उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

It amazing how many people have written comments about this movie, and surprising how lengthy their reviews are. Huge Hollywood blockbusters don't generate this kind of passion.

I don't know why this movie works so well, but it does. After the opening scenes, I was a bit concerned it might turn out to be a plodding, slow-paced film, but the plot keeps gathering steam and captures your interest. In this sense, it reminds me of Donna Tartt's brilliant book, "A Secret History", whose the plot is difficult to describe in terms that sound interesting or exciting, but believe me, it's a book that keeps you awake at night because you can't bear to put it down and wait another day to find out what happens next.

The movie's genius is in the way it keeps you guessing about the real identity of the father. It this man really their father? Is he planning to help them? Is he sincerely trying to get to know them, or is he a cold-hearted thug who plans on killing them once they are no longer of any use to him? When the movie ends, you can't be absolutely sure.

Just like "All About Eve" (Bette Davis), this movie has a rare sophistication. The characters might feel love and hate towards someone at the same time. In "The Return", the emotional complexity of the father/son relationship grabs your interest, then couples this with the mystery surrounding the father and his intentions.

If you avoid foreign films because you think they are slow and boring (and in truth, many of them in the 1970s and 1980s were boring), this one will pleasantly surprise you. It's certainly not some "action flick", but you won't be bored; you'll be transfixed.

EDIT: February 9, 2008. It has been about three years since I posted this. So far, I have no indication anyone has ever read it, so if you do, please vote whether the review was helpful or not. Thanks.

What child doesn't long for the parent he's never had, even with mom and dad arguing in the next room? What boy hasn't endured a week that seemed to encompass a lifetime? We begin with the wrenching ordeal of 8-year-old Ivan, or Vanya (Ivan Dobronravov), who's watched by a gang of his mates while he freezes with fear at the top of a wooden tower over a chilly swimming hole and can't get down till his mom comes to fetch him. He has a fierce argument with the other boys and his older brother, Andrey (Vladimir Garin) that shows his strength of character. Vanya's intense will and need to prove his courage will dominate the story, which depicts what happens when the boys' dad (Konstantin Lavronenko) suddenly appears after an absence of 12 years and takes the two boys on a fishing trip. They run back to the house, they see their beautiful mom, and she says 'Be quiet, your father is sleeping.' That's how they learn he's reappeared. The shot of him looking like Mantegna's 'Dead Christ' as the boys peep into the bedroom where he lies sleeping exemplifies the film's austere beauty.

We tolerate the mysterious father - his cruelty never seems quite over the top - because there's a perverted tenderness in his hardness with Ivan and Andrey. He wants to make up for lost time: he wants to shape them in these few days; wants to help them become men. He's always a nurturer and teacher as well as a demanding brute. The mystery that surrounds the man evokes the gap between all children and adults. They boys aren't even sure he's their real father, but their mother says so. The bond between the two boys has become the more intense in the absence of a father and the scene in their bedroom the first night when they talk excitedly about the day ahead is as vivid, beautifully photographed, and superbly acted as all the rest. The expressiveness of the two boys' faces is beyond wonderful.

This stunning debut features exceptional performances by the talented young actors, brilliant storytelling in a fable-like tale that's as resonant as it is specific, and exquisite cinematography not quite like any one's ever seen before. There's something haunting about the sound track too - the way the clear voices emerge from silence and blend with music. There's nothing in "The Return" that isn't fresh and compelling. It's unlikely that there are any more intense evocations of boyhood or relations with a father on film.

The lovely, cool physicality of the movie's images reinforces the sharp contrast between the winsome, cheerful Andrey and the dour, intense Ivan. Andrey seems to bond right away with their dad but it's Vanya who makes the underlying rules of their week together. Ivan always wants something, if only a meal or to be fishing, at a different time from the other two. He's a kvetch. But beyond that, his passion and discontent are terrifying. That big almost ghoulish angry face atop the little body looks like a man's and haunts us when Andrey's bright eyes and smile have faded from memory. Despite his hardness, their nameless father seems almost unformed next to Vanya. It's a battle of wills. Vanya refuses to eat when they finally get to a restaurant and his father won't let him eat later. Vanya complains about leaving a fishing place to drive on and his father dumps him at a bridge for hours where he sits huddled in freezing rain. It's an ordeal, and getting stuck in the mud is another struggle and battle of wills in which the father of course wins and saves them. Yet there are moments of sheer joy when the boys click with their father and delight in the new places and scenes that they view through binoculars and photograph with a 35-mm. camera. The trip ends at a deserted island where their father has a secret mission and little Vanya's torment leads to a disturbing finale.

