maria-ricci-1983

Elsbeth has come back. We are delighted.

For those who are not acquainted with her, it is a come-back indeed, as she is (to my knowledge) the only secondary character who has outlived not just one show (as Saul, of Better Call Saul), but two different long and successful series (The Good Wife and The Good Wife) and who has won people's heart to the extent of deservingly having her own show now.

Reencountering her in The Good Fight was a lovely surprise years ago, I remember. Meeting her again in this show promises to be truly exciting. The first episode was a pleasure, although the action seems to have a more comedic vein here than in those other productions. (Carrie Preston can do comedic passes while doing crime investigation indeed, and the hybrid works.)

The winks to fans of The Good Wife/Fight were there too. Will we meet Cary Agos here again? Oh, that could be great!

Elsbeth's kooky and loony attitude to lawyering now seems to be transferred to police internal surveillance. Don't be fooled by Elsbeth. Her brain is razor sharp, behind her apologetic, oddball and candid habit of annoyingly intruding into the work of the smart-asses who know it all. You can imagine the rest.

It may be the case that Michelle and Robert King will make it again with this new show, much to our enjoyment. I hope so.

This show cannot be classified conventionally, unless you use a lot of contradictory tags.

Is this a soap opera?

Yes, definitely, but with an unusual premise and with gender twists.

Is this a comedy?

Yes, and with very funny scenes and characters, but with a lot of tragic drama and a bit of thrill.

Is this about women's empowerment?

Yes, definitely, but with a very romantic male hero, which seems to be against the general idea, but the actor is so cute that his character really works.

Is this cheesy?

Yes, in a Korean-cheese way, which I usually dislike, but this time made the trick.

Is this cartoonish?

Yes, of course, it is based on a webtoon and it shows, but the actors are accomplished, and they bring to life what could have been just anime characters in black and white.

Is this based on values?

Yes, and it also shows. That is refreshing.

Is this frivolous?

Yes, but it also poses philosophical questions related to destiny and the possibility of changing one's life.

I am not a particular fan of K-dorama shows, but I must say that I enjoyed this very much, despite all the «buts» and «c'mons» that I usually object when I give a try to this type of series. So, much to my own surprise, I honestly recommend it!

I may be wrong, but this is IMDB, people, and TV shows are TV shows.

It gets complicated when we use the reviews tab for debating politics, racism or political correctness instead of assessing a production as a whole, or try to 'punish' the show with a poor review just because the angle or the ideas portrayed in the plot do not match our view of the world. Yes, it happens, sometimes we get incensed about some messages (this is not the case, Criminal Record is certainly not about the message), but, as a reader seeking for reviews before watching a show, I prefer less opinionated perspectives and find them more helpful.

In purely cinematographic terms, this is a quite enjoyable show, even though the theme is not new to the genre and has already been visited before by quite a few crime and procedural series.

However, the premise still holds, and so far the story is intriguing enough and ambiguous enough to feed the mystery about how things will resolve in the end. You wonder, is the 'bad guy' really that terribly bad or is he not, and a surprise awaits at the end of the season?

It is a pleasure to watch the extraordinary performances of Peter Capaldi (kudos) and a very accomplished Cush Jumbo, who add complexity and nuances to their characters.

Capaldi, in particular, is magnificent. His facial expressions are austere and exuberant at the same time (how does he do it?).

All the supporting roles are well performed and the script hooks the spectators enough to have them waiting for the next chapter. It is not The Wire, it is not Line of Duty, and it stretches some plot lines a bit. But it is still a fine show. I have watched a few hundreds of procedural and detective shows, and this, so far, I am enjoying.

On seeing seasons 1 and 2 I have to bow in acclaim. This was my first contact with Deborah Millman and I just will say she is a tremendous actress! All the spectrum of human emotions she can deliver and shine. Rachel Griffith composes a perfect performance. (The actor playing Charlie seems to have just one single facial expression and throw it to the camera in every scene, a pity).

The show is centered on the strength and vulnerability of two main female characters--a veteran cunning PM and a newcomer to the political game. The themes bring to the table important issues, while the development focuses on individual action as a seed of change. It is perfectly well performed and directed, and is as thrilling and nail-biting as it can get until the last minute.

Together with The Newsreader, it set a high standard for Aussie TV and it is a refreshing, highly engaging and powerful show.

I saw the rate, over 8/10, and decided to give this a try.

How terribly disappointing!

