Michael Neumann Fans of David Lynch and early Luis Buñuel will find plenty to admire (or scratch their head at) in this esoteric, shoestring budget mock Icelandic folk tale, set in a bleak sub-arctic village where victims of a mysterious plague are treated by having their sores caressed with dead seagulls. Winnipeg director Guy Maddin borrows extensively from the primitive vocabulary of the early sound era (with grainy photography, a scratchy music score, and crude post-dubbed dialogue) to create a nonsensical 70-minute punchline with no joke attached. The antique style of the production would have to be considered its own reward, especially since the story itself (involving incest, hints of necrophilia, and a mysterious butt-grabbing duel to the death) leads nowhere in particular. The awkward emoting by Nordic characters named Gunnar, Snjofridur, and Einar the lonely; the Louise Brooks look-alike nurses; and the cameo appearance of a black-faced vaudeville minstrel are all reminiscent of some nightmarish, early 1930s melodrama, but Maddin's aesthetic is aimed squarely at today's midnight cult audiences.

Boba_Fett1138 As strange and surreal as this movie is, I just love it. Shockingly enough I seem to be quite fond of this strange, art-house type of movies.It's a very surreal movie, that is shot in 1920's/1930's style. It means that the entire movie is black & white and even old fashioned looking, with all of its sets, costumes and make-up effects but also its style of acting and the way some scene's are being set up and executed. It's also a throwback to old European surreal and more stylish type of movies, from the '50's and '60's. Movies that were not just style over substance but also ones that had a good effective story in it, no matter how well it got hidden all underneath its surreal images and strange moments.And yes, this movie as well has a very strange but fascinating story, set at a strange hospital, about patients with a strange disease, in a strange time, in a strange far off place. It's apparently set in Gimli, Canada, which is also know as the capital of New Iceland, despite it being a very small town. It also explains some of the strange Scandinavian names and accents the characters have.If you just happen to stumble upon this movie somewhere and decide to watch it, without knowing anything about it, you would not believe that this movie got actually released in 1988. It's that good looking in its very old fashioned way. It's amazing the amount of detail they spend on this movie and director and writer Guy Maddin truly managed to capture an unique, old fashioned, grainy type of atmosphere. But it's also thanks to the casting of some old fashioned type of looking persons, that makes the movie and its story work out convincing as an old one.Clearly, it's a movie that will not appeal to every person and some mind find it just a bit too strange and not fascinating enough. This movie is really a matter of taste, more than anything else but if you're fond of some surreal type of films (like David Lynch movies), European type of old films (lets say Ingmar Bergman type of movies), or some of the movies from the 1920's and 1930's, this movie is really worth a watch and changes are you might end up really liking it.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

thelonesomeroad I picked up this movie since I live in Gimli, and have heard interesting things about Guy Maddin. Though certainly a strange and surrealist film, it is also a monument and critique of Icelandic culture, and Gimli, where he had a summer cottage. If you know the history of Gimli, and are familiar with Icelandic culture, certain parts of the film do not seem strange at all. I would be interested in knowing how people not knowing these things interpreted things like the marriage across the river, or the food served at the hospital. I am in love with the aesthetics of it. He has been able to capture the exact look of early films, right down to actors and costuming, yet this doesn't seem to take over the film. Though I am personally a bigger fan of Maddin's short films, I enjoyed trying to work my way through this.

jonr-3 The comments made above by "Spearin" express my own reaction to this film. I rented it on DVD because it sounded intriguing, but fully expected to yank the disc before it fairly got underway. To my pleased surprise, I was caught up in the story and captivated by the photography from the first seconds, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience--so much so, in fact, that I immediately replayed the movie with the director's often droll narration superimposed. Also on the DVD I rented was a short film by the same author, "The Dead Father," which is well worth watching. It, perhaps even more than "Tales from the Gimli Hospital," evokes early French surrealist film, but not in a slavish way. Both films gave me food for thought--about film and about human relationships. I guess this "nourishment" aspect of film-viewing is my basic criterion for judgment. On that basis, I voted an "eight" for "Tales from the Gimli Hospital."By the way, I was very interested to learn (from the director's commentary) some of the actual history of Gimli and its settlers. These were tough, courageous people.