The Return heralds the appearance of a gifted new filmmaker, perhaps a great one. At times it evokes such recent lonely, austere masterpieces as Bruno Dumont's 'Vie de Jésus,' Van Sant's underrated 'Gerry,' and Jim Jarmusch's 'Dead Man.' But Zvyagintsev is Zvyagintsev and nobody else. There's an exciting new director on the world cinematic scene and we'd better learn how to get our tongues around this slippery Slavic name. ('The Return' won the grand prize -- the "Leone d'Oro" -- at the Venice Film Festival last year. It's not hard to see why.)

"The Return," a breathtakingly austere masterpiece from the land that gave us Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Tarkovsky, is one of the most beautifully acted and directed films I have seen in years. Astonishingly enough, this is the feature film debut for director Andrei Zvyagintsev who demonstrates more of a mastery and command of the medium in this his maiden effort than most directors do in a whole body of work.

The film tells the tale of two brothers, Ivan and Andrei, who live with their mother and grandmother in a small coastal village in Russia. One day, totally unexpectedly, the boys' father returns after a twelve-year absence. In an effort to make up for lost time, the dad decides to take his sons on a fishing trip, but, almost immediately, he begins to demonstrate disturbing tendencies towards domination and abuse. He also appears to be up to some sort of nefarious business operations to which neither we nor the boys are entirely privy.

Every single moment of this film is a revelation. Zvyagintsev beautifully captures the opposite ways in which the boys react to and interact with their father. Andrei, the oldest, is so desperate for a father figure in his life that he is willing to overlook the often inexplicable, bizarre and possibly even dangerous behavior that this particular father exhibits. Ivan, on the other hand, embittered by years of absence and neglect, seethes with barely disguised rage at the man who now presumes to enter into their once happy lives and assert his authority. Of the two boys, he seems the most tuned into the kind of threat the father may pose to their welfare. Yet, towards the end of the story, the apparently latent love the boy feels for this man as his father does eventually rise to the surface. Through this intense interaction, the film emerges as a complex and profound study of what father and son relationships are really all about.

It is virtually impossible to put into words just how brilliantly the two young actors use their facial expressions to convey a wealth of meaning and emotion. As portrayed by Vladimir Garin, Andrey looks up to his father with a mixture of boyish pride and trembling awe, longing for the kind of male affirmation he has been deprived of all these years. He is desperate to please his father by proving to him that he can perform the acts of manhood that his dad keeps putting forth for him to do. As Ivan, Ivan Dobronravov spends most of his time glaring at the man, his mouth pursed in a tight unyielding grimace of resentment and hate. If I could give an award for the best performance by a child actor in movie history, these two youngsters would be high on my list of candidates. They are that amazing. Tragically, young Garin drowned two months prior to the release of the film, leaving his indelible mark behind in a performance that will never be forgotten by anyone privileged enough to witness it. Konstantin Lavronenko is equally impressive as the boy's mysterious father, beautifully underplaying the part of a man who can appear sane and rational on the surface but who is a seething cauldron of untapped emotions beneath. In fact, it is this constant threat of violence always on the verge of eruption that keeps us off balance and on edge throughout the entire picture.

The film's writers, Vladimir Moiseyenko and Aleksandr Novotosky, deserve special recognition for not allowing the plot to overwhelm the characters. For this is, first and foremost, a great character study. The scenarists have intentionally left the background of the father vague and sketchy, the better to enhance the sense of mystery and danger he represents. We never find out what nefarious activities he is involved with since that is of virtually no importance either to the children or to us. We are too engrossed in the relationships of the characters to care. In fact, there are a few hints towards the end of the film that this seemingly cold, uncaring man, for all his myriad faults, might actually just love his sons in his own strange way. The film leaves us with no easy answers or pat resolutions at the end. And this is how it should be. In fact, the scriptwriters even throw a few of Hitchcock's prized "MacGuffins" into the mix to keep us off balance (there is a scene in which some possibly stolen money sinks to the bottom of a lake that is highly reminiscent of what happens in "Psycho")..

