Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

matthijsalexander Putin is a mystery to us all. Surely he is controversial, surely he is a target of our media time and time again.I read many comments saying Stone is not 'on the ball' and too soft. Which makes perfect sense. If one does interviews over a period of time one should not press too hard or otherwise the project may cease to exist.Though I am a big fan of Colbert, I think Colbert in his interview with Stone about these interviews made a huge mistake. Colbert somehow assumes Stone had to be tougher on Putin and ask tougher questions while clearly Stone is not one to judge but tried to carefully paint a picture to the world.As far as I am concerned Stone did an amazing job. He interviews Putin as if he wants to paint a picture about his life, ideology and equally discusses political and historical events. Stone presses on issues sometimes, but never hard. He gives Putin a voice and a fair chance to explain himself.When watching this, do understand it is not Stones' DUTY or TASK to hammer or judge Putin. Why should he? He merely offers insight into the mind and life of a controversial world leader. We all know the human rights violations are going on in Russia, we all know the opinions of CNN and Fox, we all think we know that Russia is to blame for everything that goes wrong. But are our truths the truths of others? Often times it is perspective and a matter of which side of the fence we exist that determines our reality.

calvinnme Director Oliver Stone travels about with Vladimir Putin and produces four hours of "interview" time. It's not really an interview, as it shows Stone doing some interviewing and also accompanying Putin as he plays a hockey game - something he said he learned just three years before this was filmed (2015) - and as he does some judo - he holds a black belt.The thing is, Vladimir Putin comes across as an eloquent and thoughtful guy, not like the fat little dictator of North Korea who is well fed and always tries to dress "cool" but as a result just looks ridiculous. Every time Stone tries to bring up something unpleasant about either Russia past or present, Putin has an answer. Stone brings up Stalin, what a monster he was, and yet there are still statues to him. Putin brings up Napoleon and how France admits that what he did was a disgrace yet there are still statues to him. He mentions England's Oliver Cromwell and how he became a dictator and that yet there are statues to him in his home country. When questioned about gay rights in Russia, he even has a compassionate liberal answer for that. He is well versed in history and politics past and present of both the West and Russia, and never loses his cool. And remember, this guy was in the KGB from 1975 to 1990.Stone asks Putin if he has ever seen "Dr. Strangelove". Putin admits he has not. So Putin stops and takes the time to watch the movie with Stone, although from his expression - and it doesn't change much EVER - you can tell he is probably humoring him. In spite of that, at the end, Putin makes some well thought out remarks about the film that could have been forged into a superior review.The point is - this is not the guy I was expecting. Plus, you can tell he somewhat charmed Oliver Stone. If this is the same Putin that Donald Trump met, who apparently knows how to shift his presentation to his company, Trump could have easily been putty in his hands.Watch it - all four hours if you have the time - I think it will be a revelation.

sonnygoten Having seen all 4 parts, the first thing that I noted is the highly interesting differences between Putin as opposed to his Western counterparts in style of presentation. I found Putin's style to be less glamorous, less glitzy, and less artificial compared to western (read: USA) politicians. There's one scene in which he sits rather awkwardly and keeps tapping his feet, so you see his knees bobbing up and down; and another in which he keeps picking at his finger. I also found that in his manner of behavior he seemed much less desperate for approval compared to USA politicians and, rather than delivering fast one- liners that sound good, he takes his times to answer, even making pauses and wearing facial expressions that (to me) seem awkward. I don't know if he's just THAT good of an actor or if it's simply a cultural difference, and I can't judge whether the USA style is better or worse than Putin's style, but the difference in self-presentation is still very striking to me and interesting to see played out like this.Concerning the manner in which Oliver Stone conducted the interviews, I definitely liked it. They were done in a casual manner and with room for humor (I laughed my butt off at that coffee scene in the 4th part), but at the same time they allowed room for serious topics. Sometimes Oliver missed an opportunity to ask further critical questions; sometimes he tried to agree and please a bit too much to get Putin comfortable, but I liked the overall absence of any preconceived judgmental attitudes that many western journalists/interviewers have when interacting (read: arguing) with Putin. This allowed Putin to express his viewpoints in a relatively relaxed setting without the constant need to go on the defense; and it allows us viewers to make our own judgment on the man and his ideas, without being forced into adopting the viewpoint of a patronizing interviewer.My conclusion on Putin himself: There are some points that I agree with in his vision and some that I don't, and I also think that he portrayed himself and Russia in... let's just say 'highly glowing terms that are not always deserved', but that's a given considering his current position as Russian President. I absolutely love the way he insists on calling his USA counterparts "partners", though; it feels equal parts ironic, patronizing, and yet also re-conciliatory; and I'm pretty sure Putin intended it to be that multi-layered. The man definitely has a sense of humor that I can appreciate.Lastly, I should mention that I was rather shocked by some of the news segments interspersed in the interview, especially in the 3rd part; they were highly graphic in nature and I hadn't been notified of that beforehand. So, viewer discretion is advised. If you plan on showing this to children for educational purposes such as politics class, debate teams, etc. there should definitely be an adult present in the room; and, while I'm all pro-free-information-flow and pro- education, I would even then not show this to anyone under age ten, because it's graphic and it's REAL, not ketchup.