User Reviews

"Heavens Above"

Stojan (Goran Navojec) is as dull and simple as he's kindhearted. When a freak accident changing a light bulb puts a glowing halo above his head, he quickly becomes the new attraction around town. His strong-willed wife Nada (Ksenia Marinkovic) isn't at all amused about the unwanted attention amongst their neighbors. After several tries, nothing can remove the shining annoyance and turn her husband back to his former unremarkable self. Stojan, the unwilling saint, begins to like his new lifestyle and quickly turns to sinister crimes.

The protagonist Stojan can be seen as kind of a bad 'Jesus' figure as he takes on the sins of the world by rigorously committing them all. Stojan starts out as a genuinely good man. Almost a Saint. He gets rewarded with a halo. But is the halo God's mercy or just the Devil's cynical temptation? There's no direct answer to that question. He deeply suffers when his wife makes him perform a series of sins, from smaller ones to the biggest, mortal sins. She believes she's doing the right thing, she refuses to accept this as a gift from God. There are several layers of reasons for these actions. Stojan's wife Nada is, in a way, a metaphor of today's media; capable of turning any good man into a sinner. This is particularly true in transitional societies as ex-Yugoslavia, where the media became an instrument of out-of-control capitalism. The Catholic religion has 159 female saints out of 1486, a good illustration of male domination. The Eastern Orthodox religion has almost 300 female saints. St. Petka Is one of the most celebrated ones, especially in the Balkans. Besides the classic ones like giving eyesight to the blind, her miracles include one that superhero movie fans would find interesting; she could make herself invisible.

The second story of "Heavens Above" features a mentally challenged hero who worships St. Petka. He's sentenced to death and turns into a baby. However, the authorities still see him as a murderer and refuse to back off from the punishment. Some might find this story cynical. Does religion work better with the weak-minded? The point here can be that only a pure soul can see and reach God. Neoliberal capitalism simply cannot accept that art can just be the Artist's needing to say something about the world around them. That the primary goal is not to make money. The artist in "Heavens Above" sees his paintings that feed people as a curse. He wants his art to uplift people; not to fill their bellies. Unfortunately, we all are, one way or another, forced to think about that nutritious aspect. In the third chapter, after no sins managed to remove his halo, the hero turns into something that can perhaps be described as a demonic force. He becomes the president of a small East-European country. One has to be a sinner to get by in modern society. The film's metaphors widely mix religious and political agendas.

"Heavens Above" is a dark comedy told through three stories of one family and spanning over three decades (1993, 2001, 2026). The film explores the impact of miracles on modern society. Numerous characters reappear, intertwine, and affect each other's destinies in increasingly bizarre circumstances. The film delivers a wild and grotesque perspective on post-socialist eastern Europe that succeeds in showing the dark sides of progressive thinking patterns. The film revolves around a lot of religious issues and metaphors. A lot is an understatement. Maybe even a little too much for our own good. But, the film not expect the audience to understand everything. If you grow up in 'Atheist' society, in Socialism and whose sister is an Orthodox nun, they're all necessary. What's the true nature of God? Is it the one from the 'Old Testament' that punishes and asks for sacrifice or the God of love and mercy? Are we able to differ miracles as signs of God's mercy or the Devil's temptations? The 'Golden Calf' is also a really important metaphor in "Heavens Above". Is Christianity in today's world just praying to idols, money, glory, celebrities, and our hungry, selfish Egos?

While "Heavens Above" starts out as rather comical, things take a dark and dramatic turn in later chapters. As Life itself! It starts as a comedy, but the tragedy is inevitable. The film's duty is to manipulate the audience's emotions in a positive sense. This approach can be a two-edged sword. The audience is more drastically divided. But it's more a art-house films for the common working man who deserves more than simplified Hollywood or Netflix products. Sometimes the cinema's mission is to disturb the viewers. First entertain them, make them laugh, and gradually lead them into a completely different genre, making them feel uncomfortable for the laughs earlier. There are a lot of paintings and art installations scattered throughout. "Heavens Above". Each painting is a result of thorough discussions during which the film tries to envision the art through the perspective of the character, who's struggling with a severe mental disorder.

Once upon a time we had Surrealism. Today, we've superheroes. Miracles became an everyday thing, we see them all the time on the screen. But God's miracles are still all around us. Only it seems that we are no longer able to recognize them. There's one miracle in the film that unquestionably belongs only to God, and that's our will to sacrifice ourselves for someone else. It's, maybe, the biggest miracle of them all.

Written by Gregory Mann.

I've been watching film for 3 times and every time I find something new. Pretty Villages... isn't the hardest film anymore, this one is. Cause it reveals what happens to the faith when it reaches human hands. The idea of morality and ethics cannot come to life no matter how hard God tries to make the world a better place - humans are damaged goods.

If you are not into films that require you to think and talk about watching hours after, this piece of art isn't for you.