Among other things, "The Return" represents one of the most impressive directorial debuts since Francois Truffaut's "The 400 Blows." Zvyagintsev's ability to draw great performances from his actors is only one of his many talents on display here. His lyrical use of composition, as well as the way in which he makes nature and weather an integral part of his drama help to draw us so deeply into this world that it takes the viewer literally hours to get fully back to his own existence again once the movie has ended. It reverberates for days afterwards. For as with any great film, "The Return" finds its way into the depths of one's soul and leaves the viewer a richer person for the experience.

Winner of the Silver Lion at the Venice Film Festival (2003), "The Return" is a true work of art and one of the outstanding films of the decade so far. Whatever you do, don't miss this film.

This film's power is revealed in the contrast between the events as they play out and the questions generated by the enigmatic final moments. It worked firstly as a mysterious, psychological drama, but once the film had ended, it fit the definition of the term allegory perfectly.

"The Return" makes a compelling case in favor of a poetically complex narrative over the expectations of 'The Hollywood Ending', where life eventually makes some kind of sense. The absence of a father can create a psychological 'presence' for the family, both seen and felt in the emotional interaction of the children. This complex, yet all too human condition is played out here, not as a narrative sleight of hand (The Sixth Sense) but rather as film poetry. Life's hardest truths sit like a stone in the mouth and won't be broken down easily. The characters in this film seem to be struggling with the absence of their father, but doing so with him present.

Visual cues which seem to lead to a metaphorical reading of what's happening are scattered throughout the film. For example, when the the boys see their sleeping father for the first time, he's viewed as Andrea Mantegna's "Dead Christ". The boys dash upstairs immediately afterwords to see if he looks like their father from an old photo. It seems that it's been loosely placed in an old book of engravings - on the page where the angel stays Abraham's hand before he sacrifices his son. Then there is the repeated image of the tower, seeming to both foreshadow and justify a fear of death for the youngest brother. And the mysterious journey to an island, the significance of which changes them all. These don't appear as kitsch cues (as in, "this image stands for this specific idea.") but appear as symbols whose meaning is more poetic than literal. They're tied to the story and can't be extracted. In true Tarkovskian form the filmmaker has bled his symbols of universal references and made them about the characters.

And there's the profoundly enigmatic manner of the father, existing for the two brothers in terms of curt preoccupation, edicts, veiled threats, detachment and blunt instruction. He could very well not be there. This causes both boys to respond to him with a mix of outrage, incredulity and bitterness.

Its a rare film, well worth seeing, if for no other reason than to marvel at the elegiac force of the story, the photography and at the performances that the director managed to coax from his actors. Both the boys in particular are astonishingly subtle. Highly recommended.

I've seen many emotional films in my life, but I've never seen a film with as much emotional intensity as Vozvrashcheniye. Even though I don't know what it is like to have a distance or missing parent, I feel I've suffered the same feelings that other children in this situation must have.

The emotional content of the film continues if you watch the documentary on the making of the film included in the DVDs extras. This is no ordinary film; the feelings of the director, the cinematographer, the producer, and the personal experiences of each of the actors; words cannot describe the heart every single person put into this film. The insufficiency of words can also be described by the film itself -there isn't a heavy amount of dialogue, and there doesn't need to be (even though for the majority of the film you're screaming at the characters to say something!). To quote from Fyodor Dostoyevsky (a Russian author): "there is immeasurably more left inside than what comes out in words."

This little review doesn't do justice to the film for the same reason. It is for this reason, this insufficiency that words have, why films (like this one) need to be created.

