Add a Review

  • 48 hours in the life of a young woman. Day, night, day and night. This is as much as you should know if you are to get the maximum thrill.

    The first sixty minutes is set-up. Mysterious, claustrophobic and schematic. The hue is gray.

    The last thirty minutes is execution. Questionably realistic (can't say why without a spoiler) and overly melodramatic. Bright colors.

    The set-up half is mesmerizing. Conceived with a documentarian eye. The details of the exposition gotten out of the real world. It's all very instructional and scary in its cold-bloodedness.

    I have two complains. First, miscasting of at least one of the secondary characters. For a narrative that makes a previous commitment to a clear political label, the ancillary woman is not credible.

    Second, the execution half is drawn out. I can see the director fell in love with the situation and wanted to milk it to the last drop, but to an audience it goes on for too long. Cut this material in half and overall you have a great deal more impact.
  • jotix1009 March 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    A young woman is seen arriving at a bus station. Before she gets off the bus she might be giving us a clue as to the purpose of her trip. At the depot, she is met by a man that takes her to what appears to be a suburban motel. She has come for the sole purpose of being trained for a mission to sacrifice herself in a terrorist act. The woman takes a bath, scrubbing herself clean, as though preparing for the sacrifice she is about to commit Masked men enter the room. Blindfolding her, they take her through a training different in a lot of possible scenarios. She is given a new identity and has to learn it by rote. When she is deemed ready, she is taken to a desolate area where a car awaits her to take her to another bus depot. Her destination, we learn at last, is Times Square, the heart of New York City.

    Leah Cruz, the would be terrorist, embarks on a walk throughout the area. The usual crowds are a reminder of what she is about to do. She is constantly surrounded by a mass of people that are oblivious to the danger so near to them. After trying the explosive device, she realizes it's not working properly, something she, or the team that prepared the explosion, probably didn't count on. As the story ends, we watch her being pursued by a young man, who might be a predator looking for easy an easy mark.

    Suicide bombers are a recent development in the world. They have been responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people that didn't deserve to die, in the first place. It is hard to understand how a human being will get to that stage. Not only will they kill a lot of bystanders, but in the process they don't live to see the havoc they create.

    "Day Night, Day Night" is the creation of Julia Loktev, a director unknown to this viewer. Not knowing what to expect, we took a chance with this indie film from IFC, a producer of quirky fare. Ms. Loktev takes the viewer into the mind of a person that is determined to carry out a horrible act. We never get to know Leah's background, or what is the cause for which she is fighting. We never learn what has been her reason for getting involved in such a criminal act. When she calls her parents, they sound as though they are concerned about her, but not much more than what a parent of a young person would be.

    Louisa Williams has the kind of face that could pass for any ethnicity, it is difficult to peg her down to any specific race group. Her eyes tell the story of the conflict within her. Walking among the crowds of Times Square, Ms. Williams appears at times as though she is overwhelmed by the garishness of her surroundings, while at other times, she appears to be afraid of dying for a cause that even she can't comprehend.

    The excellent hand held camera of cinematographer Benoit Debie, captures the Times Square area as through the eyes of a tourist, or even a would be killer. Ms. Loktev shows she can provoke her audience, however disgusting the central issue is.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I usually really like the cinema verite thing when it's done right. Problem with "DNDN" though is...it's not done right. The watchability of the docu-realism thing pivots on one very important factor: SOMETHING INTERESTING ON THE SCREEN. Though the lead actress has a lot going for her, she simply can't handle an entire movie with just a camera aimed at her face (not many could, in her defense).

    Van Sant's films have an equal amount of minimal dialog but I never find myself watching the clock during his opuses, no matter how seemingly meandering (yes, I like "Gerry").

    I like bits of this film too. It has a basically fascinating subject. I especially like the jagged bits of steam that get cooking in the last third of the film, when the lead's tension and frustration threaten to boil over, though I'd debate that anything "happens" at the end (other reviews seem to indicate otherwise).

