AholeAndy I see what Madden was going for--a kind of tribute to the old-school adventure films of the early 1900s, but whatever he had in mind is ultimately lost in interwoven excess of choppy editing that would make David Fincher blush. Every inch of the films is sliced to bits and stitched through various quotes and distorted images that bleed together from scene to scene. The production design is low budget though accurate for what the director is going for and the cinematography contains some lovely shots that feel like they belong in a movie 80 years ago, but the camera is shaky on a Greengrass level that--coupled with the fragmented editing--makes it hard to even look at the screen. It is as though the director set up everything to be vintage and then decided to film it like a 21st century spy thriller. The final straw is the music--a blaring array of organs and orchestras that teeter in and out of tone and are as choppy and unpleasant as the rest of the film. I don't understand how this could have been shown to people in it's current form nonetheless how it was shown to critics and met with applause--it has a certified fresh rating on RT and is in the top 100 of 2015. "The Forbidden Room" is like a big practical joke perpetrated by all of critical media to get interested film buffs to sit through the movie equivalent of pouring battery acid in your eyes while listening to a group of Chimpanzees screw.

bruwhi I admire the film making and the art direction for The Forbidden Room, but while it initially dazzles, it quickly becomes rather tedious. There is no real payoff for the effort it takes to sit through it, and it does take some effort. The most entertaining part for me is the opening titles. The only movie I can compare it to is Stalker, and it isn't a fair comparison. While both share the washed-out, sepia tone Lynch-like visual style, Stalker has a discernible plot beyond just its style. I'd love to intellectualize the film and say it has deeper meaning, but outside of the art direction and distressed film look, after sitting through it I've decided there is just no "there" there.

JvH48 Saw this at the IMAGINE film festival 2015 in Amsterdam. Walked out after one hour, nearly half of the 130 minutes running time. I did not understand a thing about what it was all about from the outset, but I allowed it some slack due to the overly positive introductory talk by the festival's artistic director. He told us about the abundance of references to films from the silent period (I don't think I care). The format is blatantly weird in taking trouble to look like a film from the silent period, with seemingly missing pieces and imperfect material, though we know that this film is recently made, as such leading to the conclusion that these imperfections are added as a gimmick and defeating any useful purpose. It may resonate with film professionals, however, but what do I know.There is no edible story (actually five stories I've heard or read somewhere, craft-fully intertwined). I could not derive anything in common that could have served as a binding theme. It may be so that the binding element(s) were to be revealed later on, but I did not wait until the final revelation, and left. Anyway, other festival visitors who sat it out until the very end, did not make much of it either, as it scored a lowly 36th (out of 45) place for the audience award with average score 6.78 (out of 10).

Rizzleness This film, like all those of Guy Maddin, has married the weirdness of David Lynch with the love of film and quirkiness of Wes Anderson, all wrapped up in a unique visual style like no other. It's absolutely gorgeous, a true adventure in filmmaking and film watching filled with dreams- within-dreams and stories-within-stories. It is like a love letter to the history of movies that blends silent films, noir, action, myth, comedy, musicals, and even instructional films into an absurd, self-referential ball.But before you go running out to see it, you should know that it has zero interest in entertaining you. Seriously. It's dense, confusing and difficult to follow, and a tedious slog. There's no plot, if by plot you mean something that will emotionally resonate with you and keep you engaged with following the story or characters. Viewers should be the kind of masochist film geeks who enjoy subjecting themselves to such pain and then feel enlightened for doing so.