I wandered a bit from commenting movies. But I had to return. This movie made me do it. I didn't know anything about it. I only saw one trailer, that did its job perfectly. Everyone said it was incredible. I went and saw it. I found it more than incredible, staggering at least. It start as a pure, simple story and never wanders from its main character or its story not the slightest bit. Its jaw-breaking stripped-to-the-bone structure is a true novelty. Its young actors reveal themselves worthy of a standing ovation. It's difficult to find words to talk about this movie when it conveys such emotion by so few means. It's a fantastic, cold and often unbearable voyage through a deserted horizon, and one of the best movies of the year.

I had seen many good reviews for this film but was reluctant at first to watch it as I thought it could be just one of the high art movies which seem to be made for the development of cinematography alone rather than enjoyment of the public and which I find hard to like even though I appreciate them.

I watched "The Return" on DVD and I truly think it is special and is very absorbing as well as highly intelligent. I just wish I went to see it in the cinema on the big screen when I had a chance, because the film's cinematography is exceptional and nature views play as big part in the film as actors themselves do. I can close my eyes and still see the lakes, the forest, the vast empty spaces. The film left me feeling elated and clean.

I loved the structure of the film, so different to the usual Hollywood movie: nothing is explained and you can think for yourselves. Also I could not guess the ending.

The story is simple – the father of two boys was absent for twelve years (he probably was in the prison camp - this is one of the places I can think of where you could be fed a poor diet of fish).The mother never told the boys the truth about him .The father comes back, wants his boys to accept him as the father figure and help them to learn how to survive in this world, but the misunderstanding and flaws in his character play their role.

Behind the story many spiritual (and other) layers hide.. One quote comes to mind – that the prophets are never accepted by their own people. Or other layer - Russia itself is often viewed as a parent for its people . The country had a terrible 70-80 years recently when it really was a big prison camp. Now some of the Russian people feel estranged, unloved and sometimes betrayed by their country.

It is pity that because the film was in Russian language with English subtitles, some meaning was "lost in translation". I am of the Russian origin and noticed some discrepancies in the subtitles. But it must be very difficult to translate the film like this as there are not many words in it and they often have second-layer meaning.

The director Andrei Zvyagintsev must be really congratulated on such a great debut, a masterpiece accomplished on a very low budget.

The casting is absolutely perfect – the child actors even look very much as their parents. Vanya looks like his mother, has a personality similar to her, is close to her, where Andrei looks like the father and has more of the father's tough personality. They both are exceptional actors, especially for their age. When you watch the film you don't see the acting, you see the real boys almost like they were filmed by a hidden camera.

Konstantin Lavronenko did a particular good job of depicting very complicated personality of the father. Everything is there – pain of the wasted years, love for the boys deeply hidden, scars that some very hard life path left and all this behind the tough facade.

I give this movie 10/10

Two pre-teen boys are shocked when their father returns home to them and their mother, after being inexplicably away for 12 years. He takes them on a road trip the next day. If you've seen the incredible but spoiling trailer for this movie, you know what happens in the last 10 minutes. Apart from the frustrating promotional trailer, this movie is exceptional and is one of the most strikingly beautiful films I've seen in a long time. The child actors are so incredible it is almost discomforting. The cinematography is simply breathtaking. "The Return" would make for a perfect double feature with the equally gorgeous and disturbing Italian film "I'm Not Scared" (aka "Io non ho paura"). Both films explore the fear and courage that results when children are suddenly faced with unknown horrors of the adult world. My Rating: 9/10.

"The Return" aka "Vozvrashcheniye" (2003) tries to succeed on many levels – as visual allegory, suspense, road movie, and on the deeper, more dramatic level of the father – sons' connections. Two brothers, 15 year old Andrei and 12 year old Ivan who are very close, live with their mother and grandmother thinking that their father was dead. One day, the father returns after 12 year absence and on the next day, he takes the boys on the week long fishing trip. For all three of them, the trip changed their lives forever.