To begin with, the simile to Columbo, so much mentioned here, seems to me very far-fetched and forced. Columbo is a detective. Charlie here is not an investigator; she is just a person with a knack for intuitively tell when someone is lying intentionally. And that is all.

If you think this ability (providing it existed as an unfailing skill) is enough to turn someone into an expert detective, without any other qualification or training, perhaps you will enjoy this series. I did not.

The script-writing is lazy and cheap, the resolution of the cases is unacceptably simple and roughly sketched, but most of all, I could not feel at home with Natasha Lyonne's performance.

She is all over the place with her forced nasal voice and her facial expressions and slanted smile, which are supposed to be characterization, but, to me, sounded just like lame acting. Despite my best good will, I could not recognize any true talent in her performance.

Chapter One is the relative best (though even such a seasoned actor as Adrian Brody offers a forgettable rendition), but from Chapter 2 onward, the show plummets down helplessly.

No wonder Nicola Walker has left her own special footprint in the pantheon of superb performers. She is as good as it gets, whatever she does. The show deserves being watched if only just for her.0

I cried my heart out in Unforgotten S04E06, and I was even angry at the producers' decision (the episode was very good, but truly shocking and unexpected). But if she had to leave in order to take in Annika, then I can make my peace with them.

I remember having left cinema while watching a Woody Allen movie in which he broke the 4th wall and I just couldn't stand it. It seemed to me artificial and empathetic, just an intellectual posing.

But Walker has turned the device into a warm, natural thing, without pretense or cunning. You actually feel her subtle gestures and looks are an intimate sharing of her state of mind. Her wit, personality and low-key charisma are a delight to watch. The team is conventionally good (political correct diversity and all) and the relationships between them all evolve around Annika in an organic way.

In purely procedural terms it is not extraordinary nor original (I like Shetland better), but this is all glued by the power of the main character, and Walker fills majestically her shoes creating a microcosm of a crime show around her magnetic performative talent.

Just watch it and enjoy something different, natural, uncanny and refreshing.

Ana and Marcelo are both high-middle class professionals enjoying a comfortable social standing. They have a nice flat, an only son who goes abroad to further his studies, and what could be described as a smooth, well adjusted marriage life, without violence or abuse, though with some hints of passive-aggresive daily fencing.

The «empty-nest syndrome» gives room for them to explore how they feel about each other and admit some boredom due to the predictability of common life, spiced with the little daily irritations and annoyances of a 25-year old marriage. Finally, they admit that they are «not infatuated any longer» with each other, and they don't feel confident about spending the rest of their future with that feeling on their hearts.

Thinking that divorce could relieve them from this weary feeling, they experience new romances (some scenes are funny), and they even form stable new relationships with new partners.

Some years pass by, and then a new crisis related to their son gives again room for them to find how deeply they miss the familiarity and shared history they had built together. They are still «no longer infatuated with each other», but they choose to rekindle their life together cherishing what they have crafted as a couple, rather than picking on what is missing.

If this unoriginal, much treaded story had been performed by other actors, the movie would have probably been boring and flat. Dialogues are long (Argentinean urban educated couples dialogue about themselves much in this vain, probably due to their popular culture of psychoanalysis), and the whole thing could have ended up in a pretentious theatrical babble, but Darín and Morán are such an extraordinary pair, so tremendously talented, that they make you empathize deeply with their predicament and feelings, adding reality and vividness to the film.

Kudos to the casting director: all secondary actors have been simply perfect in their roles. No part has been wasted, indeed.

In short, it is neither Bergman nor Nora Ephron, but it is enjoyable; it pulses a chord in those who have had long marriages, and the performances are really memorable.

Kudos to the casting producer!

Ansel Elgort is the perfect choice to play «Aderustainu-san» in one of the most exciting shows of the season! He has the full package: witty, cheeky, earnest, skilled, tenacious, terribly handsome, barely fragile, fresh and sincere.

I also found Sho Kasamatsu a fantastic finding! He is a magnificent Sato indeed, a performance to be remembered! We are familiar with Ken Watanabe's acting as he is a very well-known actor in the West, and he delivers a fine and credible character as usual. The rest of the cast is also fabulous.

Having lived in Tokyo myself, everything felt very portrayed to me. Only a few secondary actors seemed to be more nissei than issei, or even ethnically mixed.

Elgort's effort at Japanese is remarkable (can he really speak it or was it just coaching and memorizing words for the sake of the show? His aikido shomenuchi moves were also enjoyable); I even found it very funny when he fakes on purpose an awful American accent to pretend he speaks a poor Japanese.

