What makes it different from others?

Awesome Movie

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

at the first sigh, a film about nothing. at the second, portrait of the most powerful fear. because it is one of the most simple films about terrorism. and, maybe, this is the most important thing. because it propose a view in a large human aquarium. because it gives only the presence, look and steps of a young woman in the middle of Times Square. no details. no story. only suppositions. and this form of minimalism works. not as tool for an art film. but as the right form to define a slice of reality. to remind the voice of news. to give to yourself the right questions.

"Day Night Day Night" was awful. The first 80 minutes of "Day Night Day Night" contained "maybe" a combined total of 5 minutes of dialog and I don't think it had that. The rest of the 95 minute "Day Night Day Night" was filled with tiresome white noise, background noise, showering, sleeping, eating, a self manicure and self pedicure and so many more monotonous activities. It was pure insidious humdrum monotony.The only positive was that "Day Night Day Night" did capture the pure monotonous (notice a theme in the use of the word) repetitiveness of a suicide bomber as she waits, prepares, waits and waits even more in what surely had to be complete and total boredom. During all this, the arduous and even torturously tedious monotony is transferred onto the viewer over and over and over again.It was extremely disappointing not to have used some of the 90 plus minute film to explain why or how she became a suicide bomber. Was she unhappy? Was she "brainwashed" or coerced? It didn't require 90 plus minutes of monotonous viewing to convey the tedium as she prepared herself.

If you speed this up to 8X, you won't miss a thing. The camera lingers on every gesture and movement far longer than any human can pretend attention. This film could be edited to 15 minutes and it's obvious that the people responsible for it are shameless boors. The raters must be the producers, cast, and crew's family & friends or folks who saw an entirely different film. I would be as dishonest as they are if I pretended that there was more to add to a review of this "movie", but IMDb requires 10 lines as a minimum for a review of this waste of footage.I CAN NEVER TRUST AN IMDb RATING AFTER THIS.

Caught this at an art theater last night, and the crowd afterward was split about 50/50 as to how they received the film.One side admitted that the film was unique while avoiding any trace of pretentiousness and that Loktev was captivating. Still, these people felt that the film’s incredibly slow pace was too much to bear. I understand this sentiment, but I don't agree with it. Likewise, just about everyone thought the film was very creepy, and while this turned on many in the art-house crowd, it repelled nearly as many.Personally, I like creepy movies, and I thought the creepiness was magnified wonderfully by the slow pace. It felt like a snuff film combined with soft-core child porn combined with _The Passion of Joan of Arc_. Seriously, it was that creepy. And that added creepiness greatly to the suspense—I literally jumped a little bit out of my chair at one point, and I can only remember doing that a handful of times in my history of movie-going.Still, I don’t know whether or not the slow pace would hold up well to repeated viewings, and it's not like the pacing was perfect; shaving ten minutes overall probably would have helped. But I still think the film was effective and unique enough to deserve a high rating.