The Return is an impressive debut by Andrei Zvaygintsev. His camera man Mikhail Krichman and two young actors deserve the praise and the awards. But when I read that Zvyagintsev is Tarkovsky reincarnated and the film is as deep and meaningful as the best Bergman's works, I don't buy it. Why did the father insist on taking the sons with him while his reason to go to the mysterious island was far from fishing? Am I to believe that the best the father could do after 12 years absence was to humiliate and to treat his sons as a drill sergeant? The most important and emotional, central to the film scene on the island with the screams, tears, and hatred felt like so called "Dostoyevshina" – a la Dostoyevsky but without his pain, anger, and talent. Dostoyevsky would've gone deep inside his character's soul and heart to give us the reasons for his actions – in "The Return" I had to take the director's and writer's words for granted and it is hard for me to do. What did I learn? That the fathers see themselves in their sons, hate themselves and try to break their children so the children will not repeat their (fathers') mistakes? That "The father always knows better?" That the generation of the children and the parents will never (or too late) understand one another? Or another idea. Maybe the father represents the old, before "Perestroika" Russia. Why not? He was absent for 12 years – he disappeared somewhere in the beginning of 1990s – just when Soviet Union ceased to exist and his sons grew in a new country, and there is no place in their world for the dark past which their father embodiments. Anything is possible. One thing is for sure – it's been done before - poetic symbolism, magnificent indifference of nature, painful and honest dissections of the close relationships, and the return of the prodigal Odysseus.

6.5/10

The Return story is a coming of age story.Two brothers, who are just hanging out around the neighborhood come home one day and are told by their Mother that their Father has arrived. A father they have not seen in 12 years. First thing Dad does is to tell Mom to give the boys some wine and then tells them that they will be going with him the next day on a long trip. Mom, meekly acquiesces to all of this and the viewer wonders what possible reason she would let her sons, whom she obviously cares about, leave with a relative stranger. This is the mystery of the story which is never fully solved. The film then follows the journey of Dad and the boys until it reaches its eventful conclusion. Looking back on the film after the end credits have rolled, it's clear that this film has many levels. On one level, it's basically a stock film that's pretty predictable and bland. The plot is not overly clever and the missing gaps are pretty easily filled in by fans of mysteries. With a little thought, though, you can appreciate the underlying human feelings that permeate this film. And it is this that makes this film that so widely praised by some critics. All in all, this isn't a popcorn movie but a film to watch when your in the right frame of mind for a thoughtful movie.

The Return is a Russian movie that deals with two boys, Andrej and Ivan, and the sudden appearance of a man who claims to be their father. The three of them embark on a trip that eventually brings them to a remote island. There things get out of control and a mentally thrashing climax leads to a weird final denouement that leaves many questions unanswered and an attentive viewer unsatisfied.

The movie's very basic premise is indeed promising and causes the audience to have certain expectations and rough ideas of underlying themes and the topics that are likely to be addressed. The first scenes provide an interesting introduction to the two brothers, their relationship with each other, their fears and specific characteristics. Russian movies tend to be very different from productions of other countries, mainly in terms of pace, visuals and tone. This very much applies here.

Then the boys' father turns up and the mysteries start. Who is he? Where did he come from? Why didn't he show up before? These questions do not necessarily need to be answered on condition that the movie either genuinely unravels the mysteries by natural developments or that the story is sophisticated enough to refrain from any revelations. Neither is the case. Instead more and more questions are posed and the story turns from interesting to weird. Not only that the identity and the intentions of the man claiming to be the boys' father remain entirely unclear, the story as it is presented is occasionally incoherent and simply not understandable. Some examples: The man takes the two boys with him for almost a week – nobody knows where they are going or what they are about to do. The road trip aspect is nicely transformed, but there is no main theme that provides real identification and understanding of the proceeding events. I never stopped expecting some kind of explanation, and thus I was surprised that the movie never provided one. Then there is something that the man digs out – it seems to be a treasure and the main incentive for him to go on the trip to the island in the first place. So what is it? Not a single hint is given. The entire quest of the boys to connect with the strange man is hampered by the incoherent developments and prevents the movie from persuasively elaborating on the father-son relationship, which was the primary source of the movie's emotional and psychological strength.

The two boys do a decent job. The younger one delivers some difficult and very emotional scenes that require substantial acting skills. The visuals are interesting, as you normally do not come to see images of the Russian countryside in all its rugged and picturesque beauty. The camera work is sometimes too slow in pace, but generally acceptable. The close-ups and the use of light is fine – so the visual accomplishments need to be appreciated as such.

