Ombres

When i first heard about Manchevski's next project to be in the horror genre i was a bit skeptical to be honest. I mean a European horror? What was the last good one you've seen? The hype, however, surrounding this movie here in Macedonia inevitably took over me so i become interested in it too. And after watching it's fantastic trailer, "Shadows" suddenly became my most anticipated movie of the year. So my expectations were as high as they have ever been when i decided to go and see it. And it was worth the wait. It's nothing i thought it would be though. It has Manchevski written all over it, meaning this is not your typical "go and have fun" movie. It's dark and funny, simple on the outside, yet the complexity of the inside is what makes it special. It's a love it or hate it one. It's simply different from everything you have ever seen. It's more of a thriller than horror in my opinion and it's a movie that you have to see a few times to understand it's whole meaning. The symbolics used in it are brilliant(though too often ruined by the obvious explanations) and the cinematography is great. The acting was OK(I liked the performance of Sabina Ajrula as the mother) and the storytelling was good too. I felt like it was more of a collection of scenes than an actual movie to be honest but let's face it, as commercial as this movie sounded this is still in the art department. True, there are too many unnecessary sex scenes that are a distraction from the general idea, but i think it's something that should be overlooked. And even though the theme of the movie is not very original it does a good job by showing those same things, used so often these days, from a different more realistic "angle". All in all it's something that i heartily recommend you to see and despite it's few flaws it's still another great movie from a great director. Friends of thriller horror movies with a deeper even philosophical meaning, you'll be satisfied. 10/10, even though i have to admit not Oscar worthy as some have suggested

'Shadows' is a confection of images, evoked smells, fascinating faces, pitch-perfect acting, and unnerving events--with perhaps the best crash scene I have ever seen in film. My observation re: the accident might sound like hyperbole, but the psychology of the scene is sheer perfection. Its details are choice. I felt horrified, too, empathizing with all the people in the reaction shots, but at the same time exhilarated because it all looked so damn interesting! (The film has great cutaways!) I love it when a movie takes control of my moods and this has a driver's opening. There is also some great counterpoint with scenes and music. Really, very masterful. This film is better with a second viewing--like watching The Conformist--one always notices new and fascinating details in the frame, in the psyches of its characters.

I think that there are problems with the plot regarding the disconnected sex scenes, and the generally missed point in the movie. It could have been made better. I don't think it is a replica of the "Sixth Sense", I see no resemblance in the plot between these two movies. Also, as far as the Aegean Macedonians are concerned, I think the the movie does not mention the exodus of the 1913 and the use of the napalm bombs at that time. It just scarcely mentions the events following the partition of Macedonia. It mentions the exodus during the WW II, and especially during the Greek civil war following the WW II, when indeed there was an exodus of the Aegean Macedonians and the Greek forces and its allies did use napalm bombs to destroy forces of the Communist led coalition, but instead mostly civilians and villages were hit by those bombs. Those who survived were exiled into Eastern Europe and today's Republic of Macedonia (then part of federal Yugoslavia). So those are the facts briefly mentioned. So the movie does not say at all that this exodus happened in 1913, but after 1913 when part of Macedonia was seized by Greece. In any way, most viewers will not focus on that part of the story as those events are just scarcely treated, and implied. They are secondary to the main story. I think it is absolutely unfair and wrong to see that as propaganda.

I am very disappointed after watching Manchevski's film this evening. I came to the screening with his masterpiece "Before the Rain" in mind but some of the elements that struck me most about the film were endlessly recycled imageries of death/memory/temporal boundaries, exoticized depictions of landscape, identity and cultural otherness, tautological and often overstated motifs of death and desire, which literally drown the spectator into a sea of clichéd, old-fashioned psychological thriller formulas. Don't get me wrong, I like films which foreground their rich, highly-tuned semiotic texture and which interweave symbolic structures skilfully and compellingly. But here this twofold directorial temptation towards the symbolic and the literal doesn't quite pay off cinematically. The music is great, some of the montage is also powerful, the initial spatio-temporal build-up promising, but the film never quite takes off for me. The surreal, nightmarish, ghostly presences that populate the screen and Lazar's troubled mind amount, in my opinion, to some of the interesting cinematic effects of the film.

Manchevski disappointed me with this one. From a guy who has created Before the Rain I was waiting much more. He obviously has talent and it shows with the photography. The Ohrid lake shots are fantastic.

In terms of the plot, Shadows is blatantly plagiarizing Sixth Sense. It is annoyingly similar. The only difference is that there's no twist. We know it all almost from the beginning. Which actually makes it boring. Especially when we get the same shock-effect scene again and again and again.

Now the sex element. Why? We're getting gratuitous sex scenes for no particular reason. Not that I don't like the girls, especially Vesna Stanojevska, but someone should tell our friend Milcho that it has to blend with the plot!

And finally, being from Greece, I have to comment on the "Aegean Macedonians" issue. I couldn't fail to notice some sneaky propaganda attempts in secondary parts of the plot. I mean "exodus" and ...napalm bombs? In ...1913? This is honestly bordering the ridiculous. I could write a whole essay on where these ideas come from (may well be a part of a general nationalistic awakening in our neighbor state), however let me simply mention that the story of "Aegean Macedonians" (a very controversial term by itself) is far more complex than what people are led to believe from this film. I would be grateful if Manchevski left politics and history to people who actually know a thing or two.