360

360 is the film that "Crash" wanted to be. Unlike the overt manipulations of "Crash", 360 is a slow burn with a deft sleight of hand.

Rather than leading you along with neon coloured sign-posts, lets your mind do a lot of the driving. Shot in a muted, bluish pallet, the gorgeous cinematography captures the attention, while your imagination is allowed to build up steam. It doesn't demand your attention, it flirts with it. I found that refreshing.

The first few plot twists put my brain was on alert, trying to predict where the stories would lead. All the while the tension built, waiting for the axe to fall or the excrement hit the fan.

A few people have complained that 360 was slow and boring and left story lines unfinished. But that is what made it such a good film for me, it took its time and avoided clichés. The characters were neither good nor bad, they simply struggled. Some triumph and some fall, but none are unchanged.

It isn't without faults, nothing with intertwined stories can avoid some contrivance. But it didn't fall prey to the imagined demand of the audience, that everything resolve neatly. Some plots twist and turn until the very end, some evaporate like mist in the light of hearts restored while others end badly.

I can understand how the film's pacing might annoy if you aren't in the mood but if you are prepared to be a bit patient and to do some of the work, 360 is a rare treat.

The idea of narrating different linked stories of characters is certainly not new and the material in this picture is quite abundant: a lot of complex characters, a lot of deep and tense backgrounds. The limit was that the director probably wanted to explore too many characters and too many situations, and the result is that no single story or character is sufficiently developed and seem to be more kept separate than interconnected. The idea that people's lives are connected comes out as banal and evident, as part of any person not living secluded at home, and the fact that in the picture the links go from Europe to the US to Brasil is simply because it deals with dynamic people who move across the world. Some story lines, such as Hopkins' search for his lost daughter could have been explored more deeply, on the contrary it remains faded like the other stories.

Nothing to say against shooting, the use of split scenes is effective and tries to underline the idea of interconnections, and the subtle use of camera tries to make the characters' personalities come out, but in the end do not make up for a general underdevelopment. Nothing to say against the talented, but a little wasted cast, who give depth to the characters, although in the end we cannot but miss some more insight and deepening of both characters and stories.

I ran across 360 by chance and really enjoyed it. Yet, when searching for more information in internet the generic title proved difficult to google. After some clicking things started to unfold: the same author directed City of God and the movie is a loose adaptation of one Arthur Schnitzler's play. Although i can't say much about the latter, the former impressed me even more since i've enjoyed that movie, as well.

The cast is brilliant with famous actors popping in and out of view and blending discreetly with otherwise great performance of less known colleagues. We effortlessly move with them across cities, countries and continents as it otherwise is the case in globally interconnected world at the start of the 21st century.

The more i think about 360 the more interesting details i discover in retrospect. Probably the strongest message is that there is a good seed even in the worst of us. The other is that we all eventually get what we want but some of us also get what they deserve.

What i particularly enjoyed is that a lot of things are either foreshadowed or left unsaid. This gives room for viewer's imagination to kick in, which, in turn, is rather uncommon in the era of realism and boredom in movies with artistic tendencies.

To sum it up, the only reason my vote is two stars shy of the best note is that i understand how this kind of movie might not be everyone's cup of tea.

As the beginning of the story goes, life will eventually present us with two possible directions: the one we choose to follow is for no one but us to decide.

"360" is the latest movie by Fernando Meirelles, a man with some good achievements under his belt. And taking life in its pure existence is a great source of inspiration for his work, where it is hard not to relate to. This time Meirelles brings us a beautiful concocted plan where some aspects of daily life are put into context, mixing different Nationalities and aspirations, dreams and sometimes tragedies that come together full circle, as the title itself states. It is moving, but never funny. Intelligent and simple, granting almost two hours of reflective observation that may teach us one thing or another. All stories are able to stand alone for themselves, but they are smartly interconnected, showing life never differentiates wherever it is at. Beautifully done.

Taking as its, admittedly uncredited, source Arthur Schnitzler's play "Reigen", screen-writer Peter Morgan and director Fernando Meirelles' 360 combines several stories in something of the disjointed manner of Inarritu's "Amores Perros" or "Babel". It's very skillfully made and yes, it holds our attention but that's all it does. On an emotional level it never really engages us and the 'stories', which are naturally related, aren't particularly interesting. The film is clever, well-written, often beautifully directed and the large, international cast are all fine but there's a distinct lack of substance; this isn't a memorable film. Still, there is at least one thing about this film that is great and it occurs whenever Anthony Hopkins is on screen. It isn't a big part and there isn't a great deal of character development in the writing but Hopkins is such a great actor that he makes the part great. You get the impression he's making it up as he goes along; in other words, you feel you are seeing a real person rather than the actor playing him. He's only on screen for much too short a time but he's magnificent. As can he guessed from the title, the film is called 360 because the stories go full circle; if only they had been better this film might have been as great as something like "Amores Perros" or "Pulp Fiction" which were constructed in much the same way. It's certainly not a bad film but it could have been so much better while the closing story seems both melodramatic and really rather tagged on for effect. On hindsight this would probably have made a good six-part television series rather than a two hour movie.