What starts as a very promising movie becomes an average flick that lacks substantial quality in plot and storyline developments. Although I could to some extent identify with the characters, the movie does little to help the audience to connect with them. It rather provides nothing but questions you expect to be answered. The theme of an absent father coming back and the emotional turmoil inflicted on the two boys is a very strong premise that made me expect a very sophisticated handling of the conflicts and frictions within the family and in particular between the father and his sons. I would love to give the movie a good rating for its theme, but the crudities were too apparent and overlapping the qualities. 5/10.

THE RETURN – 9.9/10

Director: Andrei Zvyagintsev

Writer: Vladimir Moiseyenko, Aleksandr Novototsky

There is something peculiar about the film, something which has its own splendor, glamour and an aura – eerie, unnerving and soothing at the same time, a feeling that will linger ceaselessly. There is maybe only one possible reason why this film does not deserve a perfect score; I'll bring this to light later. What was prophetic though was the revelation that this was Andrei Zvyagintsev's first film. Let's talk about that.

The Return deals with the relationship that builds between a father – Konstantin Lavronenko, who returns after several years of being absent from the lives of his two sons – Vladimir Garin (Andrey) & Ivan Dobronravov (Ivan), after they set out on a supposed joy trip. I don't like revealing plots in my reviews/opinions so that's about all you need to know about the film. As a viewer, or a critic, one might have a hard time or even find it impossible to categorize or precisely define what this film deals with. Is it a coming of age film, is it about some greater truth, is it a suspense-thriller, a mystery …I would suggest you stop there.

The film is frustratingly selective and ambiguous in its choice of details that it wishes to reveal and ones it keeps obscured from the viewer. My hunt began soon after the film ended, as I was convinced there was more to what I had seen or understood. You might find yourself screaming after – or maybe even during the film in some cases – out of pure dissatisfaction. Once I set out to search for answers, other than biblical references the director injects, nothing else came to light. As my search intensified, I began to see what hitherto I was blind to: the sheer masterpiece that was before me.

Such extreme mastery of filmmaking, few have depicted at such early stages in their careers, set aside the fact that this was Zvyagintsev's first film. The film is not about the details that are obscured from the viewer, though they add so much tension, anxiety and apprehension to the film that I have never found myself so edgy even in a suspense-thriller or a horror film. What makes it so edgy, captivating and enthralling is something I'll let you figure (it would also lead to plot spoilers); but things you must keep a keen eye for are: the performances by the three actors, especially the teenagers – they would put generations of mainstream actors to shame (especially from the Bollywood industry); the cinematography which is so dark, almost monotone in its shade of beautifully blended blue and grey, complemented by the choice of techniques which are so honest and original - like when the titles role in or the use of still photography at the end; and finally, the choice of locations. The script is perfection personified, absorbing and is a must for any individual aiming to understand and I must say FATHOM, the art and not just the craft of screen writing. Films like these defy all the paradigms and creativity choking tips in scriptwriting bibles.

So the next thing you must do is watch the film. Don't worry about the details you don't know, because the truth is you are not suppose to know them. The film is actually self explanatory. Knowing facts like the arrival & departure day of Christ, the adjacent page and the book where the father's picture was kept when the children first refer to it, the apparent similarity between their first meal and The Last Supper, and even the position in which he is asleep can add some significant and crucial depth to the film, but nothing that will deprive you of the joy and greatness of this masterpiece if you do not know the bible. May be this is the only true reason I am not giving this film a perfect 10. But one cannot ignore the colossal significance of writing a script like this without a reference. Several great films like Battle of Algiers, The Godfather, City of God, KAPO and many other classics of the same caliber had a reference point, a frame-work, some model to work with whether it was a novel or a real life incident about military occupation or a holocaust. Snatching a script out of thin air, and one as divinely perfect, watertight and educating as The Return, can only be the work of a true genius.

I have never been this perturbed by a film before; emotions that require all complexities of the human mind for interpretation, but still cannot be comprehended or explained by words have been dealt with in this film. The characters of the film speak very little, and very little can be spoken about the film too. It is a film that creates its own audience; it chooses them and leaves them feeling privileged, wondering and awestruck by its sheer grandeur.