The script was precise, interesting, thrilling. And though I ignore how much of the story is authentic and how much is fiction, it really doesn't matter because you are not expecting to watch a documentary. Just a superb story finely directed, set and performed.

The pilot, by the way, has the signature of Michael Mann, who quite probably is the best Action Pilot Director of the last quarter of century, and it sets the tone for the rest of the episodes.

I am looking forward to second season, and I truly hope they will not let this flunk.

Everything is wrong in this production: the psychological premises and "expert" scientific behaviour, the investigative and procedural work by the police, the justification for the character's actions, the culprits' characterization which is absolute inconsistent with the skills involved in the criminal plan design and execution, the presumptuous complexity of the whole thing, which is laughable and unbelievable even if you want to be a complacent viewer and give it a fair chance.

So I regret having lost a few hours of my leisure time with this cheap, nonsensical production.

If you really are a fan of crime and police genre, you will in all likelihood find no value or merit in this show, and my advice is to let it go and search for a better title.

I agree with the remarks of several favorable reviewers here.

For much that I've always loved this show, this premiere astonished me with a fantastic twist in the narrative and lifted the memory left by the third season's finale.

The complexities of the "Possible Conjectural in Politics" are shown through the lenses of an alternate reality (a very clever narrative choice) but with a nuanced and smart turn.

Diane slides from the immediate, emotional, almost childish elation of the political "fanactivist", to a more reflected assessment of the contradictions and costs involved in the protection of the greater good. The dramatic transition from her embrace of the alternate reality to the suspicion of being into a dream, to her waking up marks a high point in the episode!

Old political dilemmas shown through a masterclass of screenwriting and direction with a permanent wink to the viewers' intelligence. I love this show and I celebrate that they have raised the bar with this new season!

I found this series fascinating. The story is delivered in different time frames, so we follow the case in court while some flashbacks drop hints or revelations about what really happened.

There is thrill and suspense until the very end, and the last episode is really nerve wrecking and emotionally painful. I will not include spoilers here, but the ending leaves much room for reflection about guilt, justice, truth and retribution.

Every single performance here is outstanding, and the storytelling proceeds at a superb pace, with a remarkable balance between what is revealed and what is withheld.

The story goes beyond the case and extends to the transformative effects of the procedure in the lives of the jurors and their families, as well as the impact their private experiences have in the way they finally will vote for or against absolution.

If a second season of the story comes out with a follow up of the eventsl, I will be the first to watch it! Strongly recommended show for genre lovers!

Everything in this show is fantastic. Second season is even better than the first, if this could be possible.

From the mesmerizing title score by Nicholas Brittell (Chopin of the 21st century) to the tremendous, really tremendous performance by Brian Cox (he deserves every award for his composition of Roy Logan). But then every character... I had never watched Jeremy Strong before, and I have to say his Kendall is, as another reviewer said here, tragically fascinating both with empathy and pity. Kudos! And Nicholas Braun as grandnephew Craig-Greg is a most welcome box of surprises (is he a naive fast-learner making his way through the game, or a machiavellic master chess player?) The casting people have made an impeccable, perfect choice for every character in the show.

Very complex characters, intriguing plot even with the cards on the table, outstanding pace. Don't miss this show redolent of quality, skill, intelligence and theatrical tension. Some of the episodes have been remarkable jaw-droppers!

All things which were alluring in seasons 1 and 2 (8 or 9/10) have disappeared in this new season coming out of the Netflix Meat-Mincer Machine (they do this with every successful show, once they take over, as in Lilyhammer, for instance). The seductive presence of the Professor, always composed, with his razor-mind always one step ahead of things, now has turned into a conventional man heading a theft as many others. The very well paced and interesting relationship with the hostages now has become sparse, thinner and less relevant. The cliches and flagship gestures which were innovative in the previous seasons now seem an overcooked repetition of resources in a less effective context. The fascinating cat-mouse liaison between the Professor and the Inspector now has been replaced by the typical bedroom rows and marital power quarrels. And then the disgusting, terribly acted pregnant detective, what was that character mean to add? In any case, she hasn't done it.

Instead of the good things, they have injected the show with a contemporary American idea of what "action" means: frantic, blasting music overscoring every dialogue and every scene at top volume (you have to turn it down and up every minute because it's really bothersome) and frantic people shouting their lungs out at every sentence. No nuances, no finesse this time.

