3 Hikers is a documentary about three young American citizens who stray into Iran while hiking in northern Iraqi Kurdistan. They are taken prisoner, accused of espionage, and held hostage in the infamous Evin Prison, in Tehran.

The motivation behind 3 Hikers seems to be twofold. For Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal it is an opportunity to lay out the story in its entirety, filling in the gaps that were apparent in initial news reports about the situation. Early on in 3 Hikers, Shane Bauer mentions dissatisfaction with the way in which the story was handled in the media. “The way that our story was covered […] led people to think that we just dropped in to Kurdistan out of nowhere. That’s not what happened…” For director Natalie Avital it was an opportunity to become embedded with the Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal families, following their experiences from close quarters. She had the ability to go with the story, wherever it led.

The documentary falls into several acts:

First, the preamble. The film begins with a very fast-paced run down of the political history between the US and Iran. It feels like a very brief explanation, and there appears to be the assumption that if you are watching the film, you will have prior knowledge or interest in the subject. Reluctant as I am to admit that I learned something from a Ben Affleck movie, you could do worse than to watch Argo (2012) before this documentary if you would like to put US-Iranian diplomatic relations into context. For a more personal look at revolution in Iran, try Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis – either her comic, or the film adaptation from 2007.

The second act is an account of the arrest and imprisonment. We are taken through it step-by-step with narration from the three hikers. Keen to keep things interesting, Avital employs liberal use of reenactments. She could have reigned this in a little more, as some scenes are more distracting than informative.

In the third act we are invited to join the three families in their emotional quest to have the three hikers freed. This section is interspersed with expert opinion talking heads, including US foreign policy expert Richard Sick, and Reza Aslan. True to form, Aslan is eloquent and insightful in his commentary on the situation.

In the final act, individuals have the opportunity to reflect on their experiences. As well as gaining greater knowledge of international diplomacy, and learning how much can be achieved with collective effort, the importance of learning history is stressed.  Questions are raised on the purpose of prisons, the use of solitary confinement as a method of torture, and its role in post traumatic stress disorder. Avital could pursue any of these subjects in further documentary investigations.

Natalie Avital has come away with a solid documentary. It is a story with plenty of angles, gripping enough to be feature length without being a drag. 3 Hikers is her first documentary, and it’s a strong debut.

By Marti Dols Roca.

London 1940, while Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombs the British capital, Catrin, an unknown screenwriter, and a cast and crew formed by old stars and what’s left of the non recruited youth, unite to finish a film with the aim of reinforcing England’s moral and trying to convince the U.S to join the war.

Women’s rights, war, ageing in the show business, filmmaking and politics. Not bad, right? All watered by touches of humor, a romantic subplot and a fair amount of historical rigor.

The truth is that Gemma Arterton excels in her role, only shadowed by an hilarious Bill Nighy who magnificently monopolizes the comedic nature of the film while giving a couple of brushstrokes on quite serious matters. The movie offers an insight of the crazy and exhausting world of big studio productions remembering us once more the amount of decisions that provoke major changes in the final product taken purely by chance, necessity or accidents; especially during wartime, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWzfl8W_STQ

As it usually happens with British productions that touch these (very British) issues, the balance between seriousness and lightness is absolutely spot on; except, spoiler alert, for one big turning point happening by the end of the film. Just as the characters in the movie try to, the actual writers seem to look for a spectacular twist that will push the drama even further and make the whole ending more powerful. In my opinion, that slightly kills the honest nature of the film. As I was saying, the movie doesn’t try to be über serious or deep. It’s as light as the story demands: portraying very serious matters in a smart and simple way.

The moment I’m talking about doesn’t really change the arc of the movie (it does change the future of its protagonist, but it doesn’t affect the actual question the movie wants to answer); consequently, it’s pretty unnecessary and feels a bit farfetched. As the characters wrongly do in the movie, they try to add “flavor” to the story when the important elements are already there, hidden in details and nuances. But we can blame the producers in that one, can’t we?

After all, Their Finest tells a story we have heard before, with characters and storylines we know. But, hey, we love to hear this story. So let us enjoy it one more time!

By Marti Dols Roca.

City of Tiny Lights is a London underworld crime thriller; nothing new under the sun until this point. Based on the novel with the same name, Pete Travis’ film has everything a piece of this genre needs to have: a protagonist whose moral compass and financial situation are inversely proportional; a main plot full of twists; a subplot related to the main character’s past that will end up playing a major role in the outcome; and a series of deep enough secondary characters: the funny and sad father, the pretty and shady hooker, the dodgy sidekick and the successful childhood friend who hides something.

The movie works: it delivers a believable and interesting story, it’s almost perfect in terms of structure and it has the precise amount of ideological brushstrokes to makes us reflect on a couple of current and delicate matters (will come back to that). The thing is, it’s so perfect in terms of genre and story canons, it occasionally feels like the same old mould filled with a fairly new substance. As an example: it even ends with the main guy sitting on an ambulance at dawn, holding a gauze to his wounded forehead, nodding his appreciation to the police officer passing by and silently observing how the bad guys are being taken in. We all kind of know that image, don’t we?

That being said, if you were looking for an original, fresh, new and mind-blowing postmodern take on the thriller genre go see another movie. On the other hand, if you have a taste for real flavored stories, in real flavored settings with real flavored characters that use an old but functional frame in order to be told, this may be a movie you’ll enjoy. Moreover, and in the humble opinion of the writer of this article, one of the most interesting things of this film is a quite nice little lesson about stereotypes and rushed moral judgments on certain religions that is absolutely necessary in the present day and time. As I was saying, there are certain bits of the story that may be predictable; but sadly, that would be due to how terribly predictable human nature sometimes is, i.e. follow the money, the suits and the powerful instead of the young, shaved, bearded and dark-skinned if you want to get to the core of the problem.

So, again, if you were looking for an original, fresh, new and mind-blowing postmodern take on the thriller genre go see another movie. And please let me know the title because I would like to see it too 😉