GertrudeStern Stumbling out of the theater, my friend said in a small voice, "I think that was even stranger than Hourglass Sanatorium".This one follows a cast of characters comprising a family whose given names are evocative of literary figures, ways of being, and pretty objects. Unsurprisingly, the character Ulysses is on a rambling quest to find something that may not exist at all -- an adumbrate vision of his wife Hyacinth. Oh, and all he has to do is make it from the first floor of his house to the third.March (crawl, duck, run) behind them while they are sometimes nude, scraping at things, or shaking dice (there's a joke about masturbation in here somewhere), navigating their bilious house that has a ton of locked doors and a mess of floating dust particles, which -- I'm going out on a limb -- are probably metaphor for the thickness of whatever it is that came between them.My favorite thematic preoccupation lies in Maddin's stirring portrayal of the fuzzy line between life and death, with figures floating in and out of the frame (and existence), incorporating themselves into deadly vanishing-vignettes that keep recurring, and, corporeal, positioning themselves in zones of the house and grounds that Maddin somehow conveys to the audience are "dead space".

gavin6942 Gangster and deadbeat dad, Ulysses Pick (Jason Patric), embarks on an unusual journey through his home, in a noir ghost story that draws on Homer's Odyssey. Guy Maddin is an unusual man, whose styles are interesting and some would say unique. Keep in mind this is a man who, ten years prior, made "The Heart of the World" (2000) in the style of Russian constructivism. And it worked.This time around, there is a cheesy, low budget feel with less-than-stellar acting, at least at the beginning. (The low budget look may be because Maddin shot Keyhole digitally rather than his usual method of shooting on 16mm or Super-8mm.) Things get better as they go, especially once the acting chops of Isabella Rossellini and Udo Kier are brought into the picture.Ebert wrote, "Keyhole plays like a fever dream using the elements of film noir but restlessly rearranging them in an attempt to force sense out of them. You have the elements lined up against the wall, and in some mercurial way, they slip free and attack you from behind." Wow. Those are some words, Roger. Not sure exactly what you mean, but mysteriously such a review fits this film nicely.

bob the moo I won't say I "like" Guy Maddin in the sense that I am a fan, but for sure his name makes me consider watching a film because while I normally find them difficult to follow or fully appreciate, they usually offer so much that is of interest that they are worth a look. His style is something quite unique to him and sometimes he is so unique that his target audience can appear to be only himself and if the rest of us like it too then so be it. I say this because this is sort of the case here and I hope he really likes Keyhole but I would struggle to think of too many people who would really understand it or enjoy it as he would.There are lots of ideas here and lots of style to deliver them. A gangster and his gang hold up in an old house while the police wait outside; the gang want to know the plan but Ulysses Pick is more concerned with working his way through this house full of ghosts one room at a time. As an idea it is a good one – a man on a journey through himself by virtue of literally confronting the ghosts in his house. It appealed to me as an idea because it offered so much of interest in the hands of Maddin (who is known for his surreal imagery and films constructed around real or imagined or perceived pasts). Sadly it doesn't come off and it ends up feeling like an idea that was probably fully fleshed out in Maddin's head but not in a way that he was able to translate to film.The result is a film that feels clever but all too often does it in a remote "art student" manner where it is happy doing what it wants because it is your fault if you are not smart enough to understand and appreciate all the hidden meaning in the symbolism. It is a shame because there is a good cast here in Patric, Rossellini and Kier but I wonder do even they really understand what it going on – I hope not, because if they did then they didn't do much to share it with the viewer.A disappointing film then; it offers much in the concept but in the delivery it seems far too closed off and full of randomness with no threads or cues to really help the viewer keep up or go along. Maddin is usually worth a look but here it isn't the case.

lathe-of-heaven Usually I do not go out of my way to give poor reviews; if I don't like a film, normally I just don't bother.But...Since I AM an avid fan of Surreal, Abstract, and vague Art films, I felt that I really should leave some comments. Seriously, I really LOVE David Lynch, Jean De Cocteau, and even some Jodorowsky, etc. But this film... Well, it quite honestly left me flatter than Chaz Bono.I mean, I really do like way out SUPER weird films, I do. But in this film, all I see are a bunch of quick, senseless edits, constant repetitive shots of people squawking, and just a TOTAL mishmash of noise and images. To me, THE key element missing here is that there is NO real atmosphere or mood at all. ZERO, at least for me personally... When a movie simply doesn't move you or do anything for you, then all you are left with is a feeling that it is completely meaningless and that it has no emotional or entertainment value. At least that is the way it made me feel after watching it. It just didn't resonate with me.For example, let's say in 'ERASERHEAD', you have many, MANY long scenes where it seems like nothing is happening and so on the surface it LOOKS like just long, static shots. BUT... and it is a BIG BUT like Mariah Carey's... There is MOOD pouring and dripping from every damn frame. Intensity with layers of underlying tension in the soundtrack. The lighting is to die for, etc., etc., etc... But, with this film, you get NONE of that. YES, there are individual shots that could be viewed as nice set pieces, but the way they are all put together (or rather, NOT put together) ends up having no real impact at all. Cinematically, atmospherically, or in any other way really...I DO respect the fact, though, that others here apparently really do like the film. In some way that I do not understand, it resonates with them as an authentic artwork and does indeed DO something for them personally. I guess whatever it is that others ARE relating to in this film, must be going right over me and I'm just not seeing whatever it is that they see in this movie. I suppose what you can take from this is that if you are like me and you like your Surrealism / Art Films to be more ponderous and indirect and more heavily laced with a deep moodiness such as David Lynch's 'ERASERHEAD' or 'MULHOLLAND DRIVE' where you appreciate the silences and pauses. and where there is more of a dark, PALPABLE appeal to the subconscious, then you may not like this film where there is more of a superficial feel, with frenetic editing and imagery, that at least in my lowly opinion, is much more obvious and crude with big, fat, old, naked men lying on the floor with their little wee wee's and fat bellies hanging out and quick close-ups of his lined face, and fast, choppy edits between people's faces and dark rooms, and then back again as they let out these bizarre baying sounds. With odd comments like 'Now, all the people who are dead, stand over here' HUH...??? Sorry, that is just not my kind of thing...I'm afraid that I must side with others here who just do not like this film; maybe I'm truly missing something, I don't know. I DID give it a '3' because the B&W photography looked nice. But quite honestly as far as I'm concerned, I think It rather rip my own testicles off then to have to ever, EVERY sit through this movie again (let's hope it doesn't come to that...)