Also, the "ideology" element and the politically correct agenda seem so force-fed and poorly justified that they make you sigh. Didn't they know that powerful countries tortured people before Rio's detention? Didn't they care until then?

Rodrigo de la Serna saves the day with his excellent performance as usual. But the rest is a disappointment.

This is a love story. Don't let the crimes fool you.

And what a Shakespearean love story! Amazing! Really surprising in the best way!

You'll watch a mini-series with all the tragic excesses, character development and intensity of Russian drama, if you accept that in a timeline of 16 episodes all the pervert, diabolical, schizophrenic and depraved serial killers of Russia happen to act in a row, in a non-stop spree of murder with all its ingredients. In this sense, it's cartoon-like and it reminded me of the old Batman TV show in the 60s, with the carousel of villains and the fascinating dynamics among the two detectives. But it is also a fantastic and enthralling drama about psyche, identity, good and evil.

Deep but with lots of action. Noir but with sexual tension. Philosophical but gripping. And very well acted!

There are flashbacks from the start, and the action goes back from the present to the past with an intriguing puzzle which you will only clarify at the end, and with a twist.

The performances are brilliant, and the narrative builds up very well from the first chapter, which is 7/10, until you get hooked with Rodion Meglin and Esenya, her origins and their stories full of holes and dotted lines to follow. It's a pity that the story ends at the last episode, as I could have watched Meglin forever. These guys know when to end things at their height...

EDIT: I have just finished the second season, which is thrilling and really complex to watch because of the surprising twists and turns of the story, The killings are as brutal as in the first season but everything (from the very start of season 1, which is revisited, to the last final episode) comes to an explanation at the end. (Season 2 can be watched as a psychiatric essay as well.) The flashback format remains the same, so a future situation is shown in the first chapter and the rest of the chapters slowly allow you to reconstruct how things went from B to A backwards. The show contains explicit references to deliria, hallucinations and mental illness, so sometimes the plot is not «neat and linear» as in conventional narrative. You have to grant this to enjoy season 2. But do that, because it is really a unique show and worth watching every chapter.

I don't understand the harsh reviews. It is a solid show, with a heavy, intense, highly dramatic and climactic story where intrafamilial, transgenerational drama intertwins with high politics, high media and high-tech espionage. Although the first episodes seem a bit too excessive and complex, as the chapters go by the dust sets a little and you start to get where this comes from, although not where it goes (I am on chapter 5 so far). The performances are really intense and brilliant (McCrory is a shining actress), and yes, sometimes it gets a bit over the top, but the story is a modern Shakespearean drama, with a monstrous father who has also been a victim and is keen on creating an improved version of a young monster in his own adult child. I have found it to be intriguing, passionate and well paced.

There are few detective stories where the main character is not only a deductive, sharp-minded person, but also an honest, justice-loving, decent guy without a tormented past, or weaknesses, or complex moral contradictions. (I think of Foyle, who is also such a good guy and father, or Lewis, also in this vein.)

Here we have Jimmy Perez, which is so well performed and written that you simply fall for him and his humanity, though the cases often portray damaged people or bitter crimes.

I always say farewell to each season eagerly waiting for next year, so we can resume our tremendously pleasant and thrilling engagement with Shetland, their people and the characters in this show.

Plus the landscapes and the atmosphere, which are enthralling and make you yearn for the place even if you've never been there.

It is not a fast-action show, but very thrilling with a brilliant management of suspense, the whole who-dunnit thing and the gradual unveiling of the truth shared by the team. If you like detective series, really give it a try. It deserves a huge audience!

I am now into Season 9.

My faithfulness to Vera is unending, and I truly hope we'll have Vera for many years to come.

Why? Because it is a flawless crime drama, with perfectly written and directed episodes (one case per chapter) which keep suspense and tension in the exact degree without descending to using cheap tricks. It portrays realistic, believable and lovable characters (despite their failures), which are exceptionally well performed by the whole cast (Brenda Blethyn, come on, what a tremendous actress!). It avods many cliches which sometimes turn detective shows rancid and exhaust the genre lovers. The atmosphere, cinematography and photography are fascinating.

But the strongest of it all is... Vera! There is not a single detail which does not ooze «character building» in itself.The way she plays with the suspects brandishing her old-lady-neighbour «luvs» and «pets» to feign simplicity and proximity; her Perramus, dresses, stockings and hat... (a manifesto in themselves); the relationship with her sargeant; her relentless wit and alert mind as a crouching cat entrapping the mouse... The balance between a cold scalpel-mind and a sensitive, sensible heart. It is a festival for detective and crime shows fans!