    I get the symbolism. I get the message. I just thought it could have used an editor's unbiased shears.
  • Vincentiu22 September 2013
    a cold film. about nothing, at first sigh. a girl. a walk. a decision. nothing clear, nothing explained. only a face in a circle of covered faces, in middle of Times Square. but this is its virtue because a movie about nothing, dark, cold, a white page is, in fact, just a portrait of viewer. story of a choice, it is beautiful and impressive in same measure. beautiful for delicate manner to present an obscure event. impressive for the force of silence and for the art of Luisa Williams (who seems be a young Nadia Comăneci ) to use this slices of silence to transform a lot of impressions about terrorism in a realistic confession. a film about a decision out of its roots. and about huge solitude as personal territory.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Reading the threads about this movie I see that a lot of people say that nothing goes on. That the movie is very minimalistic. Is is, in the fact that there is not a lot of dialogue, there are a lot of close-ups of the young woman's face with a blank expression, the pace is slow in the beginning, and there are not a lot of actual scenes where much of anything happens. But if you really pay attention you realize that quite a lot is going on. This is one of those movies that you have to pay very close attention to. It's all in the minute details. There is no back story, so we do not find out why she is doing what she is doing, and the end of the movie does not give us any closure. The movie does start out slowly, with the young woman in close-up obviously praying. Then the tension begins to build, and does so when she begins a very rigorous grooming regime. Also notice how well-mannered she is. Who says thank you, and so often, to people she does not know and who have arranged for her death, even if she wants to die? Watch the little details when she is downtown. The people around her, especially at the stoplight. What they are doing, or not doing. The sounds around her. The sounds she makes, even when she is eating. How she is showing us her apprehension and nervousness regarding what she is about to do. Take the time to catch these little details, and the movie will be more interesting, though if you have seen it, you know how it ends. Which makes one think, Now what?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The first act of a film sets up the plot, the beginning of the story. The act is a series of events, called scenes, which move the viewer though situations with the characters to develop the story. This first act takes up about a third of the entire film. And in this third of the film you learn about the characters through scenes that might not have much to do with the plot of the film but that nonetheless serves to create some sort of understanding of the characters, maybe to create an emotional attachment with these characters which will later pay off when these characters are in a tough predicament. The conflict. But I digress.

    You could start the opening on a wide shot of some place, maybe some people are visible but are very small on the screen within this place. You might cut in closer on those people, and that is when you might hear and see them begin to speak. Their faces are centered in the frame and they are very visible due to the proper lighting. They speak about something which gives you some understanding of them or where we are heading as viewers. Just before the first scene ends, you cut back out to a wider shot signifying their physical situation, and putting a distance between us and them, back to where we began. This is standard. True.

    The first shot of Day Night Day Night does something else. Before one can adjust in their seat as the lights dim and the screen sparks up (there were few to no trailers or commercials before most of the films at this festival) we see the first frame and hear a girl's voice. We cannot see the girl clearly for she is a shadowy silhouette in profile. She speaks quickly in a whisper. We must be guided with English subtitles; though later it becomes clear she speaks perfect English. I cannot recall the exact opening monologue but the girl speaks of God and being chosen and obeying and not failing, she speaks in haste, and we must struggle to stay understand because we could easily miss everything. For what seems like a minute, only quicker, the frame is still and she speaks like this. There is a light moving quickly behind her. And this is how one of the most involved and intense first scenes, in a single frame, in a film begins. This was at the New Horizons Film Festival in Wroclaw.

    The side of the bus opens and legs come into frame. Luggage is grabbed and the legs walk away, a shot done like some comic strip, flat, but conveying enough information to get it. Cut. We are behind the shoulders of a dark haired girl who seems lost, is walking up escalators in this bus station, the camera reminiscent of the Darden brother's style, shaky, like documentary footage, real. She is bumping into people. The environment spinning like a whirlpool around our seemingly grounded figure, she is turning around, her face not exposed to the viewer. It is like this at a moment later when we sense urgency or maybe fear at the suddenly increased pace of the camera's movements… and for a moment from profile the face looks at us and we are met with an odd gaze from dark eyes and high cheekbones and thick dark lips, maybe a native American, maybe middle eastern, odd and mysterious. Before we can really take this view in she turns away, in search of someone or something. A phone rings, she hangs it up. It rings again and this time she picks up. A steady and calculated voice sounds out telling her to go to the parking lot where someone is waiting for her. She responds. Her voice is soft and weak. She is compliant and well mannered. Thank you. Where is this leading to? We are taken with her in a car with an Asian driver and then to a hotel room where the blinds are instantly closed. From over exposed brightness to unclear darkness. Stand here, the Asian guy says and leaves. She cleans herself obsessively, scrubbing her body, clipping her nails. She is preparing for something big. Is she some sex slave? Has she been purchased for sex labor? Just one thought about the possibilities of what could be happening. The handcuffs she is commanded to put on by the voice from the phone can attest to this. And at this time, the simplicity of the shots, the nearly static camera, scrubbing and washing, the voice on the phone, the tension and eeriness, the girls face, her willingness for all this and even duty, is the work of a very detail oriented and inventive writer and observer. A name I had not heard of before this film, Julia Lotkev, the filmmaker behind Day Night Day Night is the second feature of this new gal on the block. And she has definitely something to show off with this film.

