GamerTab That was an excellent one.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

laosonik This is one of the five most important movies of the new century(along with Saraband,The Weeping Meadow,Le Temps du Loup and The Turin Horse).A great piece of filmmaking which serves the purpose of true art,that is giving an order to the world we live and a meaning in our existence by trying to bring light to the great questions of life.It is also a film that expands the film language reaching new grounds in the progress of story-telling.Angelopoulos'vision is unique in the history of cinema because it carries the great secrets of the ancient Greek writings filtered in a new form and a new perspective.I believe that along with Bresson they have the most completed and accurate technique in script-writing in order to accomplish in the end of the movie exactly what they intended to say from the beginning of their idea.As years pass,with the loss of great directors of cinema as Tarkovsky,Bresson,Bergman,Paradjanov and a few others it becomes very difficult to find movies which have a deep philosophical content and give cinema its real purpose as a form of art.I think that Angelopoulos and Tarr are the only two who remain completely focused on this difficult and sacred path.

hypno27 The non-linear structure is less off putting than the over acting, and the plain nonsensical plotting that means you have little idea of motivations, and no-one goes through this in a way that anyone would in those situations.From the scene where the lovers are arrested in Kazakhstan - they only missed the train because they chose to make love in an open tram in the middle of a -28 degree winter scene. You have to suspend belief more with this film than with a Michael Bay blockbuster as the motivations of the people involved don't even have a logic in the world they inhabitUtter tosh

mehmet_kurtkaya Master of broken love stories, Theo Angelopoulos, presents us the story of the last 60 years, the struggle between the absoluteness of love and the sadness of life.Three generations move from one place to another like leaves in the winds of immense political changes while we witness the parallels between their personal lives and those social changes in lyrical imagery.The two different paths taken by lovers who have fled Greece after the defeat of the Greek leftists by the American and British led Royalist army forms the basis of the film. Spyros goes to the US and Eleni to the Soviet Union. Spryos' attempt to take Eleni out of the Soviet Union ends dramatically. Eleni is sent to Siberia and Sypros to jail. They are then separated for decades but finally get together in the US. Their love child has become a movie director whose sole purpose in life is his career in the West while their granddaughter has to live the teenage life of divorced parents, lost in a life with no purpose. These social changes accompany political changes, somehow West starts resembling East. Siberian gulag security has now become Western airport security while the Russian secret police did turn into Berlin police. On this gloomy background Angelopoulos is not too pessimistic, there is a glimmer of hope, the only generation that can save the Gen Xers from their selfish Baby boomer parents are their grandparents. Overall, a wonderful movie by one the greatest directors of our time, not only packed with strong historic and political content but also beautiful poetry with many dramatic scenes, one especially standing out. And while Piccoli is good, Bruno Ganz offers a great performance.

jimdandylove when you love & admire a very unique way of intellectual storytelling combined with an inimitable visionary style plus transmitting metaphorically encoded historical &/or political messages or agendas, that will crucially influence the persons involved, then you have to be in great anticipation as soon as a new film by angelopoulos is announced. he certainly is in a league of his own when it comes to auteurist masterworks: the travelling players, Alexander the great, the hunters, voyage to kythera, landscape in the mist, are undoubtedly movies of unparalleled beauty & expressiveness. of course, you may criticize the one-sidedness of his recurring theme (greek history in the 20th century intervening & intertwining with the individual fates of angelopoulos' protagonists) or the lack of depth or even shallowness of his characters (they seem hollow because they usually represent archetypes & not persons per se), and an irritating tendency to allow his actors bursts into melodramatic gestures & exclamations: minor flaws you quickly forget, because you are drawn into a cinematic maelstrom you don't want to miss. angelopoulos' last achievement though, the dust of time, second film of the so called "trilogia" following the weeping meadow, is a major disappointment i am still recovering from (if you don't mind the hypochondriac touch of my saying so). i saw the movie at the film museum munich, shortly after it premiered in Germany at the berlinale 2009. since angelopoulos obviously denied permission for screening (the film museum hosted an angelopoulos-retrospective, having the dust of time making the final contribution) a projection of the DVD-version was shown instead, with the expected harrowing results. a double-no-go, the organizers at film museum are to blame for: you just don't show an angelopoulos-movie made in 35mm as a DVD beamed on the screen, it's like a diluted premier cru from château Margaux. but the lousy quality of the screening was matched by two hours of what I would mildly call a failed attempt by angelopoulos to make an angelopoulos-movie: it is pretentious & cliché-ridden, it tries to operate on multiple levels none of which has enough substance to either carry the storyline or to make us sympathize with its protagonists. while watching the movie one is constantly reminded that it just wants too much & achieves almost nothing. at least, you may admire the tremendous effort involved in orchestrating the mass-scenes, but you can't get rid of the feeling that this & some remarkably symbolic shots are not enough to rank this higher than average. besides, i haven't seen a movie in a long time that throws its actors' massive talents that easily overboard. of course, you may give it a try, it's an angelopoulos' film, but i do bid you welcome to the club of "the disappointed cineast".