"It´s raining, and not drops"

Title: Shoot ‘Em Up

Year: 2007

Genre: Action, Comedy, Crime

Director: Michael davis

Writer: Michael Davis

Runtime: 86min

Cast: Clive Owen, Paul Gamatti, Monica Bellucci, Stephen McHattie

Produc.: New Line Cinema. Angry Films

Budget: $39 million approx.

In Shoot ‘Em Up, Smith (Clive Owen) is a mysterious lone gunman, who, unwittingly finds himself trying to thwart a government conspiracy.

Smith is relaxed. He is enjoying one of his only pleasures, eating a carrot, while resting on a bench on the sidewalk.

Suddenly, Smith finds himself facing quite an unusual situation. A young pregnant woman (Ramona Pringle) shows up running, very agitated, and continues into an alley. Anyone who had seen her would not have hesitated to help. This, however, does not seem to affect this man, who shows no signs of going to do anything. Not until he sees that the lady is been chased by someone armed and with a scowl. Just then, is that he changes his priorities. But not without first giving a bite to his vitaminic food.

Smith follows victim and attacker to the alley, even though he is not armed. Seconds later, the offender has already got the girl in the spotlight, ready to liquidate her, moment in which Smith appears. In the middle of a shooting, Smith manages to carry out a labor, after which he show the mother into a corner that he believes safe, but it is not, for herself and her child. Meanwhile, he will continue to try to save both their skin.

The opening scene shows us this good citizen, putting him right away, between a rock and a hard place. The result ends up being the fierce persecution, between a man and a battalion of hired assassins, all led by the fearsome Hertz (Paul Giamatti), who, if he does not like you, he tells you so, but with the trigger.

There are lots of action and lots of shooting. And such a cool fellow, that he even gets somebody else’s gun for his own advantage. Then, to finish with the first adrenaline scene, it could not be missed the spectacular jump from a balcony to an apartment, that Smith does with the little one in arms. It is of those circumstances in which the only thing missing would be the bad guy shouting something like, "I will avenge!" But, fortunately, it does not happen.

As the plot progresses, Smith's past is not necessarily too important, but we do know some demotivaiting details.

Here what we have, is a guy who has gotten where he should not, but who, coincidentally has extensive knowledge of anatomy and use of firearms, combat techniques or escape routes. Why not say it: a sort of MacGyver. And all for wanting to save a newborn, who, in the end, indeed, has become an orphan.

Starting from this premise is that everything else flows, where each situation is a constant, of shooting and being shot at, and where, no matter if there are dozens of assassins against just one guy, our hero is who is to be victorious.

It should be noted to the director, that all the scenes worked, all based on shootings, with pistols or machine guns, and without resorting to other elements. Together, Davis leads his hero to the extreme, but without looking ridiculous. Wich were, indeed, for example, the case of Darius Stone in XXX 2, who made a vehicle work without wheels on a railroad track, which was already excessive.

With this what I am saying, is that it is known that a director can, and often "needs" to take certain liberties with his characters, though, always considering that there "must” be set a limit.

Davis does not forgot of the female component, either. Donna Quintano (Monica Bellucci) is a prostitute who ends up being Smith´s sole support, and which allows for a romantic and erotic component.

Shoot ‘Em Up is action and shooting, from start to finish. Is, the good guy versus the bad guy. Both built under the usual stereotypes, but here, relaying on Michael Davis nice touch. Who, although, did not discovered gunpowder, he certainly knew how to use it.

My rating: 5/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Until the zombies do us apart"

Title: [Rec] ³ Genesis ([Rec] ³ Génesis)
Year: 2012
Genre: Drama, Horror, Thriller
Director: Paco Plaza
Writer: Paco Plaza, Luis Berdejo
Runtime: 80min
Cast: Leticia Dolera, Diego Martín, Mireia Ros, Ismael Martínez, Emilio Mencheta, Álex Monner, Javier Botet, Ana Isabel Velásquez, Blai Llopis, Itziar Castro, Claire Baschet, Xavier Ruano, Borja Glez. Santaolalla
Produc.: Canal+ España, Filmax, Ono, Rec Génesis A.I.E., Televisió de Catalunya (TV3), Televisión Española (TVE)
Budget: €4 million approx.