    We learn that this nameless girl is a suicide bomber. Her target, which we discover nearly three fifths of the way through, is times square, New York. But in this case, unlike in Paradise Now, we never understand the reasons for these actions. Though her hasty personal monologues of fanatical devotion – they occur a few times in the film but none are as intense as the opener – clue us in to what spiritual voyage she might be dealing with (something we can in a vague or personal way parallel with our own convictions) it is still just vague and unclear and does not hint at any kind of Islamic hatred to the west. And it is this quiet inner turmoil or love of hate which is leading this young and fragile girl to kill herself and others.

    To continue reading this review go to http://blog.changeofbase.com/
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Mention films about suicide bombers, and movies like Syrianna and Paradise Now comes to mind. Films that try to explain the rationale behind the driving force of these persons dedicated to destruction and murder, and while those stories had the usual male bombers, Day Night Day Night took on a more interesting angle, and looked at the role of female suicide bombers - those that don't really fit the usual security profile, and are usually deemed as lower risk of being detected before they execute their plan.

    In her first fictional feature, director Julia Loktev takes a long hard look at the journey of a 19 year old girl played by Luisa Williams. Attractive, petite,you won't understand why she has to do what she wants to, and the story doesn't explain. This is almost in parallel to real life, where you read reports of the aftermath, and are presented with little clues to their background.

    Loktev weaved a tale from seeking out the terrorists, meeting them, going through their rites and procedures, before being accepted for the mission, complete with the making of the video, and the fit up of the device. Most times you don't get to see much, as the camera angles are extremely tight and full of close ups, to accentuate the waiting, and to allow you to focus on the girl, and her thoughts, and her apprehension, despair, and a host of other emotions.

    I thought Loktev too took quite a neutral stand in not stereotyping the bad hats, that indeed it can be anyone, people from abroad with different cultures, or the home grown and bred haters of society. And that is true because terror can come from anywhere.

    This is not an easy movie to sit through as it's deliberately slow and nothing much really happened. But as a movie that attempts to narrate the process from civilian to combatant, this fictionalized account will probably be as close as you can get.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Day Night Day Night could possibly be the culprit for Joe Blow's distaste for independent films and their attempts at capturing the essence of humanity using shaky-cam directing and pitiful dialog that is painful to listen to. Almost all art house cinema appeal to a narrow audience but still retain the vital elements of film that anyone can appreciate. This movie fails in the latter respect.

    There are only subtle traces of character development. Please note, revealing preexisting attributes of a character is not the same as character development. For the first 30 minutes of exposition (and the next...and the next...) we learn very little about our protagonist. Perhaps we'll watch She clip her toe nails, brush her teeth, get dressed, sit, blink a few times, flip the lights on and off, look out a window, perhaps digest her pizza and silently break wind, etc, and in the end something will bond each stray element of seemingly mundane activity that we've forced ourselves to sit through into a cohesive story.

    Which is what this film lacks, story. The film is a penguin waddling along, hefting a fat belly of exposition, vainly flapping it's tiny wings for a takeoff. We the viewer are aware that this film is a penguin and penguins can't fly, but we're willing to discard logic for hope, hope that this penguin might get a little assistance in the way of a cliché gust of wind that would just hurry us along to the inevitable.

    If you'd like to watch a girl walk around chewing her cud into a boom Mic (which probably accounts for 15 minutes of run time, She chewing pizza, a candy apple, pudding, Chinese food, a soft pretzel, etc) this film is for you. For anyone wishing to make a remake, film yourself taking care of your morning routine in a hotel bathroom, walking around Times Square buying and eating food, and carrying a heavy backpack through crosswalks. That's about how exciting this entire film is. If you're like me, the only reason you watched it all is because you are anal and must watch a fim from start to finish once you've committed.

