The film is a masterpiece of audiovisual art, a delicious experiment where, through a perfect soundtrack and a game of sequences, the logos merges with the mythos. The staging is daring, unique, transgressive and above all magical. A play of light and shadow transports us to a fantasy theater that we will never see or shape. The only hint we are given of the setting is with the American-style opening of the curtain. The film plays with disorientation (as in a magic trick) from the first second, where the fourth wall is broken.
It is a unique work of its kind, combining reality with animation, theater with cinema, dance and classical music. It does not need a script adulterated with dialogues to flow, so it is not limited to an age or a time, which is why it has not aged almost, retaining its magic and charm. It is timeless and for all audiences. The only condition is to love art, because if you are one of those who watch movies to be entertained by their stories, without taking into account the mise-en-scène and everything that goes with it (lighting, set design, composition, camera positions...), you will not enjoy the film.
A beautiful film with a background as human as vertiginous. The themes addressed in this film are philosophical, although the film is considered as science fiction. On the other hand, the essence of Tarkovsky is evident, as in "Stalker".
I would pay and give my life to be in Solaris and thus reach the highest level of emotional maturity.
Highly recommended movie! It makes you want to live in a submarine.
Without a doubt, one of the best movies. I liked it from the first second to the last. It is one of the most important classics.
It's such a tender and touching footage... I think it's something everyone should see.
Starting from this premise, it is worth noting that, although a priori it may seem that the film is based on Stanisław Lem's novel of the same name, the truth is that Tarkovsky simply uses it as a starting point for a philosophical meditation. The Russian filmmaker obviates any scientific inquiry and basis in order to invite the viewer to meditate on the human condition by taking advantage of the moral debate about the epistemological price of many scientific advances. The latter, for example, is reflected when we are repeatedly told that solaristics is a nostalgic science, a dead end, because scientific rationality fails to make its way in the face of new ontological frontiers.
Returning to the plot, at first, the primary idea that one concludes is that Kelvin, a dogmatic, skeptical and supposedly undaunted psychologist, will travel to the remote planet to impose order on the abandoned space station. However, despite showing a suspicious character and insisting on showing a rigid idiosyncrasy sparing in words, we soon see his human side, since, he is seduced by the recreation of his ex-wife, who died of poisoning a decade ago. It is at this point that a whole range of opinions opens up about what visitors are and how they should be treated. However, Tarkovsky plays his cards very well, balancing the plot like a tightrope walker between philosophy and metaphysics, and instead of positioning the plot towards one of the cosmonauts, he shows us how a communicative crisis is opening up between them, an open wound already well known since the beginnings of philosophy and that, even with technological advances, continues to cause many headaches for great thinkers.
The good thing about this film:
• The dialogues, that is to say, the script, has a very solid previous meditation that is perfectly seen in the film.
• The photography, even though it lacks great special effects, is very neat and conveys exactly what Tarkovsky wanted to say, nothing more, nothing less.
Downsides of this film:
• This is a rather long film, and while this in itself is not a negative point, this film requires two viewings.
• The lack of scientific data can cause a huge hole in the context if one has not read the book.
• The photography is quite confusing and the chromatic choice is very ambiguous. It's hard to determine what the director wanted to convey with the use of black and white, orange, etc., the first time around. I mean, it's a somewhat frequent resource in this film, however, from the time he uses it until it appears again, the plot has moved on quite a bit and it's hard to relate the events to determine the meaning of said color. Therefore, in my opinion, it requires a second viewing.
In short, Kubrick raised his head and set his perfectionist sights on the stars and the cosmos and conquered the universe with his magnanimous 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, Tarkovsky, plausibly and elegantly, managed to stop the Odyssey with this film, showing the hidden face of science. He takes advantage of the perspective that Kubrick's cold work does not contemplate, the human side, to ridicule also how insignificant we are within the infinite chaos we call universe.
