zoleeszolnok On some point in the video putin shows a video on an iphone which contains 'Russian airforce attack against ISIS. But this is a big lie. This video footage made in 2009, by American troopers who fight in Afganisthan Tho Russian voise is fake too. So Oliver Stone, the great filmamaker fooled. Tha't pity. The real filmmaking is more pricise and more intelligent.

MisterHOH Oliver Stone is a good filmmaker. I wish I could say I enjoyed these interviews, but I mostly did not.What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.

ratherbebocce That's the feeling I have after watching Oliver Stone's marathon (4 hrs.) series of interviews with Vladimir Putin on Showtime. I'll have to watch it all again. It's way too much to take in the first time around ( at least for me). That is due in part to the subtitles, but also the sheer volume of information imparted. The main impression I got is that Mr. Putin is one very intelligent man, a consummate statesman and a patriot. Another is that the man seems very reserved. I think that is a good quality to have when you are at the helm of a nuclear armed country. One thing I learned for sure is that my own ignorance of other cultures and Russia in particular is just stunning. So I'll thank Mr. Stone for this effort towards greater understanding of our neighbors on the other side of the world and ideological fence.**** SPOILER *****One part that made me cringe tho, was when he convinced Mr. Putin to watch "Dr. Strangelove". Even though I liked the movie as a cautionary tale about the danger of nuclear war being initiated by a rogue general, I don't think the humor translated too well. This may have more to do with my own experiences recommending movies that fell flat than anything else. Mr. Putin made some comment about the technical accuracy of the movie. OK, that's my 2c.

mdstard Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews is… garbage. Stone, though respected as a filmmaker, at least for some of his earlier works, loses all credibility with this attempt at a "documentary". This four-part series is not a documentary, and it cannot be called journalism either. Is just a platform that Putin uses to justify to the world his policies, in his own manner of course: politically correct at times, even diplomatic, but with some subtle/not-so-subtle references, even irony when needed. Stone as an interviewer is practically useless. His questions are at times obviously ill-prepared, but, more annoying is his way of asking something by providing the way in which the question could be dodged. Not that Putin needs help with that. He has a lot of practice with his annual Valdai Club's meetings, Direct Lines and call-in shows. All of this while witnessing Stone's anti-Americanism and admiration for everything that is Russia or Russian. In the end we do not learn anything new. To be avoided.