    It's pretty bad.
  • matt-272711 September 2009
    I am disappointed to read that other viewers were bored. From the preview it was obvious to me that this would not be a popcorn-movie or summer blockbuster.

    I enjoyed how minimal and deliberate the film is. If you are looking for an action movie, go rent 'True Lies'. If you are interested in a beautifully restrained, patient film that humanizes people on both sides of the conflict rather than than making a suicide bomber a one-dimensional villain, this movie is for you.

    It takes skill and courage for a filmmaker to attempt to tell a story almost completely with images. Very little dialogue. No gun fights or car chases. Not that there's anything wrong with a fun, action-packed movie. This film is deliberately slow and was a welcome break from the usual pacing of mainstream films.
  • habibi993 October 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    contains spoilers. Fantastic example of low budget film making. The finished product looked up and above the money spent. The tight camera work compensated for the reality of 'unpaid' extras and a limited choice in location. The crisp, digital sound design increased the tension in a film that isn't driven by dialogue. The subject of a suicide bomber after you take her nationality, religion and background out of the equation is more perplexing. You have to look at the phenomena that is blowing oneself up, along with a whole lot of other people, as purely the insane act it is. The trade off is believability in the character without some sort of motivation from her past as to why she would commit such a heinous act. The actress was good in the whole. You knew what she was planning fairly early on so she had a long way to carry it. I just didn't buy it. Worth a look though, for the backpack specialist and his assistant/translator and also the mouthful of noodles.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've seen some real dogs in my life, and I'm not easily bored. Christ. I would rather watch Empire than this self important art school version of the Bratz movie.

    We're meant to be bowled over by the banality leading up to the ultimate devotional act of mass homicide (not)committed by this cardboard, racially/nationally/faithfully indeterminate ideological stand-in. Unfortunately, we're treated to what could be generously described as a middle class fantasy of martyrdom. The filmmaker intentionally removes racial, locational and religious motivation from every.. Well, I'm loathe to even describe them as characters.. but every human being shoved artlessly into what would barely qualify as a visual graduate thesis paper.

    So, yes. Our heroine is dedicated to cleanliness in the lead up to her promised terminal act. This is explored in the sort of plodding detail so common in independent, lousy film recently. Again, my complaint isn't that $#%$ wasn't exploding in every other frame, but that the creator's reaction to that sort of crudeness was not only as gauche, but also not stimulating mentally or visually.

    Additionally, the terrorists she meets with are so unconvincing and self conscious - constantly readjusting the knit brims of their St. Marks Street wanna be Jihadi masks - That by the middle of the movie (which feels like the 5th hour) when she asks them to share her pizza with her, any mentally stable viewer is wishing for an orgy of art student actors in pretend terrorist masks to choke to death en masse on pizza crust.

    I'm not sure if i should blame Wes Andersen or Sofia Coppola for this sort of twee garbage. To their credit, at least those hacks avoid tackling something as heavy as the motivations for suicide bombing. I name them because Andersen elevated a phony emphasis on cutesy detail and sentimentality, and Coppola feminized and trivialized the trivial even further. Either way, the stage was set by them for any halfwit with a camera to drain dry any thinking viewer with extended shots of day to day activities leading up to seemingly profound acts.

    This movie is a meaningless waste of time, a retread of inferior student films exploring important themes with the clumsiness of a tip-toeing giant. The viewer doesn't anticipate the death of the main character with the sadistic glee of an adolescent. It's with the sense of justice that is never explained in even the most cursory sense for the supposedly righteous heroine of this mastubatory ferris wheels of a movie. And we don't even get the satisfaction of her elimination. This is a repetitive and mundane movie that trivializes something that, as a New Yorker, I should feel a little justified being frightened of. Self important and ultimately boring? Yes. Hypnotic? My ass.
  • A stark wisp of a film, 'Day Night Day Night' was a last second addition to my festival-going experience, on this the last day of the festival. Each year I try to attend something I know very little about and this entry in the Visions program of the festival sparked my interest by its air of mystery: a story that for the first half of the film follows an unspecified woman spending what appears to be her last night on earth in a hotel room, followed by a tension-building second day on the streets of New York. The less you know about the story the better the experience. The actress who plays the central character, on screen every moment of the film, is mesmerizing as the somewhat clumsy yet fanatic young woman at a precarious crossroad in her life; much of the film is comprised of extreme close-ups of her face, the flaring nostrils and heavy breathing alerting us to the dark thoughts running through her mind. The audience is given very little back story of what brought her to this hotel room awaiting her fate, and the ambiguity pays off in the second half preventing the thrust of her mission from going down a well-trod path. This film could have easily stopped at a couple different junctures and been less successful as result, however the director keeps the story moving towards a surprisingly heart-wrenching moment that validates its whole purpose.