I know that for many this work is just a pseudo remake of King Kong, and that, because of this, its flamboyant splendor withered prematurely when it was ignored. One only has to compare the cultural impact between the two: only a few nostalgic vestiges of this film remain in popular culture. Needless to say, many elements are similar and the script is not new in many aspects. However, I can affirm that it is one of the great works of stop-motion, where this technique is exploited, boasting the different possibilities offered by this method of effects.
To put it in context, this film starts from the already experienced Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, who had worked together on the aforementioned film King Kong, and a young Ray Harryhausen (who would end up being the universal reference of stop-motion) who would take the reins of the special effects, resulting in a unique footage, rich in thrilling and visually powerful effects and a much more professional elaboration than the magnum opus King Kong, where the gorilla had perspective failures and had limited his movements (something totally justifiable, as it was the first film to use these effects).
A lousy script with some supra-topic sentences that delve into absolute absurdity, a hard rock soundtrack that accompanies the ridiculous action scenes amplifying the absurdity of the story, bad acting at the same level of the total conglomerate, laughable gore scenes, etc. Basically there is no other way to sum up this movie.
However, while it may seem an attack on pure reason, for a B-movie these are the perfect elements. And they behave like Euler's identity: no one would ever think that such an insanely absurd mise-en-scene would have such a balance and harmony that seems mathematical.
Although the English and Spanish version should not be different, but the truth is that the Spanish version is much better. First, the movie lasts half an hour longer, and they are not leftover scenes.
One of the first differences is that in the English version Renfield is not seen during the car trip to Dracula's castle. Later, Renfield cuts his finger with the papers that Dracula must sign. In the Spanish version we can see the fear in Renfield's face during the trip to the castle and then, he cuts the finger with the knife when he is cutting the bread and quickly approaches the finger to see the cut, however, Dracula tries to approach, but quickly he see the crucifix.
Another notable difference is that we can see the metal bars of the asylum window are bent in the Spanish version. The ship scene and theater scene are more complete too. Finally, in the English version, Dracula uses a knife to kill Renfield, but in the Spanish version he strangles him.
My favorite musical movie. It is simply perfect!
It's a beautiful love movie ... A fusion between "Casablanca" and "Sunset Boulevard"
Leonardo DiCaprio plays one of his best roles of his entire career but Brad Pitt has the coolest character in cinema. I love this film ... especially the end!
Who criticizes the movie is a stupid progressive!
One of my favorite movies of Quentin Tarantino. The plot remains constant throughout the film.
The first thing I thought when I went into the film was that it was an imitation of Ingmar Bergman's cinema: A noisy silence, the expressionism use typical of European cinema (for example, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"). However, this is not the case. It is a unique film of its own, with a totally terrifying dystopian setting. The sets are dingy, dark, and set in some gnawed and sick 1920s.
The story, in a nutshell, deals with the delusions of a man upon learning that he is the father of a "worm" son. A Kafkaesque story.
For me, although I may not have understood the film, or the nightmares of the protagonist, I am totally enraptured by the aesthetics of the film.
The beginning of the film has a humorous style that he would share next year with 'The Young Frankenstein': silly (in a good way), rogue, coming to black humor. But when we get to the end of the movie ... the plot twist turns in such a way that it looks like a movie featuring Leslie Nielsen, but even better! I mean, I think it's the craziest ending to all of Hollywood comedy.
The editing often appears abrupt, disregarding the raccord between two consecutive shots. However, instead of harming it, it imparts a remarkable touch of personality. This can be observed when Michel flirts with Patricia in his car. The editing introduces a new shot with each new flirtation, sacrificing visual continuity in a self-referential montage. In one of his attempts to steal cars, Michel disappears running from right to left in one shot, only to reappear from the left in the next, contrary to the recommendations of classical norms.
On the other hand, the realistic treatment of sound is sacrificed. Sound effects (such as gunshots) and the music used vary in volume and realism between shots. This is a consequence of the technical equipment employed.
It's worth noting that in some scenes, characters address the audience, as seen at the beginning of the film when Michel turns to the camera to address the audience (which is known as breaking the fourth wall): "If you don't like the beach, if you don't like the mountains...". And at the end, when he declares, "I'm fed up and tired," in a kind of public confession that marks the final outcome, leading to his death.
