It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This movie is about two Russian brothers (Andrei and Ivan) who lived their entire childhood without a father. They live with their mother and grandmother. They don't know their father except from a faded photograph. Their father unexpectedly returns after being absent for 12 years. He takes the boys on a vacation with him, apparently to make up for the lost time. While Andrei is delighted for reuniting with his father, Ivan is less than convinced. Their father is mysterious, reserved, emotionally distant, has difficulty in showing affection and shows some disturbing methods to punish the boys, such as leaving Ivan alone in a bridge for hours and scaring Andrei with an axe, but apparently methods like these are commonly used by the russians to deal with their kids. Russian can be harsh people. There is, however, a tragedy in store for the father at the ending.It's a good movie. Its story is interesting, there are some haunting scenes and the sceneries are natural, authentic and beautiful, but the pacing is slow, so it requires some patience to watch it. All it lacks is answers to some questions, such as: Why was the father gone for so long? Why didn't he stay in touch with his kids? What is he up to? Why doesn't he talk about him and what he does?The acting performances are good: Vladimir Garin (who sadly died at such a tender age, shortly after finishing his role) as Andrei, Ivan Dobronravov as Ivan, Konstantin Lavronenko as the boys's father and Natalia Vdovina as the boy's mother. Speaking of the mother, she is beautiful. Russian women are known for their beauty.Title in Portugal: 'O regresso'.

(NOTE: I read reviews here after viewing, and comments in the 'The Return does not have a full-filling end' thread, and left a couple of my own. This review builds on those, and observations made by hilaryjrp and bostonfilmfan).What life is all about, a haunting movie I won't soon forget. So riveting (with very little dialogue) I hardly noticed the subtitles. The action speaks for itself. It's highly suspenseful, and you haven't the faintest idea what's going to happen, yet also full of simple, quiet moments that bespeak volumes (AND mysteries) about the characters.The film is lyrical, poetic, almost subliminal, rather than "expository" (i.e., the payoff being in the journey, rather than the ultimate ending). Actually, lyricism and exposition are so expertly intertwined the film succeeds on BOTH levels. But be forewarned, it has disturbing events, it's no walk in the park- if you're a sensitive person that can't tolerate tragic or traumatic themes, this may not be your cup of tea. But I thought the ending was absolutely seminal to the experience- for both the characters and the VIEWER.This is the kind of movie rife with multiple possible meanings and interpretations, which invites repeat viewing. Moreover, you learn something about yourself in your reactions to what unfolds- what you pay attention to, expect, hope for... fear.***BIG SPOILERS FOLLOW AS PLOT, THEMES AND THE ENDING*** DON'T read further until you've seen the film if, like me you're the kind of person who thrives on discovery and surprise. Reading others' interpretations in advance will color your own, of course.In reviews and comments, some viewers decried the ending- some found it disturbing, others thought it, at the very least, unsatisfying. No, the film does not have a "satisfying" ending (seemingly, anyway, though perhaps there's a kind of symmetry to it), that was the POINT (art imitating life), I thought. The boys learn a terrible lesson. Wherever Dad had been, whether he was a nice guy or not, whether he intended to stick around, whether he planned to make up for lost time, whether they'd resolve issues and forge a relationship- as troubling as those dangling threads (symbolized by the mysterious contents of the box) may have been- they were infinitely better than what actually occurred. (Or WERE they??) Bring down the curtain on EVERYTHING where Dad is concerned. What a shock. Whether they had dreamed of reunion, hated his guts, been crushed by his desertion, yearned for him, whatever, there would now NEVER be a "satisfying ending", no-one would ever find out what the box contained.BUT, there was ALSO the theme of the younger boy's fear of life, of many things. He cried and told his mother at the beginning if she hadn't come he would've died. He threatens to kill himself by jumping off the tower- then, he sees death up close, for real, he's even partly responsible. Crash course in what death REALLY means. What an enigmatic film- note the pics/selfies of the brothers on the trip home (interspersed with the credits- STAY TUNED)- in some they're laughing, now seem lighter (dealt with something unspeakable, faced it with courage, were transformed by the experience? Both brothers change over the course of the film). Perhaps they're now FREE of the spectre of their father's desertion, and all the issues related thereto that have been hanging over their heads for 12 years (achieving a kind of closure). So perhaps the question is, did death represent being cheated of answers and what might have been, OR did it precipitate closure (albeit in a traumatic, kick-in-the-gut fashion)? Could BOTH be true? (Regret over what might have been and the need for closure are both integral parts of the grieving process.) One might even wonder if, all things considered, if Dad or "fate" or God didn't give the boys a gift- the ultimate sacrifice, so that they might begin life anew.In a nutshell, I think The Return is disconcerting because you think at its core it's about a relationship but it's actually about death and its ramifications. In I NEVER SANG FOR MY FATHER Gene Hackman said "Death ends a life, but it doesn't end a relationship." Or does it? Thematically and mood-wise this film reminded me a lot of a favorite film, Hayao Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAT- at the beginning Chihiro, too, is negative, whiny and pretty much afraid of everything. While she doesn't face anything quite this bad, her parents will live or die as a result of her actions.And finally, the two brothers solidified their relationship on the trip, bonding as never before. Each became protective of the other when the father was unreasonable or harsh- at different points each threatened to kill him if he hurt the other. At the end the older boy assumed responsibility, never chiding his brother for what he had done, assuming the role of protective big brother or perhaps even "father". Contrast this with the way he treated his little brother at the beginning of the film.However one interprets the film, it appeared that both boys were honed, improved by events, and became closer (in this regard, in many ways, it reminds me of ORDINARY PEOPLE, which involves a death in the family and two people bonding at the expense of a third). LOTS to chew on in The Return! Highly affecting, and though harrowing at times, I thought it was wonderful, brilliant- a work of art.

