Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

John Brooks This film receives such good reviews now because it is the movie-going, pseudo-intellectual clique that rates and comments it. This film gets all its power from status and fame: written originally by Kafka, directed and interpreted by Orson Welles, starring every oddball's beloved (and admittedly great actor) Anthony Perkins. If this doesn't smell like pseudo-intellectual cinematic elitism, nothing ever will.This film, as all which lack any heart or girth at the core, focuses on acting (Perkins fantastic, rest very good too), strong cinematography, and atmosphere. And yet, not everything that glitters is gold. This is a case of shape rather than depth, form over content, exterior vs inside, artifice better than true quality. This here is the narrative of the film rather than the film itself: a film should have a great point and a great conclusion, but should also have...well, a great film ! This here is just plain boring because once one has appreciated the eerie atmosphere of empty, humanless landscapes, the absurd in the works, the strange characters etc... there isn't anything left to digest but lengthy, lengthy intervals of futile dialog, never an ounce of symbolism or worthwhile depth, just a ton of the self-indulgent, steady-paced same old exchanges. The so-called tension is never really there, and the tagline "the logic of a nightmare" just never incarnates in the film. The introductory little cartoon sets the tone for a masterpiece with a wealth of symbolism and deep literary purpose, and the first 40 minutes are very good and intriguing; but how quickly the film loses itself in a weak effort to further its plot and in stead dwells in a little puddle of self-absorbed irrelevance only ultra-specific fans could find to their liking. There's no universal appeal whatsoever - this film is like a severe case of the 'fish in a bowl', never lifting its head up for awareness; just totally absorbed into its technical little project, and even in its absurdity certainly could've used some clarity. The point, the narrative of the film are good; not the film.

souplipton The Trial is Orson Welles' attempt to adapt Franz Kafka's tale to the silver screen, and the success of that adaptation is an interesting case. The film's visual style and atmosphere are impeccable, but its plot seems to be tenuously put together. This is not surprising, as the source material was never completed by Kafka, and was never intended to be published. The book was assembled after his death by his executor out of the unordered (and sometimes unfinished) chapters which Kakfa had written. The adaptation deals with this by playing the tale as very surreal, which is brought out most excellently by the sets. Welles used an abandoned train station to construct his giant spacious sets, which evoke strange responses with their industrial decay, open work places of endless repetition, and claustrophobia. All the settings are strange and off-putting in the best of ways. The cinematography too is incredible, with exaggerated and unrealistic lighting picked up by the canted and unusual angles to create an unsettling effect. The cast also works wonderfully, as Perkins gives one of his best performances as the protagonist Joseph K. The filmic aspects of the work are all wonderfully executed, but the film doesn't quite pull it off. This is due to the problems with adapting a work which was itself unfinished. However, this shortcoming can be overlooked, as this is one of Welles' best works, a daring work of cinema to be enjoyed and appreciated.

SimonJack "The Trial" is a 1962 abstract film from an abstract script based on an abstract novel. Franz Kafka (1883-1924) is the Czech-German author of the book, and Orson Welles accounts for the rest of the abstractions and then some. Welles wrote the screen version for "The Trial," directed the movie, and then starred as a supporting actor. Welles is true to Kafka's existentialist weirdness in this adaptation for the movie. But I find it as difficult to take – or enjoy, as I did any of Kafka's works we read in school. Welles's set design and cinematography fit aptly the surreal story situation and lend further to its unevenness. One thing that puzzles me is why Welles changed the very end. With his penchant for daring, unusual, mysterious and even shock situations, Welles changed the book's ending. Instead of a crescendo to the film, which the book's ending would have been, the changed one in the film is almost silly. The acting is quite good all around, with Anthony Perkins especially good as Josef K. Other technical aspects of the film are very good. The choice of filming in black and white rather than color will become obvious to viewers who may not otherwise be familiar with Kafka's writing or Welles's work. It's interesting that Kafka wrote "The Trial" during 1914-15, but it wasn't published until after his death, in 1925. I'm not a literary expert or critic, and can't understand the adulation among some for Kafka's work. It's weird, bland and cold, hard to makes sense of in places, and surely not enjoyable. This film has a relatively high IMDb viewer rating and a sizable number of users who have rated it. From other reviews, I can only guess that many are people who enjoy so-called "art" films of today. But, unless you are among that group, you're not very likely to find this movie very entertaining.

