Poor execution of the filmmaker.

No, not at all.

Let's see what film historian and analyst David Bordwell says about it:

Is any filmmaker more unfairly taken for granted than Pedro Almodóvar? For over thirty years, he has created sparkling, handsome entertainments that combine cinematic intelligence with outrageous eroticism and insidious emotional punch. His films revel in plot complications and edgy humor. Along the way he effortlessly deploys the techniques that make modern cinema modern, from flashbacks and voice-overs to subjective sequences and abrupt replays that fill in gaps.

He makes it all look easy, and gorgeous. After the drab grays and browns of Hollywood fare, what a pleasure to see a film packed with saturated primaries and bold designs. He proves that you can go as dark as you like in plotting and still make things look delightful.

His characters are clothes horses, I grant you, but not the least of his debts to Old Hollywood is the belief that we want to see presentable people in pretty costumes and settings. The world is ugly enough, he seems to say; why add to it? Seeing The Girl on the Train reminded me how glum American movies are determined to look. An Almodóvar apple looks good enough to eat, and a housekeeper’s roseate apron seems the height of chic. In this world, even refrigerator magnets evoke a Calder mobile.

These elegantly voluptuous tales make unabashed appeal to Hollywood genres: the screwball comedy (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, I’m So Excited), the illicit romance (Law of Desire, The Flower of My Secret), the twisty thriller (Live Flesh, The Skin I Live In), even the ghost story (Volver), and above all the melodrama—medical (Talk to Her) and maternal (High Heels, All about My Mother). He rolls Lubitsch, Sirk, and Siodmak into a nifty package, tied up with a ribbon bow of pansexuality.

Julieta revisits the maternal melodrama, specifically the mother-daughter nexus. Our heroine, beginning as a spiky-haired classics teacher, seems to have an idyllic life married to a fisherman, but soon infidelity, misunderstandings, and a tempestuous storm shatter it. All the paraphernalia of melodrama—raging seas, unhappy coincidences, ingratitude, and dark secrets—threaten Julieta’s efforts to save her marriage and protect her daughter. Told in flashbacks, chiefly through a letter she writes her daughter Antia, the two major phases of Julieta’s life get intercut in surprising and gratifying ways. With his usual cleverness, Almódovar has Julieta played by two female performers, with a surprise match-on-action linking them in one scene. A beautiful purple towel helps, as the poster sneakily suggests.

It’s all about guilt, passed from husband to wife and mistress and then to daughter and even daughter’s pal, with the obligatory recriminations and tearful confessions. The plot is continually surprising, yet every scene snicks into place. Neat parallels among couples develop quietly, and tiny hints planted in the beginning pay off. As usual with Almodóvar, the opening credits guarantee that you’re in assured hands. They also tease us with motifs. Here the film’s dual structure (two phases of life, two actresses) is suggested through lemon-yellow letters sliding into alignment.

The two women on my left started crying halfway through the movie. I tell you, this director is a credit to the species.

David Bordwell: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/10/15/more-from-viff-2016/

I humby agree with Mr. Bordwell


“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Aristotle

I didn't think it was amateurish at all, but that's just me.

I can understand people not liking it, this is not a movie for everyone, but to call it amateurish sounds very odd to me. It was beautiful on many levels, the acting was top notch, the story wonderful, and the sets beautiful. While Almodovar is is not everyone's cup of tea, he has not made an amateurish movie in many many years. I would not say everything he does is amazing, but your reaction seems odd to me. Maybe you are just too used to Hollywood films?

I just saw it for a second time and found it superb. However, the second viewing did remind me of a couple weird shots, particularly early in the film when Julieta rents the apartment in her old building and looks out over the street. The camera jostles a little bit and I can't figure out if that was intentional or a very strange shooting / editing mistake.

My only other criticism of this film is that we hardly get any plot with Antia at 18, leading up to her trip to the mountain retreat, so when we find out what's happened to her, it doesn't resonate as much as it might.

If you think this was "amateurish", it only means you are the amateur. Reading your comment, it appears you have zero understanding of filmmaking and acting, zero artistic sensitivity. Otherwise there is no way you would think the performances were not strong or that it was poorly directed, regardless of your general opinion of the film.

__________________________
www.1up-games.com Last seen:

Thought the poor execution was in the script writing. Many things the characters don't actually make sense.