One of the most remarkable suspense shows in Brit TV since 2011! A must see! Long life to Vera Stanhope and to dame Blethyn!

This took me by surprise. I didn't expect any of this. I thought it was a conventional detective, procedural series. And I was very delightfully impressed. The storyline is original, gritty, very well developed in terms of thriller and crime situations. The humor is really great, twisted but really refreshing. But the best of it, the characters! A very welcome show!

I cannot praise this show enough. I agree with other reviewers on the high bar this show sets for the genre. It is the French Homeland, but more credible, low-keyed and deeper.

Everything distills quality here: a really, really superb script which is intelligent, sensible and gripping to the end; extraordinary characterisation and performances from the main to the last character; tremendous production and attention to detail; credible information about the metier; an impeccable direction which keeps extreme suspense and intrigue, only without the flamboyant, explosive special effects so inevitable in American series, but it is still very action- and field-oriented.

Season 4 is really fantastic, it has not decayed in the least. The addition of Mathieu Amalric makes an extra bonus, with the talent he brings to fore in every performance. Marie-Jeanne acquires more weight in the show in the most positive sense. Florence Loiret Caille is such a superb, nuanced actress! And the priceless Kassowits recreates his complex Malotru, the antihero always full of surprises which you respect, admire and love as the seasons go by. He is the perfect spinal cord for the show.

In short, this is the most exciting show in the year. I really hope it will maintain the high quality and the cast in years to come, to the delight of all the genre lovers. Kudos to everyone involved in the production!

Compared to the array of brilliant French TV shows which you can watch these days, this series doesn't stand out as anything remarkable. It is not terrible, but the weaknesses really show while you watch.

Firstly, there are too many far-fetched situations which defy the spectator's credibility. The storyline is frankly implausible, and nothing really happens that way in real life, not once but twice! Every single character has an implausible behaviour and there is no rationality or sense behind their actions. I will not go into detail here for spoiler reasons, but it happens every ten minutes.

The performances are very lame, without real talent; all of the actors seem to consider that performing art consists of making obvious faces. I didn't find Julie de Bona outstanding at all; on the contrary, I couldn't believe her acting in any of the six episodes. The same goes for the implausible inspector, whose terminal illness comes and goes without any explanation or justification in the story. A transfer would have been a more credible situation.

In short, this show will not leave a lasting mark in French or police procedural TV records. It is quite mediocre and hard to believe, and you could devote six hours of watching time to much better productions in the genre.

You cannot refer to this show without bringing in Montalbano.The strong and the weak aspects are quite related to Andrea Camillieri's character, in a way.

Schiavone is as lovable, picturesque and local as its predecessor. Rocco and Salvo are both quite effective, earnest, individualistic detectives, remarkably better than their peers, with a strong commitment to put the evil guys in jail, but a penchant for overstepping boundaries and taking justice in their own hands.(This is a cliche in many detective shows, right.)

They both have a neurotic behaviour in terms of love relationships which renders them unable to commit in real terms to an actual partnership.

They both work in a breathtakingly beautiful landscape-- seaside Vigata in the south, in the case of Salvo, and northern snowbound Aosta in Rocco's case. In both series, the landscape and scenery have a major role to play.

They both work in a small town questura (police station) with similar teams, where smart, loyal juniors (Pierron / Fazio) coexist with the funny crew of clueless, dumbass agents. These (D'Intino / Catarella) bring out the worst of their bosses, exasperate them to death, but also infuse some comedy relief into the gritty, sordid cases. And when they turn to do things right, it is always despite themselves. (Both Catarella and D'Intino have something on with their bosses' doors, which is quite funny, by the way.)

Both Rocco and Salvo swear, throw things and lose temper as a hallmark, women find them irresistible in their low-key flirty ways, they tend to be in conflict with procedural propriety, and they look the other way when rules contradict their natural sense of justice. Also, they both have a similar bromance with their boastful and genius pathologists, who are strong characters in themselves...

Lovers of Italian crime shows will soon recognize more similarities in both series.