rooprect Alas, poor "Citizen Kane". There's no doubt that it is a glorious achievement, but every critic likes to say "it's not Welles' best." Ebert says his best is "Chimes at Midnight", Bogdonovich says "Othello". And if it's not obvious from my title, I say it's "The Trial"."The Trial" is certainly one of the most powerful films I've seen in my life, definitely one of the most artistic, and without a doubt a perfect 10 in my mind. As a longtime fan of Kafka's nightmarish yet entertaining dark satires, I have to say no one has ever captured the spirit of a writer nor the heart of a novel as well as this.Kafka's book is a thick satire of not just human justice but also intrinsic human nature: in particular, humanity's ridiculous capacity to surround itself with bureaucracies, hypocrisies and self-serving hierarchies in order to undermine simple truth. And how else would you depict something so painfully ridiculous? Through absurdity. What makes it fun is Kafka's oblique humor and dreamlike presentation, and Orson Welles was just the person to bring it to the big screen. Both the book and the movie are like a twisted "Alice in Wonderland", or maybe as Welles said, it has a deliberate flavor of Grimm.That's not to say it's oppressive to the viewer. On the contrary, the sets are enormous and airy, the approach is calm, almost serene, and some of the witty banter had me laughing out loud as if the script were straight out of "Spinal Tap". Indeed, Nigel's "these go to 11" scene would've fit perfectly alongside the inspector's "Ovular isn't a word" routine here. All of this grandeur, absurdity and irony is carefully designed to convey to us, as Thoreau once said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation."Also, if you notice this sort of thing, we have Orson Welles' signature long camera takes which move gracefully from set to set, speaker to speaker, creating a haunting feeling as if we the observers are invisible ghosts in the drama, experiencing everything in real time. The rhythm of the actors as well as the changing sets flows magically. I can't imagine how much choreography went into each scene, not to mention expert timing by all the actors, lighting and camera operators.The soundtrack, consisting mostly of Albinoni's Adagio in G minor (a sadly overlooked classical piece, used in "Rollerball" and an episode of "Space:1999") creates a mood that is both depressing and beautiful. Occasionally the music cuts to some frenzied jazz riffs, and sometimes we get pure silence, showing how Welles not only had the eye of a great visual artist and director, he also had the ear of a very capable musician.Anthony Perkins never got the credit he deserved for portraying the protagonist Josef K. In an interview, Welles blames himself for Perkins' reception, saying he told Perkins to play the role in a complex & unpopular way. Welles believed that Kafka didn't intend Josef K to be a plain "Everyman" such as whom we'd immediately sympathize with, but rather, Josef K is, himself, a corporate ladder-climber who exhibits the same absurd & neurotic tendencies as the human machine he is up against. I happen to agree with Welles' interpretation, and I think Perkins did a fantastic job of acting the part. Just keep that in mind if you start to think Perkins portrayal is bizarre: it's all part of the story.I could go on for ages about the lighting, cinematography and direction, but I'll summarize in one word: phantasmagoric. To spare you a trip to the dictionary like I have to make whenever I see that word, I'll give you Webster's definition: "1. having a fantastic or deceptive appearance, as something in a dream or created by the imagination" but in particular: "2. having the appearance of an optical illusion" and "3. changing or shifting, as a scene made up of many elements." Through the use of large sets and props with exaggerated proportions, and through the use of deep camera shots showing uniform patterns extending into the distance, Welles creates that unnatural, illusory scene which is both infinite and suffocating at the same time. Long camera shots pass through varied locations and incompatible architecture, not to mention frequent use of Welles' trademark mirrors (as he jokes, the primary tool of any magician), reaffirming the feel of a grand illusion throughout the entire film. And that is the point of the film as well as the book: that human society has built for itself a grand illusion that is perpetuated by the powers that be.As much as I'm floored by Welles' achievement, I can't recommend this film to everyone. It is for people who have a cynical take on humanity, not for people who want a bright, Ron- Howard-esque experience. After seeing this film I realize how much it has influenced filmmakers like Terry Gilliam ("Brazil"), Mike Nichols ("Catch-22"), Jeunet/Caro ("City of Lost Children") and even Kubrick ("2001: A Space Odyssey") and the countless filmmakers they in turn have influenced. If you're a fan of any of those filmmakers & films, you absolutely must see "The Trial".