We get plenty of US/UK movies, a reasonable amount of European and oriental movies, but it is comparatively rare that we get a movie from Russia over here. Russian film-making has a very distinctive style and tradition, so good examples of it are a welcome change. Certainly The Return lives up to any expectations of good art-house. The Russian outback is noted for its harshness and it probably requires a particular type of character to survive and flourish there. This unusual coming-of-age movie looks at two brothers raised largely by their mother. When their father returns after 12 years and takes them on an extended fishing trip they react very differently. The father is authoritarian – a complete change for the boys from the protective mother. He is a complex figure – is he a pilot? A crook? Part of him seems to genuinely love the boys and want to help them toughen up for the world they will live in, but the trip has tragic consequences.

A very interesting experiment of minimalism. The director certainly took his time when making this movie: the pace of the action is very slow. You need patience to watch this movie. Even the music bears the mark of minimalism. All in all, if you have patience to watch it, it is well worth the time. This movie is a real work of art. It manages to achieve something that only a small number of Western movies have: it confers intensity without ever becoming overtly emotional. For this thing alone it would be worth watching. But this movie goes way beyond that. It deals with the value of a father-son bond and how damaging its absence can be. How it can lead to ultimate defiance or even hatred towards the long-missing father. It also shows how people could make the worst decisions when facing the question of what to do to make up for the lost time. From the well-intentioned, yet misguided and misunderstood, love, care and supervision of the father springs every tension, drama and tragedy in the movie. The two brothers, initially quite close to each other, start drifting apart when facing their fathers strange behaviour. One chooses to see past his parent's strange attitude, he strives to achieve a deep bond with his parent, a bond which he has so much missed. The other sees his father as some kind of ruthless tyrant against whom he decides to stand up. The result is some kind of a tough, stoical manhood initiation rite with an unexpected, tragic end.

Whats in the BOX???? The most frustrating object in film history. Like the glowing case in "Pulp Fiction"(before someone told you the "soul" theory).

Wasn't til I really thought about why it's so frustrating, and why the name "The Return" is almost ironic, that I felt like I maybe understood the movie, which is disappointing in the best way possible. That is to say what isn't in this movie, is as important as what is, the "lack there of", driving it on as in any mystery, accept the confused bundle of emotions only grows and grows and then...we'll then the disappointment becomes painfully and hauntingly poignant.

It's about two boys, whose father they have never known returns and takes them on a trip, not explaining where he has been, where they are going, or why. He's mysterious, cruel, kind, and all around an enigma. The younger son hates him more and more as the trip goes on, the older more and more willing to please. The tension thick enough to spoon.

It's probably the most honest father/son reunion film, I've ever seen, because it captures along with the torrent of emotions, all that can't be resolved as well.

Hits a lot of raw nerves...if you've ever been in this situation...

"Louis a boat is a boat, the mystery box could be anything...we'll take the box!"-Peter Griffin

O.K., first the good. The cinematography is outstanding. Beautifully composed shot after beautifully composed shot. Wonderful camera angles and movements, and a gorgeous bluish color pallet set up a wonderful sense of desolation.

And the acting - top notch from all three of the leads. They build up fantastic emotional tension.

The bad news: it's all for nothing. Yep, nothing is resolved by the film's end. I don't mind a mystery or drama film where there is resolution, but many questions left unanswered, or new questions raised. Films like 'Citizen Kane' and 'Apocalypse Now' demonstrate that style of film-making very well. The trouble with 'The Return' is that it sets up mysteries central to the plot from the very beginning, and then draws them out, building upon them, never to resolve them. Hitchcock was known to use plot devices as what he called "MacGuffins" - plot elements such as mysterious packages or items that deepen the mystery but whose actual nature is never known - and this film does that too - but Hitch would still reveal some answers in the course of even his slowest potboilers.

This is not a film like 'Pulp Fiction', 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre', or 'The Maltese Falcon' (all of which I'd happily watch again before having to sit through 'The Return' once more) where "the stuff that dreams are made of" is never fully revealed, but the effect these valuables have on the characters lives is the focus. No, here it all amounts to pointless, narrative that ends like they ran out of film...

3 Stars... and I'm being generous.