Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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.

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.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

TO EACH HIS OWN CINEMA is a 2007 collection of 3-minute shorts by some 36 directors around the world on the theme of what cinema means to them. So many auteurs already make films about films inasmuch as they allude to classics, but here most of the shorts are actually set in cinemas, with audiences in rows of seating. You'll need to have a decent familiarity with the art-house canon before watching this, though. It's fascinating how so many of the directors, regardless of what continent they hailed from, choose to have French New Wave films playing in the background as their stories are told.It opens with Raymond Depardon's "Open-Air Cinema", where a crowd of Egyptians watched an outdoor projection in Alexandria, and in spite of the unusual writing and the women's veils, they seem to be just like us. Zhang Yimou later does much the same in a Chinese village.One of the remarkable aspects of this collection are the similar ideas. Two stories deal with thieves stealing purses in dark cinemas. Three deal with the blind and how they perceive cinema. Many look back to childhood/earlier eras. Hou Hsiao-Hsien's short recreates 1950s Taiwan on an elaborate set to show the typical visit to a cinema of his youth. Amos Gitai's film juxtaposes 1930s viewers of Yiddish cinema, a vibrant tradition destroyed by the Holocaust, with a modern Israeli audience in wartime. Youssef Chahine's looks back at his first visit to Cannes 47 years before.Some of the films deal with serious political themes: Amos Gitai on the Israeli-Arab relations, David Croneberg on anti-semitism ,and Bille August with Danish-immigrant relations. However, there are also a number of overtly funny shorts, like Takeshi Kitano's, where a working man's chance to unwind by watching a film keeps getting interrupted by problems with the projector. In Lars Van Trier's contribution, Jacques Franz plays an annoying businessman who can't stop bragging about his success, though the extreme gore and violence that follows makes for very black humour. Elia Suleiman's is Buster Keatonish physical comedy in the modern world.Some shorts are notable for continuing an aesthetic that the director had already established in an earlier film. Kaurismäki's short is his usual style of an ostensibly contemporary setting, but with 1950s rock music and working class people who speak utterly deadpan. (Unusually, however, it uses none of his typical troupe of actors.) Abbas Kiarostami's "Where is My Romeo?" is a sort of follow-up to his experimental film SHIRIN, which showed only the faces of numerous women as they watched a classic Iranian tale of love; here these women are watching "Romeo and Juliet" instead.All in all, this proved a continuously engaging film, whose 2-hour running time just flew by for me. Nearly all the shorts were entertaining, the sole exceptions for me being Jane Campion's oddball short, where an adult woman plays an insect that vexes a projectionist, and Gus Van Sant's film with a randy teenager entering into the film being projected. Nothing here seems a must-see classic, but if you like a few of the directors here, you're sure to enjoy this set.I am familiar with the Studio Canal (Region 2) release of the film. There are English subtitles, but the dialogue is rarely important: you can understand entirely what is happening from the movements of the actors. Only that small handful of shorts with narration really need subtitles. It should be noted that the Studio Canal release is missing the contributions by the Coen brothers and David Lynch. I'm not sure what is missing from other international releases.

Its difficult to assess and review this film because it comprises of so many different directors and direction styles that grading this movie would be quite unfair to them all. Certain segments are simply brilliant whereas certain leave us with a 'wtf was that all about?' emotion. The film as a whole feels like skimming through the personal diaries of various directors wherein we may sometimes come across gems whereas certain sections only make sense to the film makers themselves.Nevertheless, it is an essential watch for people who love experimental cinema because as an experimental film, it works brilliantly. It will probably make you feel how all movies make you feel. Take it as a taster of all the various genres of movies presented in bite sized pieces. The movie consists of humour, thrills, horror, autobiographies, biographies, drama, romance, erotica, documentaries, surrealism viz every single genre that exists...alas...no animation.It is a very personal selection and everyone is guaranteed to find something that he/she likes. Overall this is a great collection of shorts and a must see. The star grading reflects how I perceived the movie as a whole - recommended.

This film is impossible to really describe accurately other than to say it 34 short (3 to 4 minutes) films about the movies and movie going. Covering a variety of topics from comedy and tragedy to documentary this is the a look at how many famous directors see the cinema.I saw this on a Chinese DVD, which has 33 of the 34 movie done by various directors (only the Cohen Brothers contribution is missing). Most of the films are good, a couple are not bad rather they illicit a "what was that about" reaction and a few are glorious, explaining why the cinema is something so magical. I'm not sure this really is a film for all film goers since the films can be rather oblique, not to mention the ride is bumpy with a poor film sandwiched between a couple winners (or vice versa). I would love to critique each film, but that is dangerous since the films are so short it may reveal too much. I think the best way to see this film (as suggested by another poster) is to simply watch each film and wait to see what happens. In most cases the director isn't named until the end so you can simply watch each film without any sort of expectation. Granted some films are obvious as to who made them since the directors appear, but many of the others are not so clear.(I was right about half the time and wrong about half) Definitely worth a look. This is a must see for anyone deeply passionate about the movies and going to them.

Those who have seen "Paris je t'aime" will not forget that movie with 18 5-to-10-minute segments of a whole pageantry of short stories with one common theme – the City of Light. "To each…." offers 33 segments each straightly limited to 3 minutes, with the main theme being the Cannes Film Festival (in celebration of its 60th anniversary).The 35 directors (there are two pairs of brothers, if you are doing an audit of the numbers while reading this) from 5 continents and 25 countries are all masters in their own right. It's dazzling just to observe how they take up the challenge to use the 3 minutes to say something that will stand out above the other 32! Some follow their unmistakable trademark style, such as Takeshi Kitano and WONG Ka-wai. Some resort to devilishly funny twists, such as Roman Polanski. Some squeeze as much witty dialogue as possible into the 3 minutes, such as Jane Campion and Divid Cronenberg. Still others take advantage of well-loved songs which almost immediately win the audience over, such as Claude Lelouch ("Cheek to ckeek") and Abbas Kiarostami ("What is a youth"). There are also humanitarian messages, as offered by CHEN Kaige and Wim Wenders.I won't attempt to mention every segment and every director. Suffices to say that with such a large number of attempts there will be good and bad (world-class directors notwithstanding). I am happy to report that there is definitely more good than bad.