    Grade: 8/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    One can't talk about this film without ruining a long-held secret. Then again, I'm not sure that not knowing would help one to enjoy it, either. Without knowing the film's sense of purpose, it would be easy to get bored, I think. It's not that hard even if you do know, unfortunately, but it might be excruciating if you didn't. So here's the secret (SPOILERS, duh!): the girl, played by Luisa Williams, has been drafted to execute a suicide bombing mission in Times Square. We never know who the girl is, we have only tiny clues as to why she would agree to do this, and we never know why the mysterious organization, several of whose members we meet, wants this mission carried out. In a way, the film reminded me of last year's Old Joy, and it is similarly frustrating. There's so little information, and the style is so minimalist, that it's hard to care. I liked both films to an extent. I think I slightly prefer Day Night Day Night. It had a hypnotic rhythm about it. Luisa Williams is a very good actress. Plus, the final half hour is quite tense, and worth the wait. The writer/director's decision to completely depoliticize the situation pretty much subtracts any real meaning. The terrorist organization is hilariously diverse. I half expected a Native American in a wheelchair to show up at some point. Loktev's direction is strong. The way she uses sound during that last half hour is impressive.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    About the only entertaining aspect of this movie is the "people watching" you can enjoy from the streets of New York. I've had some regrets in life, watching this movie in its entirety is one of them - and the other, is that I didn't have the insight to hire a cameraman to follow me around L.A. while I was homeless, depressed, suicidal, and carried a back pack. I couldn't help think, that if I was catching change from strangers for a phone call, I would at least collect enough change to buy a bottle of wine to have a little going out party for myself. Who knows, maybe the wine would help me figure out why the hell I'm so depressed, and how did I come to the conclusion that I wanted to be a suicide bomber? Or just get drunk because I'm in this ridiculous artsie fartsie dreadful movie. If any producer out there is interested, I would be happy to reenact my homeless days - I guarantee you'll be entertained.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Within twenty minutes of the film's beginning, I was in agony, but I didn't necessarily think my discomfort was due to bad film-making. It was extremely uncomfortable to see this woman go through mundane activities in a hotel room, without any music or distraction, knowing what the film would be about. That style of cinematography really made me feel as though I was "inside" the girl's experience and feeling as she felt. I even had to pause it a few times in order to regroup. The scene with the video was hilarious- I laughed so much, partly due to nerves, because I was so relieved to rise above my discomfort and into a moment of blissful absurdity.

    But as the movie progressed, it was just more of the same mundanity, and it became less interesting over time. I do not always favor narrative storytelling- but for this film in particular, I wanted to understand her character, where she came from, what happened in her life that drove her to become the person she is. The film is about a very black-and- white, well-defined political subject- a female suicide bomber throughout what is supposed to be the last day of her life. So this story's displacement from personal history (aside from a phone call to family, and a photo of her caucasian brother) feels mismatched. The snippets of her whispered prayers were very interesting, and I wanted more.

    I enjoyed the characterizations and mannerisms of the people who loan her change, which were revealing of subtle interpersonal dynamics on the street. Also, the man who harasses her- he is a stereotyped young African American urban male. When she jokes about a "bomb," it is like one stereotype meeting another, and that made me laugh. It is poking fun at stereotypes, though we never see a real person beneath them. I really wanted that realness to show through alongside the mocking.

    I eventually found myself fast-forwarding through large chunks of the DVD, and still understanding exactly what was happening. By the end, I was just begging for the film to be over. Although I must say, I really enjoyed (and again, agonized) the way the film ended. I won't give that away, but it really left me wondering.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is possibly one of the worst movies around. As other reviews, synopses, etc have explained, the "plot" (there actually is no plot or even a sign of one) is about a suicide bomber pre- and during the suicide bombing. I believe the title is meant to convey that the movie covers two days and nights, but even that's guesswork.

