tedg Going into this, you need some background, because the beginning does not much help you enter this ambitious world. When this was made, the expectation was that much streaming online video (like Netflix) would be via websites with the suffix "dot TeeVee." That domain (the word itself is significant) was assigned to a tiny Polynesian island nation, who subsequently sold rights to internet speculators. The irony of watching a film, itself a pretense, in such a pretend domain is something that would have given me a chuckle. As there are a number of people like me, there is an audience for extensions of this comic notion.The film features a wasteland of rubble, in the midst of which is an ornate old-fashioned moviehouse. Every narrative detail is built around various elements of the film experience, and the fantasies that it both evokes and rides on. You would not know that from the film itself however, and I suppose that is intended.Once entering the building, having passed the box office (you can pay with a button), the immersive experience is a swimming pool. The success of this is fabricated for the senile owner, and threatened by "the authorities." It is powered by a complex steam device, clearly labeled "Imperim," incidentally the name (at the time) of a large movie file sharing website.Built on this are many overlapping references to film-fantasy borders, using overt film references, mostly from the era of "pure" cinema. One narrative thread has to do with a romance, woven into another with the notion of escape via sea. The "engine" of the cinema is literally moved to the boat of this romantic escape while the moviehouse collapses. It is all something of a muddle, but a muddle in such respectful and complex notions of film, you end up glowing at the sharing of the thing.If you like Guy Maddin, you will like this. Some scenes simply charm your soul. The one most often cited is our love interest swimming nude underwater with her beloved pet goldfish in a bowl.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

nweissman I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.

rooprect This is one of the weirder movies out there. But I can't say it's original, because Jeunet & Caro pioneered this exact style 18 years earlier in "Le Bunker de la dernière rafale" (1981). This is so much of a rip-off that I wonder if the director was deliberately making an homage to "Le Bunker", right down to the weird woman's chewing gum collection (except in "Bunker" it was boogers. yeah, yuck).Also, let's get something out of the way in case you don't know it already: this is basically a black & white, silent film. So you need to have a good attention span. It also has some of the ugliest actors I've ever seen. So don't expect to instantly fall in love with any of the characters, the way we do with Johnny Depp or the Hollywood prettyboys. Instead we see a lot of wrinkly guys in need of a good orthodontist. Welcome to European cinema.If I haven't scared you off yet, then maybe there's hope. Now let's get to the good part. Even though the plot is simple, it's a very challenging & fun film to watch. Because there's very little dialogue (mostly grunts, a few shouts and oh yes, the most hilarious line ever: "TECHNOLOGY... SYSTEM... PROFIT!"), you're forced to work your brain to understand even the simplest situations. In that respect, it reminds me of those emergency cards you read on airplanes. You know, the goofy cartoon icons without any words which are supposed to explain how to save your life in the event of cabin depressurization. It's all so retro.Some of the gags are classic, and you may be reminded of some old Charlie Chaplin material.And even though I said it's black & white, there are some downright magical colour tints which give it a dreamy feel. In one particular blue-tinted shot, we see a graveyard of half-sunken ships. I couldn't think of a better way of showing it--all the colours in the world couldn't express it better. Imagine if "Metropolis" (1927) had been re-done with seamless camera-work, cranes & dollies, and a very convincing set. That should give you an indication of the visual style.Really the only reason why I'm rating this a 7 instead of a 9 is because it lost points for lack of originality (Jeunet/Caro rip-off). But that shouldn't diminish its effectiveness as a work of art, especially to those of you who haven't seen "Le Bunker de la dernière rafale" or "Delicatessen". In any case, it's definitely worth the rental fee.

IOBdennis I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.