Trailers for “Eastern Promises” depict the standard crime thriller: Someone, often an overeager newcomer, kills the one man no one can touch and, consequently, war breaks loose. The film, although centralized in a Russian crime family, tells no such tale. It is a story in which the line between good and evil is blurred. While films like “Goodfellas” leave you with one-liners and an irrational desire to join the mafia, the essence of “Eastern Promises” is much more troubling.

The film begins when an anonymous pregnant woman is rushed to a London hospital, suffering severe blood loss. Midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) cannot save the woman, but her child survives. The young mother leaves behind a diary filled with incriminating secrets surrounding a dominant Russian crime family. Anna hopes to translate the diary to locate the infant’s family.

In her quest to translate, she learns a dangerous amount of information and becomes entangled with the Russian mafia, particularly with the family’s driver and undertaker, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen). As the plot intensifies, the focus of the film shifts toward Nikolai, whom the audience never fully learns to trust. “Eastern Promises” becomes an examination of Nikolai, a man both good and evil.

The film is unpredictable, leaving viewers as tense as the characters who cross this family’s path. Director David Cronenberg (“A History of Violence”) tells the story in a manner that keeps the audience as outsiders, to great effect. Excerpts from the Russian girl’s diary are narrated throughout the film, leaving viewers increasingly unsettled. This approach captures the deeper meaning behind the film, stimulating questions of human ownership, family ties and the power of ambition.

At one point in the film, Nikolai says to Anna, “Stay away from people like me.” This phrase invokes the central question of the film: Is Nikolai essentially a good man? Mortensen’s powerful and convincing portrayal destroys the barrier between right and wrong. While the audience sees Nikolai’s violence and brutality, empathy is also established for the character. Viewers leave the theater unsure of whether or not they liked Nikolai. This gray area between good and evil is precisely what makes the film troubling. Nikolai is believable, with inner conflicts and contradicting morals.

“Eastern Promises” commands attention. However, the degree of violence in the film is unusually graphic. Many particularly brutal scenes are unnecessary, leaving the audience uncomfortable and even slightly ill. For instance, the opening scene depicts a man violently slitting the throat of another man, with every gory detail provided. Nothing is left to the imagination.

There are crime movies and then there are movies like “Eastern Promises”—while the former deals with good guys and bad guys, the latter is of a more complicated nature.

Its characters blur the line between right and wrong, raising questions about the quest for happiness in a corrupt world. Post-movie conversations will inevitably arise.

However, for the squeamish viewer, the violence depicted in the film hinders any serious moral issues that may have been brought up. It is difficult to ponder the deeper meaning behind a film when one is watching through closed fingers. All in all, if one can stomach the bloodshed, “Eastern Promises” follows through on its promise.



http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/421

Good David Cronenberg Flick-Great Viggo Mortensen performance

Have seen the clips for it!
Looks good

Did anybody see this, then? I did, last week.

Eastern Promises
David Cronenberg | 2007 | UK/Canada/USA
--------------------------------------------------
A midwife follows up on the diary of a prostitute who died giving birth, and crosses paths with the Russian Mafia.
--------------------------------------------------
Cronenberg needs to start writing his own material again - perhaps then his films will be as succinct but not as contrived as this. Knight's script, on the one hand, provides an ample basis for the thematic grounding which interests the director (primarily, sexuality as the means by which identity is constructed and maintained), but it's far too short and story-driven to be of any lasting impact. There's not a scene wasted, and it's very riveting at times thanks to a weighty central performance from Mortensen (Mueller-Stahl is good too, though Watts disappoints), but as a whole it seems economic to a fault; perhaps it's a sign of the director moving further into foreign territory (for him and us both), into a more subtle style of filmmaking, one wherein thematic fabrics are presented in more structurally accessible frameworks, which is fair enough, but for me it might take a few viewings to adapt (A History of Violence worked for me because I took it to be about the medium itself, and its silly finale was effective and convincing). The representation of violence is unusually problematic, too: never one to shy away from disturbing imagery, the violence here takes on an almost parodic tone; the opening scene brought gasps from the (full capacity) screening I attended, which does well in portraying the danger and indifference of the culture portrayed (a reason why the Turkish bath scene is so tense when it finally happens), but as for the throat-slashing scene in the graveyard, its persistence to shock - the victim makes sure to pull down his scarf and bare all - seems forced and unnecessary. As for the Turkish bath scene itself, though, it's Cronenberg's most memorable sequence in years, and one of the best action scenes in general, too: visceral, fleshy and genuinely thrilling.

Yep i saw it 3 weeks ago. It was ok, the violence is shocking but your right it does sometimes feel forced. i enjoyed it because of the short length even if the ending was too abrupt. I also didnt know anything about the Russian mob so it was good to go in unknown territory.

overall not bad but not the best.

I'll rent this sometime when it comes out on dvd

i watched it last night and thought it was ok but did not like the ending )remind you of something?)

Saw it last week. Not good. I'll never understand how crappy movies like this get nominated for Golden Globes, Oscars, etc.

"Not good"?

Care to elaborate? (I've notched it up a star since posting above, by the way.)

Oh you peasants, this is the fucking CASABLANCA of this decade.

To quote Kurt Angle...

"It's true, its DAMN true!"