Moreover, the film frequently employs narrative elements that make explicit references to the plot. Typically, these are titles appearing on cinema posters introduced in close-ups clearly alluding to the film's resolution. On another occasion, as Michel and Patricia enter the cinema with a close-up of them kissing, the dialogue from the projected film is heard, containing explicit references to one of the key themes: the impossibility of love.
To conclude, something that not many people know is that Raoul Coutard, the director of photography, recounted that Jean-Luc Godard expressed the decision to depart from conventional practices during filming, opting for the use of natural light. In the film selection process, Coutard mentioned Ilford HPS as his preferred choice. Upon consulting Ilford in England, they were informed that HPS film was not available for cinema, only for photography. The factory produced 17.5-meter film strips for photography, with different perforations than those of cinema cameras.
Faced with this limitation, Godard decided to splice multiple 17.5-meter strips to form film reels, using the Cameflex camera with perforations more similar to Leica. Despite professional skepticism, this choice was implemented. Additionally, to enhance results with HPS, experiments were conducted with the photo developer phenidone. In collaboration with chemist Dubois from GTC laboratories, they successfully doubled the emulsion sensitivity.
However, a challenge arose when attempting to develop the film in a phenidone bath, as GTC laboratories faced technical limitations. The laboratory machines were set to process 3000 meters of film per hour, all using the same bath according to Kodak standards. Although Godard requested special treatment for his 1000 meters in 24 hours, the laboratories initially refused due to incompatibility with their standard procedures.
Luck favored the production, as GTC laboratories had an unused machine, designated for tests, which allowed the development of the Ilford films in a bath designed by themselves, with the flexibility to manage time at their discretion. Coutard emphasized that the worldwide success of "À bout de souffle" is undoubtedly attributed to Godard's imagination, his decision-making at the right moment, and also to Godard's determination in splicing pieces of 17.5-meter Ilford film, miraculously securing the use of a machine at GTC laboratories.
The use of high-sensitivity film allows, consequently, shooting in natural indoor and outdoor settings with minimal additional lighting, resulting in a photograph with grain yet sharpness that resembles the tones of "american black" (noir films) often referred to. But it's not merely an "aesthetic touch"; it's about capturing these natural spaces as documentary images, as manifestations of life in its development (there are numerous outdoor shots where pedestrians look at the camera with curiousity), within an authentic, unaltered context that corresponds to recognizable places, identified by the viewer as part of their own life.
In Spain, in 2018, dozens of priests were accused of the same. Do you know what happened? NOTHING. It is now to eradicate that piece of s ... I have not lived that, but ... even so the movie has made me cry.
I find it truly fascinating how the film's almost total absence of establishing shots does not prevent us from understanding the plot. Bresson, as did Carl Th. Dreyer and other filmmakers, has shown that narrative and direction can be just as effective, if not more so, than an abundance of situational shots. It is a shining example of how cinema can tell a story in a unique and memorable way.
It is also worth noting that Bresson believed in an austere, minimalist style of filmmaking, far from pompous sets, where traditional acting, with professional actors, often came across as artificial and affected. For him, the camera and its ability to capture reality were essential to telling a story. Or to put it another way, if the world is a shadow on the wall of the Platonic cave, the cinematograph allows us to go back to the reality of the Idea, because it captures that shadow; it does not imitate it.
What the hell…!! If this movie was made now, I would have called it "Grand Theft Auto: The Movie"
One of the best mystery movies I have ever seen. Watching this movie, you can't doubt - or so I think - that Lynch was influenced by Kubrick's The Shining: The surreal pastel colors notorious in Dorothy Vallens' room, the room where the child is being held, Detective Tom Gordon's yellow suit ... The symmetrical planes and frontal perspectives that Kubrick abused throughout the career and that proved to be useful for creating tension due to the feeling of unreality they generate… In short, a masterpiece, above Eyes Wide Shut also by Kubrick.
