Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

jessy zaki That's why i love European movies. they focus on the story, acting, cinematography; natural cinematography without usual Hollywood special effects and explosives, making you sigh after the end credits. What is more beautiful than seeing the water and the blue sky, feeling the air on the way the actors feel it. Really, camera angles could make difference, making the audience in the seat of the actors. What I mean is apparent in the scenes where the children use their camera and view sights. You feel shaken hands while taking photos like you do, see the world like they see it around. It gets bothering at times these shaky hands, but it get you in the mood of the movie. Concerning the acting, it's solid, and the two boys are superb. The movie does not contain much dialogue, so the actors depended on their facial expressions which they succeeded in having the right ones in every scene, expressing how they feel towards their father. The plot is vague in some concerns and not everything is revealed. It is about the return of a father to his two children after 12 years. He took them in a journey to a deserted island. What special about The Return is its various interpretations. It appeals to all countries and all ages according to your interpretation, whether it is politically, socially or even religiously. Believe me, you will find what concerns you in this powerful and flexible movie, realizing that The Return is more than the return of a father.

Sandra Milner There is an unwritten rule for good cinema - it's show, don't tell. Cinema is a visual medium and we want to see the story as observers, as if we're actually there. Now these kids have not seen their dead of god-knows how long, to the point where they weren't sure if it was really him at first. Who is this person? Why did he disappear? Why is he back?In an amateur film, we'd have a narrator or a block of text telling us at the start. In weaker films, the mother would have one conversation telling them everything, briefing them, basically. In another kind of weaker film, the dad would do it. "Here you go kids, this is what you want to know."In a good film, we'd have this information revealed to us slowly. For example, they're at a gas station and the dad uses someone else's card/wallet to pay. Let's say that they see him acting suspiciously from the police. Or he sees someone he recognizes, someone who calls him by a different name. Let's say they see his wallet and he has a photo of his other family. He takes off his shirt and there are some Vor tattoos (prisoner and criminal subculture). Or army tattoos. You give us bits of information, here and there.Of course, none of this was done. The father takes them to a lake and that's it.I had hoped that he would tell them things, here and there, conversations, not a whole "this is everything you need to know" conversation, but they talk and he says something here and there. And with these bits we piece together the picture.But this was not done either.You know the feeling when you come into the room and there's a film playing, the middle of the film, where you don't know what's happening. Imagine a slow scene, where not much is being said, and you just don't know what to make of it because you missed the first hour of the film? This is basically that. It's a slow scene from a film made into a complete movie. The information is never revealed.I'm fine with a film leaving some to the imagination. It makes the experience fun as we come up with different theories and talk about it. But this film basically leaves the whole film to your imagination. What's the point? Why even put the disk into the player? Why not turn off the film and just imagine a film from start to end. I'm not complaining "not enough backstory" but there's no story either. There's no context to the events, barely any events and that's about it.And for those who say "cinematography is beautiful" - no, not really. They chose beautiful things to shoot to begin with. Photos of beautiful landscapes and vistas are not necessarily "good photos" - just as photos of pretty girls are not necessary "great photography." This film shot beautiful visuals, but it's just a pretty screensaver. There's nothing special. It's all too obvious. They chose a desolate, distant place to go, the film is shot in dark, dull and grey colors with low contrast (intentionally underexposed?) and the subject matter is dull and gloomy. It's trying to hammer the theme rather than be subtle about it.It is really forced and pointless.This film is the polar opposite of Michael Bay-style Hollywood films, it goes so far the other direction that it becomes terrible. The solution to obesity is not anorexia or starvation, but this is what many directors do nowadays. 2 stars for production quality and the acting of the children.

Nick Maxwell This slow-paced, introspective thriller of a coming-of-age story will leave you contemplative and stricken. The movie begins with a sweeping view of the sea floor, where we see a sunken ship (foreshadowing the film's ending). From there we're introduced to a group of adolescent boys leaping off of a tower and into the water. Ivan, a few years younger than the rest of the boys, is immobilized with fear, and it isn't until hours later that his mother is able to rescue him from his fears and coax him down the tower. Later, after a fight with his brother Andrei (presumably Ivan's only link to the other boys), Ivan is surprised to find that his absent father of twelve years has finally returned home for reasons left ambiguous. Ivan more than his brother Andrei is wary of his father and challenging of his role as a parent as the three embark what is supposed to be short trip camping. Throughout the trip, Ivan is emotionally distant. We're treated to his point of view as he gazes at the natural scenery of the road in a moment where Zvyagintsev works Ivan's character into his cinematographic style. We're able to empathize with both brothers, as Andrei is quick to accept his newfound father that never was and Ivan is closed off emotionally and slow to accept someone who didn't need him for 12 years back into his life. There are no firm lines drawn by Zvyagintsev, no character is portrayed irrationally or unrealistically. Later, after a night in tents where Ivan is brought to tears from his father's harsh ways and the overall gravity of him returning after all this time, the father announces that the two will be traveling further. The brothers are made to row a wooden boat to a far off deserted island for no discernible reason, where the last act of the film takes place. Here the father teaches the two about survival. He leaves the two momentarily to unearth a mysterious metal box (an object evocative of Tarkovsky's room in "Stalker" due to its unexplained significance and shroud of ambiguity). After the two brothers take a prolonged voyage exploring a nearby abandoned ship, Andrey is confronted by his father for spending hours with their wooden boat, and for the first time his cold discipline manifests itself into physical violence as he slaps Andrey as he tries to pin the blame on his brother. It's then that Ivan reveals to his father that he had stolen his knife while he was off digging up the box, and threatens him with it before running off into the woods. Ivan flees to the top of a tower, where he claims he'll jump if his father doesn't leave him. Trying to circumnavigate the door to the roof that Ivan locked in his flight, the father climbs the side of the tower and says "Ivan, my son" before the plank of wood he was held onto breaks and he's sent hurdling to his immediate death. The two drag his body back to the boat and row it to the mainland. It's then that the boat begins to sink and Ivan screams "Papa!" as the body lowers into its final resting place. This is the first instance where we see Ivan using a paternal pronoun towards his father, and it can be concluded that the father's tragic display of love for his son is what it took for Ivan to accept him. Perhaps in another film, the father would have successfully ascended the tower and hugged Ivan like his mother did at the beginning. The last we see is a montage of photographs taken by the boys of each other along the course of their journey. The complex, multilateral approach to a father-son relationship that Zvyagintsev takes in this film rebukes cliché and creates a definitive signature that will stick with you. This film separates itself and demands your attention long after the credits roll. While it may be seen as only barely palatable due to its pacing and lack of substantive events that would string along an audience in a more attention-craved film, "The Return" will intrigue you and make you think more than would otherwise be possible.

MtnShelby This is a beautifully directed and filmed movie. The character study between the wayward, brooding father and his two disillusioned sons is very intense without being unrealistic or melodramatic. There are so many subtle, beautifully-rendered images and scenes, well worth studying for a student of cinema or film fan. The two young actors are remarkable--so very realistic yet expressive in their portrayals. The real life aftermath involving one of the young actors is absolutely chilling. While what happens outside of the film and what happens within the film shouldn't impact one another, I can't help but think of the two as linked, because they were. So very, very sad how real life and the film became entwined.