In [Rec] ³ Genesis, what had began as a beautiful wedding, for the bride and the groom, Koldo (Diego Martínez) and Clara (Leticia Dolera), will soon go to hell, when the guests get infectted by a virus.

Paco Plaza has undertaken, this year, to show us why the word "sequel" is so often frowned upon. 

If we went back to 2007, we would see an example of when, filming in the style of The Blair Witch Proyect, and getting in between a few living dead, did make sense. Throw in addition, that everything was going to happen in a quarantined building, what made the conditions for causing us fear, quite suitable. 

With [Rec] ², released two years later, the scenario would be the same, only changing the main characters. Now the leading role was granted to a SWAT team that, equipped, both with weapons as with cameras with night vision, entered the building to clean up the threat. 

This sequel would also have a dose of suspense and surprises, but that would not approach the level achieved before. However much the directors try to give to it an adequate pace, the idea itself was lacking of novelty, and it was relatively easy, to know what was coming and at what moments. On top of this, now religious elements, such as possession and crucifixes, had also been blended. Thus, the film had indeed got its good things, but only to some extent. 

Between the second and the third part, the timeout would lengthen, and to see what would be a film with some variations. To begin with, Plaza and Balagueró do no longer direct as a duet, but now it has been left to the hands of the first one. As if this were not enough, the screenplay is not provided by three individuals. Now, only two of them write it. Meanwhile, Balagueró has chosen, this time, to produce. 

To speak of the result, I guess would be to make reference to what for many has come to be as a real disappointment. It happens that [Rec] ³ has more of Robert Rodriguez´s Grindhouse, than of a true horror movie. With scenes like that, in which Clara, with her innocent and beautiful wedding dress, is filled with fury to gut zombies with a chainsaw (which appears precisely, in the place and right time), and which is more to enjoy laughing, with some friends, than to cover the eyes. 

I am not saying that the movie is bad. Moreover, if we forgot that it is indeed a sequel, it is likely that there would not be so many complaints. But then the problem comes from that side. [Rec] ³ "is" a sequel. One that fails miserably, not being able to continue with an already established aesthetic, which was what the fans were looking for. 

Paco Plaza replaces suspense, with guts and more blood. He is not even able to stay in the pose, that what we see is only what the characters shoot with their available cameras. Something that happens, only at the beginning, which lasts short, and that makes the title itself, meaningless. 

The action, as I already said, takes place in the setting of a marriage, starting shortly after the moment of union between the couple and before God, in a church, and with the great importance that takes the priest, afterwards. Here, Plaza has decided to continue deepening into religious matter, and that the almighty, is in all this, not exempt of some blame. In fact, it is enough to consider the other part of the title. 

Apart from all this analysis, if there is something to highlight, that would be Clara, the bride. Character played by Leticia Dolera, and which, once she has cried, got her makeup run, got covered in blood, got the chainsaw set in motion and got rid, so rudely, of part of her dress, she is quite unique. A magnificent and bizarre combinaton, between the "loss of innocence" and the "rebellious woman". A girl who does not hesitate a moment in cutting off the head of one of the guests, freshly bitten, when, being this, still alive and conscious, they both know it is just a matter of time. 

My rating: 5/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Herzog in the lands of Kilt"

Title: Incident at Loch Ness

Year: 2004

Genre: Adventure, Comedy, Horror

Director: Zack Penn

Writer: Werner Herzog, Zack Penn

Runtime: 94min

Cast: Werner Herzog, Zack Penn, Gabriel Beristain, Russell Williams II, Kitana Baker, Michael Karnow, David A. Davidson, Robert O'Meara, Steven Gardner

Produc.: Eden Rock Media

Budget: $1.400.000 million approx.

In Incident at Loch Ness, Werner Herzog and a group of filmmakers embark themselves into the waters of the famous scottish lake, to be documented by John Bailey.

Year 2004. Los Angeles. A cameraman records every movement of the veteran german director, who, in his house, gets ready with his wife, all the preparations to welcome the guests. John Bailey, who is the man behind the camera, follows Werner while they make dinner, and also when in his office, Werner tells both, to him and to us, what is this movie exactly about.

For the occasion have been invited Zack Penn, Jeff Goldblum, Crispin Glover, Gabriel Beristain, Ricky Jay or Russell Williams II, among several important personalities, all linked to the world of cinema. Not all, although some of them, will travel to Europe with Herzog and Penn, to see if the Loch Ness monster is it or not, just a myth.