However, there is a female bright young detective here instead of Mimi Augello as a sidekick, and Rocco goes farther than Salvo in his troublesome behaviour. He is a heavy weed-smoker (an early joint at the office is his "morning prayer"), a Robin Hood to thieves, and has a heavier dark past upon his shoulders. The relationship with his band of crazy friends is a nice parallel story, and the acting is superb, really fantastic. Makes you fall in love from the very first episode.

(Rocco's relationship to his wife has already been developed in Bron/Broen last seasons, and has similarities to River plotline, so it was a bit of a deja-vu for European crime shows fans.)

In short, if the cliches and resemblance to Montalbano doesn't bother you too much, there is a lot to enjoy in this first season of six, 100-minutes episodes. It is a lovely show, well developed and produced, remarkably well performed, and very entertaining.

Craith is a slow-paced, but highly suspenseful crime puzzle involving:

• an electrifying serial killer storyline (I found some reminiscences of the Silence of the Lambs),
• a damaged, twisted criminal
• a succesive unveiling of more victims spanning from the past to the present,
• a low-key but persistent female sleuth (memorable interpretation!)
• a rich focus on complicated family dynamics (both in the lives of the criminal and the detective).
• a beautiful, dark, forest scenery.
• Ed Talfan's hand everywhere (particularly in the opening credits sequence, the music and the solving process approach).

The script is fantastic, the suspense is very well administered, and the interpretations are really credible, both intense and contained and the same time.

This is the kind of thrillers that I enjoy so much. Kudos to everyone involved!

You can review Strike in reference to the original book, that is, considering how efficiently or accurately the TV show has captured the source characters, atmosphere and plot. Or comment Strike as an original work in itself, without any comparative reference to the J. K. Rawling's books.

As I haven't read them and I am not a particular fan of hers, I will refer to the show as an orginal production.

I liked it generally, and I enjoyed the whole story and pace. It is the traditional, Christie-style private detective-and-his-femele-sideling story. The tone is not tormented noir (no Luther, nor Y Gwyll here), although some degree of light-weight mess is shown around the main character. I didn't find the script so unbelievable or nonsensical as a couple of reviewers have stated, although I concede that one or two lines were a bit too disconnected or far-fetched.

Strike is a well composed and interesting character, I think finely interpreted by Tom Burke, whom I found convicing and charming considering the not-too-deep atmosphere or intensity of the script.

I cannot know how faithfully Holliday Grainger plays her role in terms of the original character in the book. In non-comparative terms, I found her acting a bit annoying and, in fact, anti-climactic. Her pouting, overacting and excessive facial language, in a comedic key, pulled me away from the dramatic tension all the time. In my opinion, the production could have gained from a more subtle interpretation or actress, while also keeping the naive, well-meant spirit of the character.

I hope the next series will be as fine and enjoyable as this.

I have to thank the producers and creators for such a great TV show, following the trail of the extraordinary The Good Wife but giving the sequel an excellent twist with an array of strong female actresses who are witty, brave, funny and strong-willed.

I can't wait to see the next episodes. Kudos to Christine Baranski, Rose Leslie, Cush Jumbo and the whole team. The stories are intriguing, enjoyable and so well written, the supporting characters are always brilliant (just as in The Good Wife) and the whole thing grips you from the start. Plus the politics.

The first season was amazing, above standard! Now, two episodes down the second season and I have fallen for it completely, as every year! Please keep on and up with the wonderful work! And, if possible, keep on with the TGW tradition of LENGTHY seasons, around 22 episodes each! We adore your show!

For those who have lived through this somber chapter of Argentine history, i.e. the cruel, repressive dictatorship who perpetrated State terrorism against civilian citizens in the late 70s and early 80s, watching this movie might be an extremely painful, vivid and heartbreaking exercise of political memory. For those who have not, it will be an equally sad, vivid and heartbreaking exercise on LatinAmerican recent history, from the narrative standpoint of a high-school girl engaged in political activism.

At the cinemas, people sob and weep in their seats as the film comes to an end, and as they leave the halls they don't care to hide their tears, shed for the bitter, sad memories but also for the fearful perspectives about human rights which, 40 years later, now seem to loom again on their country's horizon, with the supression or persecution of dissident voices, and the illegal intrusion of armed forces in high-schools and universities. The spontaneous remarks in this regard voiced by viewers as they leave the theatres may surprise the tourist spectator, but they also highlight the deep impact the film has on local public. Both directors have made a great job at portraying a realistic and truthful story, in an effective, rich middle ground between documentary and introspective fiction. Hard to watch, but beautiful and well performed. If you have the chance to watch it, don't miss it.