Undescribable Perfection

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Oliver Stone is a good filmmaker. I wish I could say I enjoyed these interviews, but I mostly did not.What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.

With every subsequent hour, Oliver Stone's questions get more and more contentious. Putin manages to answer every single one (except those bordering on highly classified territory). He does so in detail, and sometimes from different perspectives.This documentary offers revealing insights into the mind of Putin, his words, his body language, his tendency to play with the sofa stitching as he talks. From geopolitical issues, sensitive domestic Russian affairs to Putin's personal life; it's all there.I will state an interesting observation; what rustles Putin's jimmies the most is the topic of NATO encroachment toward Russia's borders, and the US administration's stationing of ABM systems in eastern Europe. The only time during the interviews you can see Putin's expression change to one of barely veiled annoyance is when the conversation veers in this direction.Another thing of note is Putins very academic answers to a variety of topics. Stone asks him about the prominence and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church during his tenure. Putin answers by stating that after the fall of communism and its associated ideology, civil society had nothing else to grasp onto, but the centuries old traditions that the Church provides. Putin says he supported this to give people something to believe in after the traumatic turmoil that was the 90's. To provide stability in their lives. A very practical answer, and it even leads onto more sensitive questions, such as the treatment of homosexuality in Russia. And Putin answers this candidly as as well. Even jokingly sometimes to highlight the absurdity of Russian culture in regards to such topics. This is the theme throughout. There is very little dodging or political wordplay. Most of his answers are formed on the spot, and seem to come from him directly.It is obvious Oliver was charmed during the filming of this. It is apparent Putin humored him on many occasions and that he has a very powerful ability to charm those he talks to. We see a controversial leader (at least from a western perspective) give very direct, apolitical answers to every question that the typical viewer might want to ask such a public figure. In this regard Mr Stone did very well. It becomes patently obvious as to why Russians would express such far ranging support toward Putin. He's very convincing and obsessed with practicalities. But of course; you be the judge. It's a very informative, revealing 4 hours and definitely worth your time.

Putin is a mystery to us all. Surely he is controversial, surely he is a target of our media time and time again.I read many comments saying Stone is not 'on the ball' and too soft. Which makes perfect sense. If one does interviews over a period of time one should not press too hard or otherwise the project may cease to exist.Though I am a big fan of Colbert, I think Colbert in his interview with Stone about these interviews made a huge mistake. Colbert somehow assumes Stone had to be tougher on Putin and ask tougher questions while clearly Stone is not one to judge but tried to carefully paint a picture to the world.As far as I am concerned Stone did an amazing job. He interviews Putin as if he wants to paint a picture about his life, ideology and equally discusses political and historical events. Stone presses on issues sometimes, but never hard. He gives Putin a voice and a fair chance to explain himself.When watching this, do understand it is not Stones' DUTY or TASK to hammer or judge Putin. Why should he? He merely offers insight into the mind and life of a controversial world leader. We all know the human rights violations are going on in Russia, we all know the opinions of CNN and Fox, we all think we know that Russia is to blame for everything that goes wrong. But are our truths the truths of others? Often times it is perspective and a matter of which side of the fence we exist that determines our reality.

Many of the media hawks would have you believe Stone has made Putin look good here. But they are just exercising their bias without critically reviewing the material. The fact is all the tough questions are asked, and Putin answers them. Whether you choose to believe his answers is the choice of the viewer. Similar to the doc on Castro. Putin is obviously a very clever man, and appears to be very logical in his answers. Probably the problem for Americans is that their country does so many bad things around the world, it feels like an anti American piece because nobody other then Stone really highlights these methods. I for one believe a lot of what Putin is saying, but at the same time I would be very cautious to believe everything he has said regarding the Ukraine. And as far as only a $60 billion military budget per year compared to the US's $660, that doesn't really add up. If your flying 70 bombing missions a day into Syria, that's a lot of planes and a lot of bombs and a lot of cash. Overall its intriguing to hear Putin without the paradigm of a partisan media forcing innuendo's down our throat for whatever agenda their corporate owners have. Probably Stone has got as deep into Putin as anyone will ever get, and its an interesting challenge to decide if Putin is telling the truth or not about a lot of things....