THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER!! ANYONE AGREE??

I understand your angst, princess. What was the point? Let me try to explain
by saying the movie is a dead on view into the historic relationship of these
two men. The film is basedon diaries, letters and the biography of those who knew
Bacon well. It was a royally screwed up affair.

The Point? There is none. This was a character study.

Most real relationships don't have points. You didn't miss anything. It was
just a horrific relationship that neither could live with or without.

Like watching a highway accident, helpless to do anything. Remember too,
Bacon was probably bi-polar.



"An intellectual carrot. The mind boggles."
The Things from Another World

the only missing thing is your brains, here.
what do you expect from a movie if you only bought it to see your favourite actor naked, really? francis is much too old for george anyway??? is this all what you got from it? go watch porn, you'll understand the plot in that.
or watch it again and stop yourself from writing stupid notes until you understand. next life. maybe.

I didn't think it was a particularly bad film.

As for them not showing any of Bacon's paintings, the reason for that was that Bacon's estate did not give them permission to do so.

I think it's pretty good. Very real life.

--

I liked this movie. Yes it was very confusing when you watch it the first time, but after you watch it the second time and know a little bit more about Francis Bacon and his history, the pieces come together. I first bought it because I was a Daniel Craig fan too, but now I am both a Craig fan as well as a Bacon fan. This movie is hard to watch, but it has great meaning to it and I hardly think it is the worst movie ever. Also, Derek Jacobi portrays a fantastic likeness to the real life Bacon.

Okay, I don't think you're right, that it's the worst movie ever (I have seen "Saudade" also called "The Longing", and that must be the worst waste of time and money ever. Not my money and time, but the people who made it!), but I agree, that it is really very bad!

I think a film should always be able to stand alone and tell the whole story without expecting the audience to have prior knowledge of the characters or the plot and I don't think that this movie achieves that. There are a lot of things about Bacon that are never said or shown in the movie, though some things are implied, and I think that most people will find it very hard to understand what is really going on between Francis and George. Both characters are so dysfunctional in so many ways that it's hard to keep count. Maybe it was too hard a story to tell in such short time and with such limited experience on Maybury's behalf.

The visual style of the film is another major complaint. If the "experimental" photography is an atempt to show us moods or states of minds of the characters I must say "It doesn't work" I just got really, really anoyed!

And honestly you guys who have commented on this!
We are all entitled to have an opinion, but please could we focus on the comments that are made about the film, and not on the people who makes the comments!

You definetely are missing something... somethings...
Bacon never finished a painting?
The quality of film looked like a school drop out??
I, as a photographer, think this film has one of the most incredible cinematography ever! But of course, you probably understand a lot more about photography, art and cinema, so I#ll just forget it... Maybe I should watch something like Tomb Raider, that was a good Daniel Craig film... great photography!

That's why Daniel Craig cherishs this film... even though he was naked, it's not any kettle head that will be drooling over him.

In direct response to all your points raised:

1. Almost all of the cinematography was filmed in a specific way to resemble Bacon's paintings. The scene filmed through glass or a bowl describes the warping and twisting of form often evident in his work, and other motifs, such as triptychs, which feature dominantly in his work are also used in the filming.

2. "Not in a good way"? "Was not explained"? Do peoples' sexualities really need explaining? This was not a fictional story, but was actually biographical. This was not a writer/director's choice - it was what actually happened, as pieced together from biographies and other sources of information.

3. Did we need to? This was a study of Francis Bacon's life, not his work. If you want to see his work, there is plenty out there - and this film expected you to at least have some knowledge of him beforehand.

4. Again, does it need to be? It added to the atmosphere of the film, and in real life not everything is explained.

5. Not every relationship is perfect. This one was obviously royally messed up, but this does not make it unrealistic - it actually adds to its realism. Not many people have relationships that are all sunshine and butterflies; whilst this one is on the extreme end of the scale, when one considers Bacon's personality, it is entirely plausible.

6. This film is, as it says in the title, a character study. It is not called "The story of Frances Bacon from beginning to end", it is "Study for a Portrait of Frances Bacon". It delves into the nature of the relationship between Bacon and Dyer, and is not just a cheap pornography where you 'get to see that James Bond guy naked', as many people seem to view it. The film is about a specific moment in the lives of these two people, as well as the process of creating artwork and the creative mind itself. And your comment about the age difference just makes you seem judgmental and ignorant.