I don't understand how some Spanish newspapers, in the cinema section, they talk about this movie as Kubrick's most boring and pretentious work. I can understand that they don't like it, but say it's a horrible movie, no. I have no knowledge in the matter, but I don't need studies to know what is a MASTERPIECE.
It's one of the prettiest movies I've ever seen: colors, landscapes, clothes... Everything is in harmony, it's like watching a lively canvas. The script is beautiful and the plot is very deep.
There have been some film critics who have expressed unfavorable opinions about Cerrar los ojos, the latest work by Víctor Erice. However, contrary to the views of these critics of the TikTok generation and immediate consumption, this film conceals a great masterpiece. While it is true that its extensive duration, nearly three hours long, can be challenging, at times one perceives, amidst the frequent use of fade-to-black transitions, a sense that fragments have been omitted, as if part of the footage is missing to complete the narrative. Nevertheless, the real challenge can be appreciated from the very beginning, from the shot of the statue depicting the dual nature of man, both young and mature, simultaneously. Here, the film delves deep into symbolism; in essence, it is not a work designed for immediate consumption.
The evolution of this film is tranquil and remains true to Erice's essence. However, in his many references to classic cinema, specifically European cinema, one can discern a naturalistic approach, perhaps as a homage, which was not as evident in his previous works. In Erice's work, color is subordinated to reality rather than being an exercise in artistic chrominance, while in Garay's work, the characteristic grain of celluloid and the vibrant aesthetics of Technicolor are apparent. Music, for Erice, assumes a purely diegetic role, complementing the film in the sung moments with its verses, except when we contemplate La mirada del adiós, the work of the character director, where non-diegetic music is chosen. On the other hand, while Garay, in what little we glimpse, connects shots through music and crossfades, Erice frequently opts for fade-to-black transitions. This distinction between the real and the fictional directors is an intelligent display of cinematic language and extradiegetic significance that enhances the value of the film.
Furthermore, it is intriguing to note that Cerrar los ojos does not deviate significantly from the narrative structure of El Sur (allow me to digress personally: I felt that the film was going to end without a conclusion, much like what happened in his previous work). The theme of time, which was already hinted at in earlier works such as El sol del membrillo, persists as a recurring thread in Erice's filmography. This persistence suggests an unceasing quest into the temporal and emotional depths, an exploration that is poetically and reflectively expressed in his latest cinematic creation. Additionally, the use of existing films as a narrative thread, as he did in El espíritu de la colmena with the film Frankenstein, reveals a recurrent inclination in his work towards intertextuality and the exploration of the deeper layers of cinematic art.
Nonetheless, returning to my critical perspective, and in disagreement with those critics who belittle this film, I pose a question: How would the films of Bresson and Dreyer appear if they were made today? The acting, the use of color and lighting, the types of shots, would not differ significantly from what Erice presents to us. This comparison with the masters arises from the phrase that accompanies the conclusion of the film: "Miracles in cinema ceased to exist when Dreyer died."
In conclusion, this film invites us to contemplate the evolution of cinematography in relation to its predecessors, the passage of time itself, humanistic happiness versus individualism, while simultaneously seeking the miracle of cinema within cinema, the yearning for a metamiracle of cinema!
For starters, I think this movie, while not from the classic Hollywood era, is the pure definition of noir cinema. The setting, both climatologically and geographically speaking, is attractive. The protagonist, Philip Marlowe, is very well defined: he has a personality that engages the public, perfect eloquence, an unbeatable look. All of this plus Elliott Gould's facial expressions makes it easy to sympathize with the protagonist. On the other hand, the plot seems simple at first, however, then there begin to be many loose ends. This made me lose easily nevertheless everything is resolved in the end, making the end not so obvious.
Curious fact: In the poster, Philip is seen using a revolver, but in the film he never has one. On the cover of the DVD, he carries a gun, but in the background they have put the beach, something that is not correct either. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost sure not!
If you are looking for fun, it is not your movie, but, on the other hand, if you want to do an examination of conscience, yes. Not suitable for sensitive.
