Pred dozhdot

Beautiful, hard hitting, but still both simple and realistic. One of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. I saw it the first time in 1997 I think and I've seen it at least twenty times so far and it grows bigger every time. I love this movie and can't give any bad comments about it. Some amy say there are some

beautiful scenes here and some ugly scenes there, but I love it just like it is and it's hard to change that.

Firs, the the acting is excellent and the main character Rade Serbedzija does a wonderful work as a cynical, down-to-earth photographer, who knows he can't

escape his destiny and identity, Katrin Cartlidge does an equally impressive job, as well as a lot o the Macedonian bad and good guys of the film.

Secondly, the cinematography wonderfully depicts the harsh Macedonian

landscapes and sceneries, as well as the torn souls of the land. The music has the same impact and feels so natural with the cinematography.

Finally, I could never complaint about the directors excellent work. This was his debut if I'm not wrong and that was very promising, but I suppose this was his "Citizen Kane" and it'll probably be impossible to make anything similar.

One rarely sees anything from Macedonia.But this is not only good for

Macedonian cinema, it should have won the Oscar that year.

Very interesting film about the tensions in Macedonia between Orthodox and Muslims. Structured in three parts, the second, which takes place in London, is necessary to give the conflict a more globalized scope, and contrast thematically and visually with the first and third, which take place in the rural world of Macedonia, but it is also the least achieved: it does not have a very close relationship with the rest, it establishes a sentimental plot of very minor interest, and it makes the main character a very topical one, easily extravagant and certainly unpleasant (the way of breaking up with the London girl is not very subtle, proposing her to come to live with him to his hometown, especially considering that there he is still in love with an Albanian woman). Still it has interesting scenes.

The first and third parts arte the important ones and have a certain symmetry: in this fight between two peoples, both parts culminate with a protagonist who dies at the hands of his own people.

The film shows the tensions that can lead a society to a civil war and how they are a vicious circle of reproaches, crimes and revenge, but at the same time advance in an escalation of violence that seems unstoppable. It is difficult to elucidate what came first and what came after, cause and consequence, who threw the first stone.

The structure is simpler than it seems, apparently a structure is proposed that could be linear or circular, but this is obviously not the case, and it is based on a certain trick that is not (and doesn't try) justified at the narrative level. For the structure to be linear and circular at the same time, we would have to ignore many details: those that make us read it as linear do not agree with those that make us read it as circular. No reading is fully valid from the narrative point of view.

As linear, Kiril in the first part says that he is going to see his photographer uncle in London ( but his uncle is already dead), the same uncle who stars in the second and third parts. In the second part, Anne observes some photographs of Zamira's corpse. This would take us to the linear chronology in which the first part is before the second and this second is before the third. But we realize that this cannot be so: we have seen the photographer's burial in the first part. And this forces us to read the second and third as flashbacks. And so it seems when we see that the events link with the prehistory of the first part... But that is impossible because in the second part Anne has seen the photos of Zamira's corpse.

It is impossible to determine which part comes before which. But this has been achieved in a very simple way: it would be enough to remove the detail of the photographs and Kiril's mention of going to see his photographer uncle and we would have a traditional film with a flashback that links to the beginning of the film. Obviously the filmmaker wants the viewer to see it in this second way and at the same time realise that something doesn't match and start thinking.

The photograph is very warm and saturated with color in its Macedonian part and cold and bluish in its London part. The film also gives us beautiful images of the landscapes, churches and villages of Macedonia.

A poignant tragedy about hatred, war, love and taking sides.

Time is not linear in the movie, but the director blatantly tells us that time is not a circle, so what is? The story is, and perhaps war is.

The story is told in three parts, with highly ironic titles: Words, Faces, and Pictures. Each story has meticulously planned, but highly disturbing parallels. The story-telling of the movie requires diligent planning, down to every single detail, exceptional creativity, and extraordinary persistence. Perhaps that's why the director Milcho Manchevski was fired by both commercial producers Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox for "creative differences"

Before the Rain talks about hate, and how the power of hate can rise above love. It talks about taking sides, the central character in each section tries not to take sides, but circumstances often prove such efforts futile. As with Kiril and Aleksander.

In the film, all events happened before the rain, this sense of urgency, this beautiful sadness, and this inevitable tragedy. Before the Rain is my all time favourite movie.

This movie is by far, the most touching movie i've ever seen. I think it impressed me just the same as "Merry Christmas Mr.Lawrence", though "Before the Rain" is a much more beautiful movie. It's a raw depicture of the Balkans conflict, but also a beautiful one. One with loads of violence but growing from this violence, there's love and compassion.The most touching movie i've ever seen.

i saw this film last year and for the rest of the day could not shake the emotional response it had provoked within me. totally original in its construction, it makes the "inventive" timelines of tarantino's work look childish and simplistic. this film tells so many stories and helped me understand the balkan conflict in a new light-- i can't reccomend it highly enough. one of the greatest in recent memory. absolutely beautiful photography. repeat viewings don't diminish its impact-- a rare achievement, especially for a film that is built on what could have easily been a formal 'gimmick'-- but the semi-cyclic form serves the film and heightens the impact and the meaning.