At first glance, many might see this as a teasing. Being this the case of a serious person as Herzog, than what he has for us were to be a documentary about a creature, whose inexistence, at this point, has been, for most, more than confirmed.

Then, if so: What the hell would we see? This is precisely where we must take a pause and dig a bit more. None of this is more than just a big game to have fun for a little while. A typical "mockumentary".

Something that is interesting, is that from the beginning it is Herzog who runns the show, who is always followed by the camera and who leads the expedition, when it is actually Zack Penn who holds the reins, because in the end credits he is who directs. Herzog does not come to be more than the "false head" of a "fictional crew."

The utmost importance has been given to, that the line between fiction and reality is not easily detectable. What is clearly seen as Beristain and Williams are both true professionals in their respective areas. The first is a cameraman and cinematographer, and the second, a sound engineer and sound mixer, and both are going to be crewmen in this fantasy, in which they play themselves.

Also among the members of the Discovery IV (the vessel) will be seen Kitana Baker as the sonar operator and Michael Karnow as the cryptographer on board, both hired by Zack, as "part of the fiction." They will also have a direct involvement in some of the conflicts that are lived on board, as they give to the movie, comical (for us), while terrible and insulting (for Herzog), twists in the plot.

But if it is not yet understood, let's briefly review.

Incident at Loch Ness is a "mockumentary" directed by Zack Penn, written by Herzog and Penn (this, I add it now), and starring people that all play themselves. Herzog, who in turn plays the documentary´s director, "within" the fiction of this mockumentary. Penn, who plays the producer of the documentary, both, in and out of fiction. With the rest of the cast (the other crew members), the same happens in near all. Although there are some details that I do best, not to reveal.

Herzog and Penn combine comedy, suspense and horror, but mostly it should be noted that they parody themselves and the film industry itself. The comedy, in this case may be seen, for example, when Herzog intends to shoot a take, talking to the camera, and the cryptologist, who he has not invited to appear, gets with him in the frame. Or it is simply enough, to just have a look at the curves of the girl Penn has put in charge of the sonar. Really, it seems like a bad joke.

There is, to complete, a self-reference to an alleged incident in an earlier Herzog film, which involved a firearm.

Anyway. Penn and Herzog show us how the crewmembers of a ship may begin to have frictions between them, when disagreen on how to do things. All of this, while also routed to an even worse fate, including a very moved end and an angry Nessie. A beast, that if few have seen, maybe that is for a reason.

Incident at Loch Ness is not a great movie, but it entertains, and that, I beleve, is good enough.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Living other´s lives"

Title: The Final Cut

Year: 2004

Genre: C. Fiction, Thriller

Director: Omar Naim

Writer: Omar Naim

Runtime: 104min

Cast: Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, Jim Caviezel, Mimi Kuzyk, Stephanie Romanov, Michael St. John Smith

Produc.: Lions Gate Entertainment, Cinerenta Medienbeteiligungs KG, Industry Entertainment, Final Cut Productions

In The final cut, in a world where memories are retained by memory implants, Alan Hakman is a cutter specialized in compressing thousands of hours of material to only reduced segments, once we have died.

Sometimes a film goes unnoticed. What ends up being a real injustice, if the argument had been good, as in the case of director Omar Naim, who would have to be satisfied with only four weeks in the theaters.

In October of 2004, this is what would happen with the latest of Robin Williams, who personified Alan Hakman, a cutter of other lives memories. Something very, very delicate.

The film took us into an imaginary reality, where only some, those who could afford it, would have the access to memory implants, invention developed by the program Zoe, whose function was to record everything captured by our eyes, since our birth until our death. Hence, that the big question here were of an ethical issue.

Coexist all life with a sort of chip, device, or whatever one wish to call it, had initially got a fairly useful purpose. When we died, the implant would be delivered to a cutter (in this case, Robin Williams), who, from his editting room would see the material, would select what believed to be more enjoyable and appropriate, and delete everything else. The chosen selection would be projected at the funeral´s "rememorial", a couple of hours screening, where those present would see the deceased loved one, to remember him in the best way.

The idea in itself, did not appear to be bad. Attending to a relative or friend´s velatory, in a moment when we were wrecked, and suddenly see him laughing one last time. To enjoy the best of his childhood, adolescence or adulthood. All very nice.