To begin with, the film shows us a dystopian Mars far from the paradise that technological progress has promised us (which is why it takes place exactly in the year 2084, a century after Orwell's famous dystopia). Martian society is so degenerate that the same viewer could confuse the red planet with a slum of a metropolis of the 70's if it were not for the futuristic setting and characterization. This is where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character comes into play. He will have the opportunity to change the society of retrograde despotism that has imprisoned the Martians, and thus free the planet from machismo and violence (something we would later see on the big screen with Sin City).
Regarding the structure of the film, it is a clear example of a monomyth: it goes through all the stages of development of the circle (this makes the film predictive in a way, but only in a few points, since the screenplay structure is well disguised with many mindfucks). However, you don't need to know this scheme to be able to predict this movie: this movie has a Chekhov's gun in the most James Bond style: a suitcase with different gadgets that the hero will sooner or later end up using.
The setting is magnificent and the use of CGI is minimal. This is something I really appreciate, as many movies end up collapsing like sand castles because of derisory and abusive computer-generated images, and even more so the movies of the last century, because such technology was still young (note the first Resident Evil movie or Mortal Kombat).
To conclude, it has very few touches of humor, so it is not a comedy, however, I laughed more with the few humorous parts of this movie than with many comedies.
Summarizing: It is a movie that I liked a lot, maybe because it is a young movie and I have seen it at a good age, maybe because it has a certain inclination towards science fiction.
Herzog's masterpiece. The truth is that the mise-en-scéne in the film is very powerful and has a choice of very daring shots that manages to disturb and even terrify the viewer. However, in my opinion, the soundtrack is not memorable and perhaps it detracts a little from the final result, but it is a personal opinion. On the other hand, this film is not entirely faithful to Bram Stoker's book and that can be seen it in some points of the story, where it is somewhat more abstract and personal. Another point I see where the story is weak is in supposed Chekhov's weapon, at the beginning of the film: When Jonathan arrives in Transylvania, at the inn he is given a Bible and a cross, however, Dracula manages to bite him even with the cross around his neck.
In short, I have enjoyed this film as much as the original 1922
The best zombie movie I've seen. The plot in the mall is perfect.
It is one of the most significant science-fiction works of all time and the most important space opera in the world. This film marked a before and after in the culture and history of cinema, as it was an important link in the creation of geek communities (not in a bad way) and cinematic universes. This, although it may seem pejorative, was an important step in history, because, just as in past centuries people of different cultures and ages created social bonds based on a common religion, this film triggered something similar. Many young people of that time, and even today, have created friendships based on a common geek passion. Not only that. This movie went beyond the cinematic world to splash into other niche markets such as video games, board games, clothing with slogans, etc., even household appliances, something that was not so usual back then.
However, despite being a timeless work that endures with splendor even in our times, this film was shot in 1977, at a time when special effects were still handcrafted and "primitive", a time when many illusions were made with models and not with CGI. These special effects may perhaps seem simple and somewhat obsolete if judged with digital presentism, but they were quite an audiovisual feat. In other words, it could be said that it is the result of the purest heritage of movie magic, a long journey that begins in Europe with the first films (which were also science fiction) of the early twentieth century.
Unfortunately, despite the respect I have for George Lucas, I think he has made a terrible mistake by using CGI. In case anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, nowadays it's quite difficult to see the original movie, as it was released in theaters. All the ingenuity behind it has been mutilated and overwritten by digital generation of images that, although a priori it may seem to improve, for me it contributes absolutely nothing. It is a shame that one of the most important films in history has ended up as a palimpsest.
But what the hell is this ... It's the sickest, weirdest and grossest movie I've seen in a long time, however, it has something that made me stick to the chair ... I no longer know whether to consider myself a fair and sane person.
The movie is quite unpleasant, in a good way. I mean, the effects of the mutation are very good. The story is quite different from the Simpsons version (my reference), making it more terrifying. It is one of the few films that has disgusted me and made me feel scared by science.
It is one of the best B movie of Science fiction together with Re-Animator (1985)…