This film raises few important questions.

1. Which drugs was Dragojevic using when making it? It obviously gave him some rather creative ideas but sadly not the capacity to develop them into anything comprehensive, meaningful or even entertaining.

2. How was this movie financed? If any of it is done with tax payers' money, we would like a refund. If anything, this movie has highlighted that just because a renowned name is directing a film, even though it unites the whole Balkans, it can still be a complete waste.

Finally I would recommend to the artist to seek therapy for some traumas he obviously suffered during his formative years and to stop taking it out on the spectators in the form of unnecessary violence.

The movie is strongly related to the emotional human behavior and character of the typical Balkan man. There is a high probability that you will find it incomprehensible or worthless if you do not know the specific issues that it affects and unfolds in its story.

In an extremely professional way, the team has managed to capture the Balkan syndrome of the man who fights evil and gradually becomes part of it. The big contribution of the movie for me personally is the fact that people are getting weaker and times are getting more complicated. People are not equipped to come into life to deal with it. They are like a prepared sacrificial lamb.

In the Balkans, man confronts political regimes, faith, family, stereotypes and only then thinks about personal development. The film touches on this emotional intelligence and intergenerational connection that is often erased.

It is interesting how structurally the movie is solved like Dante's "Inferno" - it is divided into three parts, and the main character undergoes the biggest twist in the plot just like Macbeth - influenced by his wife, in Shakespeare's play of the same name. The movie is a symbiosis between fiction and domestic drama, and the acting is beyond brilliant. Maybe there is a happy ending in this situation, judge for yourself.

Knowing the complete oeuvre of Srdjan Dragojevic's filmography, this movie sadly lacks a lot to become at least a pale reflection of his early work.

In the opening 15 minutes, one thing strongly caught my attention: the acting was utterly bad, unconvincing and a bit forced and somehow everything (acting, dialogs, etc.) seemed very cheap.

Known as a kind of liberal, neo-communist, it seems that with this film he wanted to mock the concept of religion in a clumsy quasi-intellectual way.

Instead of building a strong plot, a lot of shots seem unnecessary, some characters as well, which all together makes the plot of this movie disorienting.

Inspired by Marcel Aima's short stories, Dragojevic tried to lean on his early movie success, but instead of something refreshing, we got nothing more than beating a dead horse.

Very unpleasant and disturbing movie, unlike popular Netflix titles, however with a clear message for a need of moral and ethical revolution. Movie that is hard to understand, not because visual experience, but because ignorance of inner calls.

This film is a hideous piece of work that does not deserve the title film. It may be that the oh-so-clever script writers and directors said they were telling a great story about the new development of religion in an early post-atheist society, but that is probably the overconfidence that you need to get European funding. This film cannot be beaten in terms of cheapness and assumes that it will be celebrated by today's ranks of stupid established film critics with the absurd succession of provocations and cobbled-in disgusts. So metaphors are supposed to be present here in abundance? Yes, if you see a slap in the face as a clever metaphor for a facial injury, you can look at it that way. So this film is supposed to be cinematic art? Yes, if performance art expresses itself on the street, for example, when the "artist" kills a passer-by, then this film is the cineastic equivalent. Just stupid and disgusting and repulsive, with no added value or cinematic streak. Of course, the makers can now sit back and bask in their arrogance, while they are happy that the viewer does not understand their film. Should they only. That doesn't save their film either. The movie isn't about anything other than being a big gross nastiness and then selling that as art. Nobody needs that. I'd rather watch a year in an endless loop Transformer Part 57 than this junk. If this director should get European funding again, one thing is certain: The arrogance of filmmakers in Europe can no longer be surpassed and European film is in its last breath. This film does not deserve the name of this art direction. Definitely 0 out of 10 stars, if not -10, or something like that. Unfortunately, you can only give 1 star in the worst case. Oh dear oh dear oh dear ...

The movie was not quite what I've expected, but the good things is - it exceeded my expectations. Very good portrayal of living in Balkans and its value system.

Another great movie from great director! So far Dragojevic never disapointed and with every movie he makes step further in art that he is creating! Proud of him.

Long after the credits roll, you'll be questioning the ending and mulling over the tough, important themes. One of the most interesting move I've seen in 2021.

The movie could be basically separated into three parts. The first part was for me the most enjoyable and comical. This was the part of which the trailer was also introduced with. So I really didn't know that the movie would be sliced up like that. The first part introduces a man who suddenly gets a halo on his head and the family stars to remove it any way they could. The other two parts were basically like two other movies which had nothing to do with the beginning. So I really don't understand why to make 3 different movies when you've got a nice idea for the first part. I really don't know why this movie was over 2 hours long, it just didn't work for me. I'm really sad because I loved the first part and the movie would get at least 8 stars of 10 if they would have continued from there or stopped the movie at 80 minutes or so.