But none of this took away, that the experiences recorded in the chip would no longer be personal. Whatever we did, from the most trivial to the least, or even the most horrible things, everything would be, in the end, a great movie to be seen by a cutter, who have to avoid any kind of value judgment and never speak up about it. The question here, then would be, with what right?

If the deceased had been, for example, a murderer or a rapist, it would just be enough to push a button to dismiss all the evidence, thereby creating a false image of someone who would be remembered, not for what he had been, but for what would be seen in the lie of his montaje.

In the film, Mira Sorvino would be Delila, and Jim Caviezel, Fletcher. She would work to Allan as an emotional support, and he, as a problem. Of Delila could be added, that we missed to know more about her character. About Fletcher, just that, he is who would endeavor to purchase the latest implant obtained by Alan, corresponding to some Charles Bannister (Michael St. John Smith), a deceased offender.

Finally, it could be emphasized, that while it has been a quite original concept, the story written by Omar Naim has a small inconsistency. Since the chip keeps such long records, it is intriguing how a cutter might be able to see all this stuff in such a short notice, before a funeral. A mistake that, although takes away some realism to the plot, it is more convenient to ignore it and give the approval to the director,  given his attempt.

As a curiosity, only to say that this would be the second of Robin Williams´s forays in the science fiction genre, in a feature film, but, above all, touching controversial matters. He had earlier been an extraterrestrial in the serie Mork and Mindy (1978-1982), but this, being a comedy. However, his previous dramatic work, also on issues in dispute, had been the 1999, Chris Columbus flick, Bicentennial Man, where Williams was a robot.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"How to conceive a good idea... and a new life"

Title: Maybe Baby
Year: 2000
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Director: Ben Elton, Hugh Laurie (some scenes, uncredited)
Writer: Ben Elton (based on his novel "inconceivable"), Ben Elton (written by)
Runtime: 104min

Cast: Hugh Laurie, Joely Richardson, Adrian Lester, Tom Hollander, Matthew Macfadyen, James Purefoy, Rowan Atkinson

Produc: Pandora Cinema, BBC Films

In Maybe Baby, Lucy (Joely Richardson) and Sam (Hugh Laurie) are a young couple who seeks, by all means, existing or yet to be, to have a baby.

Lucy is going through that moment, in which becoming a mother has become absolutely essential, to happily continue with her life in London, and Sam also welcomes the idea of ​​fatherhood. Still, none of this takes away that it is her who actually dies to be a mother. Because what Sam wants, more than anything, is for Lucy to be happy, and if a baby is what it takes, then, it is welcome.

Sadly, to try to get pregnant, and that for a woman, that this in fact, actually happens, are two entirely different things. It does not take much to Lucy and Sam to understand that this may be more complicated and stressful than what they had thought. Such, ends up being the effort for that some damn sperm decides to cooperate, that what should have been the pleasure of having sex, ends up being the constant, tiresome routine, to see if they happen to be lucky.

This is the concept that Ben Elton works so skillfully, in a screenplay that is full of good jokes, which, although of high tone, never fail to stay stylish, though obviously, aimed towards a mature audience.

Already, the film begins with Sam at the BBC, where he is an editor. There, he and George (Adrian Lester), his friend and colleague, attend a meeting, which is leading the idiot of Nigel (Matthew Macfadyen), head of both. They listen to their superior from the last row, where they can speak more quietly, without being heard. Suddenly, Sam cell phone rings, he apologizes for the noise and answers it. This is his wife, who it seems, has everything under control, and now is when, according to her calendar, she is needing of his bit. Here is just great, how Sam must escape from the meeting, to put on a helmet, ride his bike, and go running to the bed. Something we will see happening several times.

But the film is far from staying in just this.

Lucy goes to a gynecologist, Mr. James, played by the remarkable Rowan Atkinson, and who makes her go through a lot of fertility tests, from which Sam does not get rid of. All this happens just when Sam had recently met with the stupid and eccentric Ewan Proclaimer (Tom Hollander), a film director whose idea of ​​a good script was of wild sex and drugs, and Sam would soon discard. Then, angry and eager to humiliate him, Nigel transfers him to the children's programming. And now, when Sam thinks he has reached the lowest that he could afford, he decides it is time to fulfill his dream of writing.

