Storm (2009)

Too much of everything

Sadly Over-hyped

As Good As It Gets

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

A very "twisty" storyline that is very well thought out and well executed. Yet, as convoluted as this tale is,it was not only easy to follow, but it "sucked me in" more and more as the film progressed. Very suspenseful. Excellent, "natural" acting by the whole cast that gives the film an air of actually being a documentary, as much as a theatrical film. The court proceedings, both the public part, as well as the "behind the scenes" maneuvering was quite accurate from my layman's point of view. The cinematography was very good as well, providing several interesting camera positions in many scenes. The only unrealistic part of the film is towards the end, when the female prosecutor begins to lose her professionalism and becomes emotionally involved with the case. That she discovers in the end that her diplomat husband was actually conspiring with the defendant for political reasons was Much TOO "coincidental" for me, as well. Overall, though I would DEFINITELY view this film again, now having benefited from seeing it the first time. ... [email protected]

This is a powerful and moving view of the ambiguity of international justice (and maybe anyone seeking a just outcome). The writing is spare, almost barren, so the actors must bring the story to life. Kerry Fox, Anamaria Marinca, Stephen Dillane, Rolf Lassgård, Alexander Fehling, Tarik Filipovic,provide remarkable nuanced performances. While the pacing is slow, it is necessary to appreciate the moral and ethical ambiguity that both the prosecutor and victim must endure in their pursuits of justice, or truth. (You may remember Anamaria Marinca in Four Months, Three Weeks and Two Days (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032846/) a heart breaking story of two women struggling in Ceauceseau's Romania).The writing provides multiple points of conflict but there is little resolution, at least not that American audiences are accustomed to. There won't be a speech into the camera delivered with the intensity of Sean Penn. Instead, there will be small acts of defiance - which may not be as dramatic as American audiences are accustomed to seeing - but they are delivered with no less moral courage.Watch for small but poignant scenes between Kerry Fox and the President of the tribunal, or between Kerry Fox's character and her immediate boss. Is the prosecutor merely acting as a person that is bitter about losing out on a promotion or is he she motivated by higher purposes? Is Anamaria Marinca's character motivated to release a personal secret or seek justice? (See if you think her character is seeking redemption and release from testifying. The relationship with her husband and how she deals with her secret are telling.) This is not a person that would tell the world on Oprah - she seeks something greater than personal therapy.)The title remains intriguing. What storm are they referring to? The vicious acts that set into motion the plot? Or the response of the prosecutor and the victim to not only the criminal acts but the manner by which the international court decides to confront them? Don't pay any attention to the New York Times review. The reviewer missed the mark. While I agree with the reviewer that the movie was slow paced, I disagree that it fails to maintain its promise by the end. This is a movie that is consistent and powerful to the end. We may not be satisfied with the result, but welcome to the ambiguities of life.See this film!

STORM works best as a legal thriller (I'm a criminal lawyer). Its depictions of witnesses, evidentiary rules, discussions with opposing counsel, etc., are done very well. STORM's acting, dialog, shooting and direction are done professionally and convincingly; e.g., the film never drags and, until the end, there's nothing that drags or takes one "out of the film". The intertwining of the political influences is also done well. It should be made clear that while the Balkans tragedy serves as the vehicle for STORM, this is not a movie about those horrors in particular; i.e., the same film may have made using a different conflict.Having said so much, STORM lacks passion. Its as if a talented group of people were tasked with making the movie, put in many hard days, then went back to pursuing what they truly loved. The lack of passion may result from STORM's lack of evil clearly depicted villains; i.e., stuff which arouses viewers. Indeed, hardly any background or time is given the Defendant in the docket for the entire film. The horrific scenes of the crimes involved are not seen but provided via the courtroom testimony. I understand that such may be precisely what the makers of STORM wanted to do; i.e., not be explicit to highlight the routine and tedium of legal work. If so, they succeeded. Maybe too well.

This film was supposed to be done in 2007 and to talk about a Croatian war crime criminal Ante Gotovina that was arrested in Spain and the infamous 'Storm' (military offensive in Croatia in 1995), but somehow the title stayed, but the story changed (probably doing the long research) and it's about a trial against a Serbian commander from the same war (who gets caught in Spain at the beginning of the film though) and the main roles (the convict and his lawyer) were played by Croatians which was funny. The commander's name and the place where he allegedly committed crimes are fiction, except the hotel's name that was modified, but who can speak the language will get it.Anyway, doesn't matter which side is being the bad one, a war criminal is a war criminal but also a national hero for some. What I like about this film is that it's remarkably restrained for a political film, there are no flashbacks to the wars in the Balkans because in the first place it covers the dynamics of the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) in pretty much critical way, how it works (shown from personal and public perspective), how time pressure on witnesses, judges, prosecutors.. should be reduced because the UN plans closing the Tribunal by the end of 2010 and many things have been left untold, unsolved, criminals unpunished.. It yearns for public awareness hoping something will change. It portrays how difficult it is to run a lawsuit when you can't make witnesses testify because they are afraid for their lives and families, when even after so many years some people are not ready to speak, the others are not capable of accepting the terrible crimes violating human rights as crimes that should be punished. It shows women's zeal for justice and punishment more than men's, people trying to maintain their balance when everything's unjust, betrayals, political countermeasures.. In this film a hero may not get the villain, the victim may not get to testify like she wants and the justice may not be satisfied because even at high court as this one justice is just a part of political games, a lot of compromises are being made because a lot of things are at stake (for example the witness' testimony may jeopardize the political need to bring various states from ex-Yugoslavia into the EU, it should be done as smoothly as possible and everything else is less important, even justice).The heart of the film lies in the scene when a witness finds out that she won't be allowed to testify about her ordeal she asks a question about the ICTY in the fury - What kind of court is this? What the hell is it actually for?! The frustrating answer which is hard to accept is - Partial justice is better than none. And I should add superb acting by leading female roles Kerry Fox and Anamaria Marinca, the Notwist's music in the background giving the special cold feeling to the whole murky atmosphere and making the film good as it is, but still it has more sense to people from the region or those involved with the Tribunal.