ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Orpheas I was not ever really attracted to Theo Agelopoulos work, until I saw this film. I actually decided to watch it because of the appearance of great international actors in it. Oh well, this movie is like watching an elaborate theatrical stage production. It really feels like you are in the theater, it does not feel like a movie. It has that stage drama vibe. Mesmerizing. You will definitely also love the cinematography on this one. I am not joking when I say that you can actually freeze frame and print screen every frame on this movie! The colors and the perspective, the light and shadows, the objects, everything is like a moving painting. I got no idea what kind of genius is required to do so, but Agelopoulos has done it! The story is easy to follow, but as you expect from a European production is very delicate and presented with flashbacks and allegories.If you are a person who likes Hollywood movies, then I suggest you skip this. If you are in to European cinema, then this movie is for you. And if you are interested in Art, painting, mesmerizing visual images and theater, then you should really should watch this movie!

smarchives-393-25232 Really desperately disappointing film. Viewed it because Willem Davoe was involved. He appears in this as a rather diminutive man attempting to gain height and volume by displaying a vast growth of hair and always wearing a wide-shouldered, heavy-weather anorak. But I could tolerate this. The film has a plot which attempts a murky exploration of Totalitarianism and the predicament of those caught on the wrong side. It is of child-book, comic-book depth. But again I could put up with that. It is the quality of the direction and the acting which makes this film such an embarrassment. It was abysmal - so poor that I cannot understand why any Producer would have undertaken such a project. But there is one positive feature. Students of film can learn from this how ideological determination and money, combined, can be used to virtually convince the world that a 'work of art' has been produced.

runamokprods Like all of this great director's challenging work, I have a feeling this will improve with repeated viewings, as the sometimes disparate story stands make their connections more clear. On first look I found this full of thrilling moments and beautiful images (as one comes to take for granted with Angelopoulos), as well as a terrific, fun and heartbreaking performance by Bruno Ganz. However, I also found myself more lost than usual, even being used to Angelopoulos' complex, time, place and style shifting style. At the end of the day I felt unsure how it all added up, or even that the pieces really did all fit. Not unlike an earlier poster I felt a bit like I was watching someone else trying to do a film in Angelopoulos' style, and not quitepulling it off. That's perhaps a bit harsh. but there's some truth in it. It felt less sure handed than I'm used to. Character motivations and story choices felt forced or distractingly hard to buy. Even when Angelopoulos' earlier films confused me the viewer, I always felt strongly that the film-maker was never confused, he knew just how and why the pieces fit together, intellectually, thematically and emotionally. This time I wasn't quite as sure.

jimdandylove when you love & admire a very unique way of intellectual storytelling combined with an inimitable visionary style plus transmitting metaphorically encoded historical &/or political messages or agendas, that will crucially influence the persons involved, then you have to be in great anticipation as soon as a new film by angelopoulos is announced. he certainly is in a league of his own when it comes to auteurist masterworks: the travelling players, Alexander the great, the hunters, voyage to kythera, landscape in the mist, are undoubtedly movies of unparalleled beauty & expressiveness. of course, you may criticize the one-sidedness of his recurring theme (greek history in the 20th century intervening & intertwining with the individual fates of angelopoulos' protagonists) or the lack of depth or even shallowness of his characters (they seem hollow because they usually represent archetypes & not persons per se), and an irritating tendency to allow his actors bursts into melodramatic gestures & exclamations: minor flaws you quickly forget, because you are drawn into a cinematic maelstrom you don't want to miss. angelopoulos' last achievement though, the dust of time, second film of the so called "trilogia" following the weeping meadow, is a major disappointment i am still recovering from (if you don't mind the hypochondriac touch of my saying so). i saw the movie at the film museum munich, shortly after it premiered in Germany at the berlinale 2009. since angelopoulos obviously denied permission for screening (the film museum hosted an angelopoulos-retrospective, having the dust of time making the final contribution) a projection of the DVD-version was shown instead, with the expected harrowing results. a double-no-go, the organizers at film museum are to blame for: you just don't show an angelopoulos-movie made in 35mm as a DVD beamed on the screen, it's like a diluted premier cru from château Margaux. but the lousy quality of the screening was matched by two hours of what I would mildly call a failed attempt by angelopoulos to make an angelopoulos-movie: it is pretentious & cliché-ridden, it tries to operate on multiple levels none of which has enough substance to either carry the storyline or to make us sympathize with its protagonists. while watching the movie one is constantly reminded that it just wants too much & achieves almost nothing. at least, you may admire the tremendous effort involved in orchestrating the mass-scenes, but you can't get rid of the feeling that this & some remarkably symbolic shots are not enough to rank this higher than average. besides, i haven't seen a movie in a long time that throws its actors' massive talents that easily overboard. of course, you may give it a try, it's an angelopoulos' film, but i do bid you welcome to the club of "the disappointed cineast".