    The movie has been billed as "minimalist", and "stripped to the essentials". Well, not unless you consider boredom to be the essential minimalism. The first 30 minutes essentially cover unknown female in closeup dimly lit profile whispering for a solid minute (she is apparently praying but even that's unclear), getting off plane (we assume, all we see is her skirt and then the back of her neck, which btw the camera remains glued to every time she is moving), being picked up and deposited at a hotel room after a couple of non-informational stops (well, we do learn she's either not Asian or fully un-Asianized Asian because she has no idea how to use chopsticks). In the hotel room --other than a few minutes with 1, 2, and then 3 guys who all arrive wearing the same pants, shirt, and (so help me God I am serious) black ski-mask-plus-ballcap-bill patting her down/taking pictures of her in what's apparently meant to be Che-Guevara-clone gear/rehearsing her verbally in a couple tiny parts of whatever she is supposed to do/eating pizza with her-- we get to watch her bathe (in nauseating detail, but, guys take note: none of the naughty bits show up on camera ;) ), clip her nails, wash out her socks and undies, turn on lights, chomp down some food staring at nothing while alone, lie on her back and walk her feet up the wall, fol a cellphone over her tennis show lace and flip it around a couple of times, and sleep twice (the first time looking like a puppet whose strings have been cut, or a dead person).

    That ridiculous sleeping posture may actually be one of only two actual "messages" in the flick...some existential hoohaw about her being "dead" already. That would actually fit with the first sight we had of her face back at the airport...when she turn around and we instantly think this is a horror film because, between her very heavy jutting forehead and brow ridge and the black circles completely surrounding each eye she looks like she's the lead in "Night of the Living Dead X".

    The other "message"? Boredom. Ours, as people subjected to this long lack of content. The actress' or character's (it is not clear which...and that can be seen, I suppose, as a measure of the actress' talent...that we cannot tell if she is that bored or she is that good at portraying a character who is that bored).

    I finally quit wasting my life watching this turkey and skipped ahead to the last 5 minutes. Then back to the bomb not going off. And then, thankfully, called it a day.

    I love indy flicks. But just because it's an indy is no reason not to say so when someone makes a flick with minimal worth.....and as a last btw...it ain't nece-celery so that ya can't tell the chicks ethnicity....in fact, you can eliminate several possibilities right off.
  • eddie-17715 September 2007
    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I think the so-called suicide bombers and the whole culture that creates and nurtures them (seen most notably in Palestine) are so despicable and so low-life, that any attempt to rationalize, understand, "feel their pain" deserves no respect. Any human being who is willing to take lives of innocent civilians, no matter what his/her motivation, should be treated the same way as harmful bacteria that must be eradicated.

    This film shows the suicide bomber as a human being worthy of sympathy. She is soft-spoken, polite, capable of human emotion, certainly not evil on personal level. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her, when she could not execute her task???

    Supporting characters in the movie, except the black guy in the ending, look ridiculous and very unprofessional.
  • When Hannah Arendt coined the expression "the banality of evil," surely she must have had something like "Day Night Day Night" in mind. With chilling detachment, this brilliant and terrifying film chronicles the last 48 hours in the life of a potential suicide bomber. It is a topic rife with all sorts of potential pitfalls, both political and cinematic, yet the movie succeeds as a work of art because it never resorts to sensationalism or exploitation to get its point across.

    Filmmaker Julia Loktey has deliberately eliminated any back story that might explain why a beautiful young girl like "Leah" would be willing to perform an action as inconceivable and incomprehensible as the one she has planned here. The whys and the wherefores are really of little concern to Loktey. Instead, she has chosen to concentrate on the almost strikingly banal, step-by-step process "Leah" must go through to complete the deed. Indeed, it's amazing how, through context alone, even the most mundane of actions - brushing one's teeth, taking a bath, clipping one's toenails - can suddenly become imbued with the most terrifying significance and sense of foreboding. It's almost as if "Leah" is trying to hold onto a sense of normalcy for as long as she can, savoring the minor pleasures of life that she knows she will never experience again. In fact, in the stunning final half hour of the film, as "Leah" roams around the streets of New York City trying to summon up the courage to fulfill her mission, she begins to cling more and more to the simple joys of life - a mustard-covered pretzel, a candy apple - before taking that final plunge into the abyss. What's particularly disturbing is how unfailingly sweet and polite "Leah" is to the people around her - be they the common pedestrians or storekeepers who could easily become her victims, or the masked men who calmly, almost apologetically, feed her instructions on what she is to do when the fateful moment arrives. The scene in which they dress "Leah" up in terrorist garb and methodically "direct" her for a video that will be released after her death is one of the most chilling in the entire film.

