En høstdag går Ivar til Botanisk Hage i Oslo for å oppsøke Maria som er mor til en småpike ved navn Tilla. Ivar er barnepsykolog og hadde Tilla til observasjon noen måneder tidligere. Det ble avtalt behandling for henne, men Maria er ikke kommet tilbake med Tilla. Nå finner Ivar henne sovende under et tre i hagen, og han møter Maria bøyd over et mikroskop i laboratoriet. Maria er blitt enda mer nervøs og ubalansert enn sist han traff henne, for ingen ting har "rettet seg" med tiden som hun hadde håpet: nå har ikke Tilla snakket på halvannet år. Selv er Maria underveis til å bli like avstengt som sin egen småpike. Ivar overtaler Maria til å komme på den barnepsykiatriske klinikken med Tilla, så de kan starte behandlingen av henne. Her treffer Maria overlege Mimi Backer. Heller ikke Mimi får Maria til å åpne seg og fortelle hva for opplevelser hun deler med Tilla. Men i observasjonsrommet på klinikken faller den første lille flik av lys over mysteriet...
The first film of a trilogy about mentally challenged children. "Om Tilla" is some kind of dream version on how mentally challenged can function in society. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Kay J (kr) wrote: 0/10 for story line, 0/10 for entertainment value, 0/10 overall...worse movie yet :(
David S (ru) wrote: When it sticks to a more realistic approach, it works quite well. There are, however, a few scenes that just don't work--the clash between the natural and the dream-state isn't well handled.
Taylor W (es) wrote: This movie requires an honest inquiry into the subjective yet powerful status of human compassion within each one of us. Although some might say this type of a film has been done over time and time again, the irony is that there are first timers to this type of a film. It can be cliched, but only to those who have not forgotten such a cliche in following the everyday orders of life. Asking a barrage of several political and philosophical questions at once, although notable in it's display, is not the main focus of the film... the main focus lies in its appeal to anarchy among the order of the status quo for individuals to gain morality over ethical forms of behavior. In reality, I would assume that our missions in life supersede all objectives, but despite what we often require as a necessity, this can often seems so wrong to each of us in life. This film is not necessarily art in it's traditional form, but a reality for some... and perhaps the reason why critics have been stingy about this film is because they can't see past it's gruesome depiction of violence. I suppose that some seem to think the film's purpose is in glorifying action and in promoting the military through film. Well, using such a paradigm... why not? The ultimate question for Americans is: if someone needs help, and it is not the ethical standard to help them, then what has become of the ethical standard? This movie is an example of one man's moral choice that led to more pain emotionally for himself, yet less pain physically for others. Sadly, what would you choose? :(
Hunter S (de) wrote: No never gonna watch this
Michael W (us) wrote: Some bad editing after the Bride's escape from prison holds this back from being a perfect five.Left the theatre so happy.
WS W (br) wrote: A sit-com which would be better putting on stage rather than making into a motion picture.
Michael W (de) wrote: Federal agents clash with a drug dealing enterprise. Relationships amongst co-workers and bosses appears to be a-okay in this agency. By-the-numbers Sidaris production features the usual scenery, cast and gadgets. Aims to please but the formula seems to be getting stale. To me, Sidaris pictures have a high floor but a low ceiling; rarely rising above or falling below expectations.
Harpreet S (ag) wrote: Powerful film, with Irons, and especially Binoche giving excellent performances. Binoche, oddly reminded me of Hopkins' Hannibal character, because of the stillness, and the eyes. This film is almost perfect, except a preachy sequence. I especially loved the closing lines, and the shot.
Joseph H (fr) wrote: I dont want to watch.
Willie C (ag) wrote: Probably one of the best of the kaiju to come out in the 1980's and the 90's.
Robert I (ag) wrote: I'm sure somewhere this is a great stage play. Fantastic trio of actors. Alas, the script isn't that engaging so no one is asked to rise to a challenge. Connery rises anyway. Hoffman and Broderick are just as good as usual, but you really wish the film had more interesting things for the actors to do and say.
Sanjay K (au) wrote: Theme was good. So was the story.
Kinohi N (gb) wrote: One of the best American independent movies ever made: a chronicle of the sights, sounds, and street culture of early hip hop, featuring real-life taggers, b-boys, DJs, and MCs. This was such a joy to watch.
Blais E (es) wrote: Marvelous cinematic version of the murder mystery by Dame Agatha Christie, the second in the series of superbly-mounted 1970's offerings, here substituting the portly Peter Ustinov for the previous Hercule Poirot, Albert Finney. Here there are several murders the erudite sleuth must contend with, and as the bodies start stacking up, the race is on to stop the maniacal shipboard murderer. Superb acting throughout, with the standouts being George Kennedy as burly, brutish, and-belligerant lawyer Pennington, Bette Davis as the jewelry-hoarding Grande-Dame Mrs. Van Schuyler, Jack Warden as the blustery Dr. Bessner, and the always-enjoyable Angela Lansbury stealing the show as the comically-eccentric and continually-smashed trashy Romance novel authoress, Salome Otterbourne. Full of enough plot-twists and red-herrings to keep even the most casual viewer involved.
Daryl G (ag) wrote: Booker, and his other "Black Tiger" buddies end up on a CIA hitlist. It's up to Booker to find the rest of the men from the team, and get to them before they are murdered. Not Norris's finest hour.
Robby B (mx) wrote: Creeping, campy, 70's horror film that is bland by today's standards, but in the day it had plenty of scares.
Allan C (kr) wrote: This is film that really made an impression on me as a kid and one that still hold up today. It's something of a mix of heist film and road picture. Clint Eastwood, Jeff Bridges, George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis team up, after some wacky series of events leading up to their plan. Those events are pretty funny and involve memorable bit parts for Catherine Bach, Gary Busey, Bill McKinney (my favorite as a guy driving a car full of rabbits and a caged raccoon), Vic Tayback and Dub Taylor. This film was Michael Cimino's directorial debut and his next film would be his masterful "The Deer Hunter." Cimino is one of those directors like Terry Gilliam or Orson Welles, who's reputations for extravagance and being difficult killed their careers and resulted in a sadly small filmography. This film stands apart from any other of his films as his only foray into comedy, though this film is equal parts action and character drama. As for the cast, Clint and Bridges are a great team and both give terrific performances. Kennedy is funny as the crotchety gangsters, as is Lewis as his flunkey. Overall, I see this film as something of a minor classic that is well worth revisiting.