Still the Water

I am a big admirer of Japanese cinema, film makers like Kurusawa, Koreeda, Oshima Imamura and the list goes on. And also from time to time I enjoy slow cinema, but in the case of Naomi Kawase Still The Water and her other previous film "Mourning Forest" for witch reasons i don't understand why the jury awarded it the grand prize there were far better films competing that year like Russia's entry and brilliant The Banishment. Still the water had an interesting concept for a great story and its tropical location and beautiful cinematography, still the screenplay falls flat the characters seem to sleepwalk through the whole film. I truly believe Naomi makes film for her and friends and she is unaware that audiences outside her realm are falling asleep to her films. i give this film a D.

Disregard the bubble gum chewing burgers with attention deficit disorder whining about this movie being "boring". Sure, it is slow paced. But it's a very profound and beautiful allegory about nature and life. If you cannot appreciate the poetry of this film, I'm afraid your soul has been rotted away or you never had one.

Death, love, commitment...the movie treats those question in a very human rhythm, and surprises you in its deepness. I was moved to tears.

It's set in a paradisaical coast of a Japanase island, full of light and sea. The actors are impressively true and beautiful.

Japanase music being played and sang was a real plus too. The few scenes happening in Tokyo were a really good reflection to appreciate better the lifestyle in that countryside.

the last third of the movie was maybe a little bit slow to reveal itself, but it saved some great scenes and was matching the rest of it.

It's also socially and culturally very enriching and interesting. Leaves you with true surprises about the way these kids behave towards losing someone, towards relationships, etc.

This film is about life and death and love, about existence itself. It talks to us from a far away island surrounded by the Ocean. Of course if you want to perceive such things you must open your mind, listen very carefully and most important you must take your time. Because the film goes slowly, with a pace we are not used to and that you could hate in the beginning or that could make you fall asleep.

Since most things pass through your eyes the director has to show you what you must see: trees, faces, waves… and the camera lingers on these things the time needed to make sure that your feelings are correctly oriented and you are ready to understand.

I'm not sure that everybody is going to like it. Me? Personally I loved it (after a while). And in the end I thought that the Author was correct about everything... for example: aren't kisses the hallmark of love?

This review is not about the film but the crude American taste.

Whenever my cinema-savvy friends criticised Hollywood, I'd jokingly dismiss their arguments, saying I enjoy action-packed, fun films for afternoons and that Hollywood has great production. I stand corrected.

This film has been given a 5 by metacritic. Check out the reviews. They say silent moments are awkward.. or that stares are long... I had an epiphany that Americans and their layman critics have actually no appreciation for an actual good work when they see one. Everybody likes a big Mac but in no way it means you can slam a 5-michelin star cuisine.

I always acknowledged Hollywood films try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It makes them fun to a point. But I realised today it's not just their audience that is unnaturally confused with junk, but apparently American select critics are actually the lowest common denominator.

P.S. IMDb will not be a universal source until it goes beyond Hollywood standards.