    Luisa Williams, who is never off camera for a single moment in the film, delivers an astonishing tour-de-force performance that is guaranteed to leave the audience stunned into silence. With very little in the way of dialogue to work with, Williams is forced to rely almost exclusively on facial expression and body language to convey a wealth of emotion. The incongruity between the character's sweet personality and demeanor and the horrific act of violence she is about to commit throws us completely off balance and makes us call into question our own perception of the world and the way it works.

    Loktey employs documentary-style realism to tell her story, using her camera to record, almost as a dispassionate observer, the events as they unfold in the course of that 48-hour period.

    "Day Night Day Night" contains more nerve-wracking suspense than a boatload of standard thrillers, yet it is a suspense that is honestly earned, for Loktey never stoops to implausible timing or hokey contrivance to create her effect. This is the stuff of real life - with all its attendant unpredictability and ironies - unfolding before us. We are forever focused on this young lady, who remains a fascinating and terrifying enigma throughout the entire hour-and-a-half that we spend with her.

    Stated simply, "Day Night Day Night" is one of the most riveting and important releases of 2007.
  • 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.
  • "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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Plot summary (as minimal as possible) An American white woman prepares - as we slowly but certainly learn - for a suicide mission. We follow her closely during each step of the process.

    Giving away any more information about the elements of her preparations would be a spoiler, I think.

    The way the camera does not allow the woman to leave the frame makes this a very intimate portrait. Every shot is so clear, so devoid of any distracting elements.

    As the theme of suicide bombers is very contemporary, it seems clear to what the sequence of actions will lead. Exactly this keeps the suspense high until the last minute of the movie, I was on the edge of my seat, almost constantly.

    It is of course a bit of a bizarre experience: being so intimate with a woman who is about to commit something so violent and so evil. You feel with her as she undergoes certain unpleasant parts of the preparations, yet you wonder: why, why? The movie gives some hints, but no clear answer, I have not yet seen 'Paradise Now', but this movie pretty much has the same premise, I guess. Except here we follow. a white woman in the US, instead of two Palestine men in Israel. For many (like me) western viewers this must be very confrontational and scary.

    When I watched Sin City - totally different genre - for the second time within two weeks, it wasn't as interesting as I hoped. The images were so clear and clean and the story so easy to follow: there simply not so much new to see.

    For me, this movie will probably fall in the same category: because of its clarity, good for a very exciting first view, not so much for repeat viewing.

    I can recommend this to anyone who likes beautifully, tight shot and tense story that puts your mind to work: 9/10.
  • As the Seinfeld show demonstrated, when you make a show about nothing it has to be entertaining. This movie demonstrates that when it is about nothing, with characters who are nothing, filmed with endless shots of walking nowhere, eating, cleaning up in a toilet, walking some more, that the director/writer equates Chinese water torture with art.

    The ending is the only thing to appreciate, because it is over!

    To fill my minimum length; It stinks.

    It's rotten.

    It's excruciating.

    It's a colossal, inexcusable, pretentious, soul destroying BORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Anyone praising this film should be banned from writing any reviews in the future.
  • At first I thought this would be the bomb in the cafe scene from "The Battle Of Algiers" stretched out into whole movie. Even though it had some of the slowest pacing I've ever seen, I managed to watch it all the way through. It's a very subdued emotional portrait of a suicide bomber. Kinda like the passion of "Joan of Arc" but with less context. Minimilist and realist less is more, at least for me a lot of times get's old quick, but here it generates a good deal of suspense and tension. Not for everyone, due to the pacing. But patient viewers, more interested in human pathos than political exposition, might appreciate it.
An error has occured. Please try again.