Unfortunately, the big idea that has emerged to him is to write about their own, more intimate relationship issues: their seeking for a child. To Sam will not cost practically nothing, to construct the most successful of the comedies, and with the most original jokes ever. The only thing wrong here is that Lucy, who disagrees with the idea, had already taken his word that he would never adapt their own lives.

Maybe Baby is a very funny comedy that brings humor to something that in reality would not be funny at all. It also, cleverly caricatures the world of movies, and that whole business of how films are conceived. Were producing good art is only one part, in a whole big chain.

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Never trust the ice"

Title: Ice Age 4: Continental Drift

Year: 2012

Genre: Animation, Adventure, Comedy

Director: Steve Martino, Mike Thurmeier

Writer: Michael Berg, Jason Fuchs

Runtime: 94min

Cast: Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Queen Latifah, Keke Palmer, Chris Wedge, Jennifer López, Sean William Scott, Josh Peck, Wanda Sykes, Peter Dinklage, Aubrey Graham, Josh Gad, Heather Morris, Nick Frost, Alain Chabat, Aziz Ansari, Nicki Minaj, Alan Tudyk

Produc.: Blue Sky Studios

Budget: $95 million approx.

In Ice Age 4: Continental Drift, Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo), Diego (Denis Leary) and the rest of the group must face relentless earth movements, while in turn they protect themselves from the menacing pirate Guts (Peter Dinklage).

Long before arriving into theaters, we had already been able to enjoy a preview of what would be, more specifically, the entanglements in which Scrat would be stucked with. It seems impossible, but with just 3 minute this rodent suddenly worked as an excellent stand-up comedian, capable of getting us more laughs than all the other characters together. Undoubtedly, this squirrel is among the best, that currently reaches developed in the Blue Sky studios.

Continuing with Scrat, this acorn addict has always been an example, both of the brilliant animation work of these filmmakers, as of their immense creativity. This time, all this accompanying, in it´s latest short film, a preview of what we would see later. Ice Age 4 promised to parody the ancient process by which the Earth would end up looking like it is now. What is more, showing us, also in a tone of comedy, the emergence of some of the most important constructions made by man, of which, in this case, Scrat would be responsible.

But so much to emphasize of this character, means so much to "deemphasize" of everything else. To begin with, because it´s shorts have rarely got more than little to do with the rest of the argument. Once one has seen them, can maybe be getting an idea of what the prehistoric moment that it´s being lived in is, while Manny, Sid, Diego and the rest of their friends live their adventures. Outside of that, they tend to a mainly independent tone that, rather than anticipate us some clues, tell us nothing of, if they will be good or bad movies.

The film directed by Steve Martino and Mike Thurmeier touches everyday issues such as adolescent rebellion or piracy. It does it, on the one hand, using the uproar Morita (Keke Palmer), Manfred and Ellie´s daughter, who being in that stage where hormones have fun as the please, can not resist Ethan (Aubrey Graham)´s charm, a mammoth, to her, very cute and very cool. Against this she forgets all about her friend Louis, a mole with quite good feelings.

Furthermore, we should understand that much of the argument results from the clashing between this family led by Manny, and their new enemy, the pirate captain Gut and his crew. From this confrontation is that will come out, that some of them want to capture, torment and eat the others. But at a given moment, also a very subtle wink to piracy is made, this seen as the illegal downloading and distribution of unauthorized material.

However, I believe that, if something ought to really be highlighted, that would be that in Continental Drift (where at all times, earth movements and the icebergs´s breakdown, are the most imminent danger), Manny´s relentless effort to go back to Ellie and to his daughter, is always accompanied by the heroic group work that all of them (Manny, Sid, etc.) make to keep themselves, friends, alive and together. From all this it is understood that, the values ​​of family strength and loyalty among comrades, are what is sought to convey to the kids.

Each Ice Age sequel has meant a new challenge. Tell a different story, because otherwise, viewers would already be bored. In addition, introducing new characters, as this would give it a greater atractiveness.

But if one has paid good attention at each of them, should have confirmed that, indeed, all the arguments have always been the same retouched idea, that we could define as "the going back home". Whether it was that the herd helped someone return to it´s own ones, that they themselves wanted to go home, or that, because of the natural phenomena, they had to seek other destinations, always trying not to leave anyone behind.