The main idea of this film is to emphasize the great love of a father toward his children. Unlike common logic of depicting a conscious and gentle character, this father is always shown his cruel actions and impatience towards his children. However, scenes demonstrating the responsibility of his is also constantly shown throughout the film, especially the extreme action he took in the end, creating a pessimistic ending, to show his great care for his children. The theme of the father's affection is highlighted this way, and I think this is the uniqueness of this film.However, though I personally do believe this contrast achieved its desired effect, I strongly doubt the logic of this theme. This movie is persuading its audience that one is a good father as long as he is concerned about his kids regardless of how he treats them.I think we need to analyze what makes a good father in the perspective of the benefit of children. Although the intentions of his actions are good, by no means can we deny that he had always making his children feel insecure and stood in a bad mood. A good father should have the ability to control his emotions regardless of what he has been through and provide a good environment for their children's development. In fact, I feel pretty fortunate that he has been away from them for 12 years. If he lived with them for this long period of time, the children's characteristics could be deeply affected by him and become cruel and violent as he is after they grow up. I think almost all fathers love their children, but the difference is what kind of person the child turns into after he or she grows up.In conclusion, even though the plot was innovative and the story did pretty much attract me, I dislike this film overall for the strange value it holds. I would not recommend this film to viewers especially children in developing ages.

"You know… your bowl sank." "Sank?" "A wave carried it away."A couple of years back, my father brought back home the DVD and told me to watch this film. However, being a young, impatient viewer back then, I could not take the color filter used, the blue hue seemed rather unnatural to me. However, as I grew up, I learned to suspense my disbelief. Ultimately, I had the chance to 'return' to this film as it was one of the films assigned for my Russian Film class; I am glad it was (and yes, I finally learned how to appreciate the blue hue!). Initially, before being exposed to various kinds of Russian films, I associated a Russian film as a medium for directors and screenwriters to deliver some sort of a political message, a reflection of the government and its nation. However 'The Return' is beyond that.For me, 'The Return' portrays the fundamental of human's needs; the need to belong, the need to conform, the need to be understood, the need for protection, the need for affection and the need to search oneself. As an audience, I may not be able to fully identify myself with any of the character based on the storyline, but I know that I've been in similar psychological events. I've been in Andrei's shoes, the follower who tries to please his father by doing all the chores being asked, thirsty for his affection. I've been in Ivan's shoes too, the bitter younger son who rebels, just to prove his resentment towards his father's return after the 12-years absence. Most likely in different situations, but perhaps, we've all been there.Nonetheless, I applaud this film not for the characters' personal identification but the mysteries encompassing the film. The film does not verbally reveal the reason of father's absence, the mother's and grandmother's voiced opinion on father's return, the motif of father's hostility, the island that father brings the boys to; heck, we do not even know father's name! The film does not tell, instead takes the audience on a journey of two growing boys understanding the meaning of life and loss, through character's expression, nature's interaction, music scores, and astounding cinematography. Despite the unknown enigmas, the film still succeeds as a whole. I would recommend 'The Return' to anyone who is willing to experience something atypical in a film; it takes more of a heart's understanding than a brain's reasoning.