Alban-Paul Schellekens
Where some seem to feel the film lacks a story line or lasts to long, even claim pretentiousness.. I disagree... Admittedly I have a soft-spot for long-winding stories, but in this case it actually is instrumental in creating a feeling and atmosphere which is very well captured. The actors manage to show all they need to show without saying so much as a word, which to me is proof of real acting qualities. The story is a strong and powerful tale, served well by the equally strong images that invoke Pasolini, Almodovar but also the likes of Baron Wilhelm Von Gloeden... This is definitely an instant favourite and will get a place of honour in my film collection
johannes2000-1
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand this movie at all. I couldn't believe it was made only one year ago, it's like watching a 30 years old Pasolini or Derek Jarman clone. It's all there. The black and white. The desolate settings. The beautiful males in various states of nudity, who never seem to do any acting but just sit around or wander aimlessly to and fro. No dialogue between the actors, but brooding looks that obviously mean the world (but not to me). The pompous length of all this!!! I admit that I was attracted by the storyline and the pictures on the cover of the DVD: it made me expect something like a sensuous homo-erotic thriller. Well, if by sensuous you think of nudity, it was just that, but even I can get fed up with useless nudity. And the thriller-part was completely beyond me: apparently there was some kind of kidnapping of a beloved one and then a heroic rescue in return, but what, why, who, what for, when??? It all went down the same pretentious and tedious drain. Sitting this one out felt like dragging myself through a muddy marsh. So I give myself a 10 out of 10 for making it to the end (I admit, partly thanks to the FF-button) and the movie a 3 (just because of the cute guys).
mccarthyos
For a film as well made as this, you would rightly expect a good deal of praise. However, it is horribly self indulgent and far too long. I could get 30 minutes out of it without even trying and I think it would still retain its many qualities. Ambiguous storytelling has its attractions, but what is the point of being so ambiguous that the film becomes incomprehensible, even to an old film buff like myself, steeped in 50 years of film festivals and the many cinematic challenges they throw up. I found much of the film compelling viewing, but it was obvious that the director simply didn't know how to end it and so the denouement drags on endlessly. The fast forward button on my DVD player was a Godsend.
Godart
A naive question first: how many masterpieces of world cinematic history can this fascinating work hold up to its credit? Too many to be counted. I would definitely add the influences of Glauber Rocha and Ingmar Bergman, among others. So is this original? Yes, but at some point it becomes an overarching exercise that tries to join the horny/corny and the sublime. I am wondering -- and this may be futile -- how much money was spent on the making of this heavy creation that seems geared for so many audiences that could not possibly be satisfied at once -- or could they, would-be Pasolini? I Haven't watched Broken Sky yet but then...