Always seeing themselves in the obligatoin of recycling, I think it would be very difficult to ever reach the level of the first one. There are, out there, people who probably believe that the quality goes with, the more action the better. Although I think that, that's not right. Personally, I do not think that quality concerns that aspects, but the originality of what is counted.

The problem, then, of Ice Age 4 is, that no matter how entertaining it might be and no matter how many innumerable variants they could add, if they do not tell a "different" story that grabs and excites those who pay to see it, but in a completely new (and not recycled) way, we will always be seeing more of the same, and where we will find the best of it in a short film of a squirrel and it´s acorn.

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Cherrys with no flavor"

Title: Ta'm e guilass (Taste of Cherry)
Year: 1997
Genre: Drama
Director: Abbas Kiarostami
Writer: Abbas Kiarostami
Runtime: 95min
Cast: Homayon Ershadi, Abdolrahman Bagheri, Afshin Khorshid Bakhtiari
Produc.: Abbas Kiarostami Productions, CiBy2000, Kanoon

In Taste of Cherry, Badii (Homayon Ershadi) is a man who, for the purpose of committing suicide, travels in his car, looking for someone who would then, bury him. 

With a runtime of 95 minutes, what we mostly see in it is its main character, a depressed Badii, always driving. Badii travels along a road, sees someone who considers capable of carrying out the task, stops, invites him to get in, and then goes to explain, how by helping him out could be making good money and very quickly. The job details are, however, obviated in the beginning, not to scare them with something so delicate. 

Kiarostami tells much of the film with a camera pointed on its lead actor, Homayon Ershadi (or Badii), in the car, always in medium shots, and inserting panoramic images from time to time. So, when Badii stops and picks up a Kurdish soldier, in first instance, an Afghan seminarian (Mir Hossein Noori), in second instance, and finally, a Turkish taxidermist (Abdolrahman Bagheri), in each case goes to the typical shot reverse shot of him and his companion, and that´s all. It is not more complex than that. The director does not bother to put to our disposal any different alternative. 

If anything this Iranian director is really the master that is so much said, this is, definitely not, the best example. His visual monotony recalls a heart monitor for patients who are no longer among the living. Looking back, one could recall claustrophobic cases such as Phone Booth (2002) or 127 Hours (2010), where the directors had worried about not inducing us to fall asleep, to instead, keeping us wide awake with their scenes. Anyone could conclude that Kiarostami made his actors (or, amateur actors) improvise for the camera, and that, whatever they say, all of it would remain in the final montage. Thus, the taxidermist would end up being the only one who stood out, given his admirable account of his aborted attempt at self elimination. 

This flick got me thinking about, what would the public say if suddenly a famous director, like Tarantino, offered us something similar. Because if Kiarostami can do it, and be for that, admired, why not, other filmmakers? Although I think that, if any of these days Tarantino shot in the same way, the public would not hesitate to boo him. 

It is also true that we are talking about completely different styles, except that, in my opinion, the minimalism of the Iranian photography, along with his long dialogues, lead one to start thinking of, which part of all that is said, will be worth retaining, and what parts to discard. Kiarostami is in trouble, if he has not yet realized that movies are primarily a visual language and which is told through actions, that the spoken word is to be used with caution, and that in the case of putting long conversations, one must be able to demonstrate that it is an excellent dialogist. 

His work seems worthy of a film student, moderately trained to use a camera and cut and paste frames, which leaves this director looking very badly. 

So, is it the topic, at least, interesting? Well... It could be said that it is. I guess that everything concerning suicide is quite suggestive. Especially because human beings are morbid and curious by nature. However, a good movie is not only achieved by having a good subject, but also needs to be known how to tell it, and here it seems that, once elected his scheme, Kiarostami had forgotten about other options. 

I imagine that, undoubtedly, many will be able to find in it other ingredients that I have overlooked, and that give to it greater narrative depth and meaning. Like for example, in the very same geographical area in which all takes place, on the outskirts of Tehran. Different people may look for things here and there, and perhaps it is a movie that, although very simple in structure, requires a lot of work in the head. 

Nevertheless, something much more concrete is still missing in a visual level and in its characters. I'd say it comes down to what we see on screen, and to the emotions, here slim, that that transmits to us. 

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí