In the top tier of most absurd things I've ever seen.
I do enjoy some absurdity in art, for sure though.
Science can't explain everything, but religion can't explain anything.
It looks freaking amazing. Can't wait to see this
shareCan be a bit of a slog on the first viewing, but I found it a pure delight on the second viewing, once you're already in on the joke as it were. I actually love it! It's challenging for sure though, not for everybody.
shareI saw a couple reviews that mentioned "in on the joke." But what was "the joke" really? The parody of old movies? The campiness? Absurdity for the sake of absurdity? I understand all that, but I'm thinking there must be something else I'm missing, because this film really fell flat for me. I understand, as well, the Freudian references and the dreamlike acid motif, but what do you mean by "challenging"? That, again, makes me think there was something I missed, because "challenging" would seem to suggest that there's something to be solved, some larger point that slipped by me.
What did I miss?
What did I miss?
It was probably something in your childhood.
Without knowing the intricate details of your development as a person it's impossible to tell what went wrong and left you unable to enjoy a film of this nature.
share
Hi. Thanks for the reply, but my question was a sincere one. I'm sorry you feel the need to denigrate. (Maybe something in your childhood?) If you have an intelligent answer, and not just some more insolent remarks, I'd be interested. If you're just looking to add to the pervasive incivility of the Internet, I'd ask you to try someone else. GP
shareSorry, I thought you were asking why you didn't get it and I can't really answer that if I don't know you personally.
I think the answer you're looking for is 'People are different, different people like different things'.
Maybe it helps to be a person who doesn't take themselves or anything seriously, if you're seriously looking into this film thinking there is going to be some profound message you'll 'get' then you'll be disappointed.
Some people are weird and like things others consider weird. The visual style of the images in this film are unique, the humor is often dry, sometimes very dark (RE-BREAKING THE BONES!!), the different fonts and effects used are obviously not something that everyone will enjoy.
Instead of thinking 'What didn't I get?', just think 'That wasn't my cup of tea'.
Be glad very few filmmakers make films like this and avoid them in the future.
Sorry, I thought you were asking why you didn't get it and I can't really answer that if I don't know you personally.
No, you specifically wondered "what went wrong" in my "development as a person."
My original question was directed to the OP who called the film "challenging" and a joke to be "in on." And it was with those specific descriptions that I asked what I missed. He never elaborated on what he meant by those comments. You've said a lot without elaborating on them, either.
share
You've said a lot without elaborating on them, either.
Why should I bother?
I don't go to the forums of super-hero movies and ask 'What am I not getting?' People who love those flicks no doubt have better things to do than explain to me what they get out of it.
Obviously people have different senses of humor and find different things funny.
No, you specifically wondered "what went wrong" in my "development as a person."I was kidding around, don't take me seriously (I don't).
I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
share
I don't even know you. How could you hurt my feelings? That wasn't my point. My point was that your insulting approach (your idea of "kidding around") is the kind of thing that exemplifies Internet incivility. Maybe you should take yourself (and by extension what you say) more seriously.
In any event (for the second time now) I was not asking what I was not getting about the film. I watched the film, didn't like it, went to IMDB to see what others thought about it, found someone who found the film a "challenge" and a joke to be "in on" and asked for some elaboration.
Then you came along, making me regret coming here in the first place.
Maybe you should take yourself (and by extension what you say) more seriously.Why would I want to do that?
People who take themselves seriously invariably suffer.
In any event (for the second time now) I was not asking what I was not getting about the film. I watched the film, didn't like it, went to IMDB to see what others thought about it, found someone who found the film a "challenge" and a joke to be "in on" and asked for some elaboration.
It seems obvious.
People who enjoy Maddens films generally enjoy the strange unique images, the dry humor, the dark humor and the absurd situations depicted within. Therefore, they are 'in on it'.
Then you came along, making me regret coming here in the first place.Gee, that's too bad.
share
I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I think you took my statement a little too concretely. I didn't really mean there was some actual joke to be "in on." I just think the film sort of develops its own language, for lack of a better term, and it takes some effort to understand the language. Once you've done that, you're "in on the joke." The challenge (for the stereotypical movie goer, mind) comes from the effort required. The language either speaks to you, or it doesn't. I did me. There is no shortage of films that speak in a clearer language, so I really enjoy it when a film maker makes a concerted effort to eschew established norms. This one here goes beyond. It's really become one of my favorite films.
shareFair enough. The language of the film didn't speak to me, but I appreciate the courteous reply.
shareAnother thing that endears me to this film, I think it does one of the better jobs of depicting dream logic I've ever seen. Many films have tried it, but most attempts really just turn out to be merely nonlinear. This one gets dream logic right. For example, there a sequence where a guy is panicked because he needs to quickly find his wife a birthday present. He decides to give his wife his own collection of items which he knows she admires. When she notices that his own collection is missing, he blames the butler for stealing his own collection and even goes so far as shooting the butler to double down and make his ruse appear to be more convincing. One thing leads to another and soon he's engaged in determinedly laboriously switching his own clothes with those of the now deceased butler. The entire sequence is more than just nonlinear, it's exactly the sort of thing that my own untethered brain will belch out in the depths of a dream.
sharei think its fair enough to say, if you don't know who guy maddin is by now, just stay far away.
the guy (guy get it haha) is probably one of the most experimental of all the experimental filmmakers working today.
the forbidden room is one of his best!