This is my first time posting a review, but I felt that this picture in particular needs the introduction that I can give to it:

When initially asked if I would recommend this film I responded, "Ah, recommend? ... I don't think so." In retrospect, I think that it can be appreciated, provided that one understands the viewpoint of its Israeli writer/director.

I'll digress briefly to address the elephant in the room: Richard Gere. I was initially offended that he was allowed to (and that he had the gall to) play a Jew, but he was actually very good in the role. Without chewing the scenery, he showed that he's a talented actor who can "just go into character," and for him "less is more."

Now, there are two main points I think every viewer needs to know: First, it's a very Israeli movie (and that's what it is); you either know what that means or you simply do not. And, secondly, Israelis are looking for "the message" or "the lesson" of the film, which isn't clear, and most complain that "it has no plot." Non-Israelis, on the other hand, are left asking themselves if there are gaping holes in the film that are just not filled in, and thus find it "very confusing" or "totally unrealistic." I, however, understand what the director is going for. He's seeing Israeli politics through the eyes of 90% of Israelis (who all want pretty much the same thing: "to part with the Arabs"). Through that lens, he presents the image of an ideal Israeli political candidate who's actually capable of making a difference (i.e. "peace"), and when the wheels start moving to oust him, as they do in Israel with any successful politician, our attention is focused on the internal conflict of his "Diaspora Jewish businessman" vis-à-vis whether he can be altruistic enough, or just desperate enough, to realize the greater picture and appreciate the sincere relationship he has with this great scion, and perhaps to be ready to give up the short-lived glory he can finally reap from these events and even to fall on his own sword for the sake of the greater good.

Once I realised what it was, I sat back with no vested interest in the outcome and just enjoyed it like a foibled fairytale (or a story submitted by a child) portrayed onscreen by an A-list cast.

Without actively recommending it, I'm just telling the public what it is. A fourth-to-sixth grader's story (including that child's perception of reality and wishful thinking) presented by an A-list cast ... in which, if any of it were to happen then this is actually how it would play out. When you accept that this is the case, that you're missing nothing and that this is how Middle East politics actually plays out on the ground (that's right, you're not missing anything, this really is the circus of politics in Israel as it's portrayed in this film), then maybe you can sit back and allow yourself to enjoy it too.

Talk about a little-under-the-radar wonder!

The trailer for Norman (or: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer as its full title tells us what will occur) seems like this will be a sort of comic take on what one might've seen in Michael Clayton - or, as it becomes more apparent as time goes on in the movie (and by time I mean a few minutes) Better Call Saul's Jimmy - that this is a 'fixer', or a guy who will do what needs/must/wants to be done by any given businessman or individual or, as the Norman Oppenheimer (Gere) of the title suggests, other consultants who consult the consultants (as he is).

It turns out to have some laughs here and there, but really this is a drama and one of almost (or just) Talmudic proportions. This is a story set in New York City but also concerns Israeli politics (up to a point, sort of, just deep enough for us to know that "peace" is possible somehow due to this one guy, Micha Eschel (Lio Ashkenazi), who manages to ascend to prime minister of the country and who Norman is considered a "close friend". Or, really, almost a close friend, as Micha trusts him while his other advisers don't; they met under circumstances that Norman basically, literally, chased down, following Micha when he was an assistant to an assistant to the PM, and bought him a pair of ludicrously expensive shoes. For the moment of grimacing Norman has ends up paying off for him a mountain of connections, which is what he's all about... though it's not all on the up and up exactly.

This is a story that concerns how Norman, as well as the other characters, try to act (or decidedly don't act) moral or even fair in the circumstances. For Norman, it's all about first getting this one connection with Micha, and once he gets it, it seems like it should be all gravy. But Norman is also as Jewish people say a "Macha", someone who can run a big game through talk but may not be the most trustworthy person. Like with 'Saul', it's hard for us not to feel in Norman's corner because of how much of a hustler he is, and movie characters like this have an innate sympathy: despite the shady ways (or even because of it, that they're on the edge, an underdog, at worst an anti-hero), we want Norman to be the best of the "Normans" out there. And then comes the Jewish Synagogue and Steve Buscemi's Rabbi (yes, he's a Rabbi, and it's awesome), and things take more twists and turns.

Joseph Cedar's script is sharp as a tack, but I was also impressed by the visual side of the film; Norman's on a train coming back from a DC event at one point and we see lots and lots of heads floating in the window of the moving train, and it's amazing how he is able to manage this sequence that could've been out of Capra or something (maybe a cinematic forefather of this sort of morality fable). And at the heart of it is Gere as Norman, making him so vital and amusing at times, but then also so sympathetic and sad and going across all the emotions that's necessary - and then some! If you've wondered where Gere's been for a while, there's the Dinner and then there's this. The latter is among his top, top performances of all time.

Add on a wonderfully ambiguous ending and a thrilling final act, and you got a sleeper, buddy.