor screenplay by claiming the plot simply 'meander.' But this is no more or less true than in any other of Tarr's films. It has no qualitative bearing on why this film fails and the others succeed, often brilliantly. No, meandering is not its sin, unconnectedness is. The individual scenes (no matter if well or poorly crafted) never cohere with each other; they are a jagged hodgepodge. The upshot is that Tarr may be on a long downward slide from here. I hope not, for the sake of cinema, but he just seems to have nothing left to say and no original ways to say it. Werckmeister Harmonies may have been his acme. And calling a black and white film, set mostly at night, a film noir, does not cover its sins. It simply is not film noir, not even by Tarrian standards. Perhaps the attempt to make a film noir so perplexed Tarr that it is the main reason for this film's failing, but that is speculation, not criticism. Tarr is famously quoted in an interview as stating, 'I believe that you keep making the same film throughout your whole life.' More accurately, this film disproves that, unless one equates self-plagiarism from better works with making the same film.Nevertheless, as disappointing as The Man From London is, it is not the total garbage that most Hollywood films ejaculate into the culture. It is only a 'relative' failure, from an acknowledged master of the art form; therefore, still a good, solid film, and one worth watching, if only to use as a ground in comparison to his better, earlier films. And, hopefully, like Ceylan- from his last film, Tarr will recognize this failure, and return to his better form in his next film. That's one lesson Hollywood never seems to learn.

MacAindrais The Man from London (2007) **** After 7 years Bela Tarr makes his return with an adaptation of a Georges Simenon's story. That Tarr has chosen to make an adaptation of a noir novel means that he has chosen to make his own, very unique take on film noir. That in itself has created one of the first rifts that has become evident in the criticism the film has received from fans of Tarr's previous films.The film opens with a slow pan up from the water to the bow of a ship. The camera slowly climbs up and through the hatch of a watch tower. We stop behind Maloin (Miroslav Krabot) as he watches a conversation between two men on the ship. The camera follows as they leave. One of the men meets someone else on the docks and they get into an argument, and eventually a fight. One falls in the water, taking a case with him that had been thrown from the ship to the other man, Brown. Brown, stunned that the man isn't resurfacing, takes off. Maloin watches, then goes down and fishes the case from the water. He discovers that it is full of money and then meticulously dries out each bill.This sets up the plot to which the rest of the film will adhere. This is the first major departure from classical Tarr films. The film is dedicated to this plot and the affect the money and crime has on Maloin. After stopping at the pub for a drink Maloin walks home through a beautifully framed alleyway. He sees a young woman mopping the floor, her dress barely covering her behind. We think he must be gawking, only to discover that he is angry that she, his daughter, is forced to mop the floors at work where everyone can "look at her arse." He hides the money from her and his wife, played by British actress Tilda Swinton.Tarr creates a surprising amount of tension through out the film. Brown, watches Maloin leave his tower and assumes he must know something. He will follow Maloin for much of the rest of the movie. In the aforementioned scene in the ally, we think the camera might stay with Maloin's daughter (Erika Bok) but it only stops to look, and then whip back as we discover Brown is following.Mihaly Vig's excellent score and the slow, very deliberate camera movements work wonderfully. One particular scene, which done by any one else, may have came across as quite conventional, but the way it is shot and the brooding score transcend it - Maloin awakes from sleep, he walks to the window, , and looks out. Far below on the street is Brown standing in the only lit spot, under a lamp post. He stands there while the camera slowly zooms in. He then walks off.The film is filled with many transcending moments, and the camera while moving in typical Tarr fashion, also I think is different in a very important way. In Tarr's other films, the camera moves along as a participant. In The Man from London, the camera is simply an observer. This point is evident in one pivotal scene where Maloin will walk into his shed to confront someone while the camera is forced to wait outside. Long takes and slow movements follow the actors wherever they go. Swinton is captured in one particularly beautiful shot as she is totally absorbed into sunlight light, creating an almost ghostly image. Edits are said to be events in themselves in Tarr's films because they occur so rarely. The fades and extended black screens between takes, though different from his other work, I think work perfectly to capture a distinct mood.It is important that the acting in the film be mentioned. Though all performances are good, perhaps the best comes from Brown's wife, who has only a few lines of dialog. She is confronted by the police inspector who knows that Brown stole the money and has committed murder since the body has now washed up. The camera stays on her face for several minutes as the inspector describes her husband's crimes and what she must do. She displays such a disciplined level of sadness that is truly incredible. No reaction shot has ever seemed so real or so affecting.Criticisms I think are based in that the film is so similar in style to Tarr's other films that is somewhat confusing to accept that this is essentially a different film. Tarr claims to be making the same film over and over, but there is a very different tone here. He is essentially making film noir. Many have argued that this is a minor work. I disagree. I think this is a very accomplished piece of film. I truly believe that it will be widely accepted as a great film given time. I don't necessarily think that it is as good as Werckmeister Harmonies, or Satantango, but I think it is overall better than Damnation. That said, I must say that I've loved all of Tarr's films.Of course there are simply those who cannot handle Tarr's endurance test films. One woman declared loudly that it was the worst film she's ever seen. I think this woman needs to see more films. Tarr makes films outside all convention, and I think that The Man from London is outside of his thus far established work. Any great filmmaker will be judged against his previous work, which I think is a shame. Each film should stand on its own merits, and this has not been the case with The Man from London. Herein lays the answer to its criticisms. If you see this film, forget all you know about film, even Tarr's. Sit, and wallow in the film's magnificent black and white shadowy cinematography; allow yourself to become nothing more than what the camera is asking you to.