User Reviews

A film by Milos Forman is always an event. This will probably not remain as one of the best in his career, and was surrounded by a level of controversy, not the least among critics who received it very differently. Yet, it is certainly a film to watch.

The story actually does not have Goya (Stellan Skarsgård) in the center. It is rather the story of a corrupt morality policeman of the 18th century (Javier Bardem) imprisoning a young girl (Natalie Portman) on the unjust suspicion of practicing Judaism in secret. It is the story of a police state built on social injustice relying on pretended moral puritanism in order to save the system. This happens at the price of huge human suffering like the drama in the center of the story, and here is the painter as a witness, living the dilemma of becoming involved as a human or remaining a witness as an artist. We know what path Goya chose.

I was not unhappy neither with the acting, nor with the story line, although it is a little bit too melo-dramatic and too much prone to coincidences. Forman is not so much focused on the drama or better say melo-drama, or even in the historical detail, although he seems to be on familiar ground getting back to the period in 'Amadeus'. What he is busy with seems to be more re-creating some of Goya's paintings and prints and tracing back the origin of inspiration of these masterpieces. In a way the film can be read as justification of the choice Goya made in life.

I saw it yesterday on film festival. And it was great.

When I was reading the description of the movie, I had some doubts. It seemed it would be yet another film about bad, intolerant catholics and good and democratic atheists. I'm just fed up with that kind of films. But it was not so. In a short - it's a great film with bad description.

What it really is about, is that it doesn't matter what principles one believes in if their life is doesn't match these principles. Both inquisitors and French democrats were capable of same brutality - always, of course, in name of some noble idea - love, freedom, equality... It's not sentimental or pathetic and it doesn't try to tell you what is "the only truth". It simply says that its not principles and ideas that are bad - its people. Characters are very human, with many errors - but, at the same time, each of the characters, even "villains" have moments when you will like them. It is also because the film changes perspective several times, and those who were despots become victims.

Maybe its not the best Forman's film, but it is very good.

The acting and production values are of the highest order in "Goya's Ghost". Because I don't get around much anymore, I had not seen Ms Portman in a movie until "Ghost", and was very impressed, for like all the roles in this movie, her's was challenging. Javier Bardem is tough to equal in any movie, and as the 'heavy', (another heavy?!) he is outstanding; Stellan Skarsgård has come a long, long ways since "The Ox", and he has had a mixture of roles, some of them pretty thankless. As Goya, he does very well--a great actor. Natalie Portman--as I was a first timer regards seeing her work, I was bowled over--her role requires a terrible transformation, and makeup only goes so far, acting must be the key ingredient. So, along with the outstanding set designs and production values, Forman created another outstanding period piece. By the way, the actress Blanca Portillo who does the Spanish queen has a key small part--and you'll know her best scene when you see it! The story? It is about a wretched time and wretched people in a position of trust who violate that and prey on whomever they can. I think "Ghost" might not be for those who are not really into period pieces, but I am!

It's 1792 Madrid. The Inquisition is interested in painter Francisco Goya (Stellan Skarsgård)'s provocative art. Luckily for him, brother Lorenzo Casamares (Javier Bardem) is his supportive patron. Inés Bilbatúa (Natalie Portman) is brought into the Inquisition for not eating pork. She is accused of being a Judaiser and put into a stress position called The Question. Her rich merchant father asks Goya to invite Lorenzo for dinner. He in turn puts Lorenzo into The Question to coerce an outlandish confession. He blackmails Lorenzo to help get Inés released.

The first hour is terrific. It has dark and tense turns. The characters are great. It builds up a compelling drama. The first problem starts with the family letting Goya leave as they torture Lorenzo. He could easily have gone to the authorities. It's a small logic break but then the story expands in scope and out of shape. This could have been a great movie if it stayed small. Milos Forman goes crazy and then the French invades. The second half is more convoluted and there are too many convenient turns. By way of explaining, I almost half-believed in this as a real Goya story. Granted, I don't know anything about the artist but these characters seem real enough. By the second half, there is no chance that this is anywhere near reality. This is half of a great movie.

The film is set in 1792 ,it deals with eclectic people during a convulsed era from Spain history . It starts with the Inquisition and some years later with the encroachment by Napoleon Army and finishes with the French defeat and restoration of the Spanish monarchy with Fernando VII , after the victory by general Wellington (Cayetano M. Irujo) . The painter (1746, born Fuentedetodos and deceased 1828,Burdeos) Francisco de Goya (Stellan Skarsgard) , quintessential Spanish artist , becomes involved with the Spanish Inquisition , when his muse named Ines (director cast Natalie Portman after noticing her likeness to the girl in Goya's painting "Milkmaid of Bordeaux") who painted her like an Angel in the church of Saint Antonio of Florida and he's now portraying , she then is framed as a heretic . His daddy named Thomas Bilbatua (Jose Luis Gomez) ask him help , hoping what his relationship with the monk Lorenzo (Javier Bardem) can achieve the freedom for his daughter . Meanwhile , Goya is dedicated the painting of the portrait the royal family : Carlos IV (Forman cast Randy Quaid as the King of Spain after seeing his work in ¨Elvis¨ by phoning him and saying, "You are a great actor , you must be my King or I must repaint Goya") , Mª Luisa (Blanca Portillo) and children .

The film is a touching drama added with historic elements and formidable performances . The movie creates a canvas upon a turbulent epoch concerning specially with Inquisition . It was created by Pope Sixto IV in 1478 , its creation is supposedly caused for threat by Jewish and Moors becoming Christianism but practically disappeared with the Borbons Kings (Felipe V,Fernando VI and Carlos III) and was definitively abolished by the Court of Cadiz though spontaneously restored by Fernando VII in 1814 . The sentences were executed by means of a public event called ¨auto of faith¨(thus happens on the final) . Near the end, when the king appears in the balcony at the execution scene, some people yell "Vivan Las Cadenas!" (Long live the chains!). This salute was coined in 1814 by Spanish monarchists when Fernando VII was restored to the throne with absolute powers, thus abolishing the Constitution of Cadiz, which was established by Napoleonic authorities.

The flick displays an interesting showing the means are manufactured the famous Goya's engravings : ¨The war disasters¨ , ¨bullfighting¨ and ¨Caprichos¨ . Besides , recreating historical happenings such as ¨Charge of Mamelucos¨ and ¨Execution on mountain of Principe Pio¨. The movie contains a top-notch star-studded cast , as Skarsgard , Portman , Bardem give a sensational interpretations . Scenarios are luxurious and impressive , being designed by the prestigious Patrizia Von Brandenstein , the sets including palaces , rooms , interiors and outdoors are mesmerizing . Lush and brilliant costume design by Ivonne Blake (Oscar for Doctor Zhivago and Nicholas and Alexandra). Colorful cinematography by expert Spanish cameraman , Javier Aguirresarobe , (The others) . The film was lavishly produced by the brothers Saul and Paul Saentz , Forman's usual producers .The motion picture was well directed by the classic Milos Forman , an expert about biographies of notorious characters such as ¨Amadeus¨ , ¨Larry Flynt¨ , ¨Andy Kauffman¨ (Man on the moon) ; besides filming a lot of successes like are ¨Ragtime¨ ,¨Hair¨, ¨Valmont¨ , and of course , his greatest hit ¨Someone flow the Cucko nest¨.

I think Goya is after all just a pretext. What Forman wanted to talk about is how people are overwhelmed by history. It's a difficult idea to be grasped for people who live in wealthy societies where nothing much happens and the biggest problems are having more money than you already have and what to do on Saturday night. But Forman manages to show you how you can be powerless and doomed when history moves fast--too fast. The real protagonist of the story is not the painter, but the former Dominican priest, whose life is totally changed--and ultimately destroyed--by the big historical events (the French Revolution, the French invasion of Spain, the English invasion of Spain, the Restoration). The same may be said for the other characters in the story. Goya is there as a witness, and as the symbolic figure of the artist who manages to create something even out of utter destruction. One could say that Goya's Ghosts are exactly those people and events Goya witnessed and can't get rid of, so that he has to turn them into drawings and paintings; but the term "ghost" also refers to what individuals are like in those moments when everything is changing and moving towards God knows what goal. The priest and the young girl and all the other people in the story are just pawns of history, who strut and fret on the stage and then disappear. Ghosts, because they can be annihilated in any moment. It's a sad truth, but it's truth, notwithstanding Hollywood's mythologies of super-heroes that can win against all odds. Joyce said that history is a nightmare one tries to wake up from; Forman showed us the nightmare, and the last nightmarish scene of this movie is one of those you can't forget.

Being a big fan of Forman I was obviously hoping that this film would keep me entertained and interested for its entire duration. It did, to a fair extent. Yet, what it lacked was any punch. No real statement or continuity came forth by the time the credits rolled up.

The film's premise of an exploration of Spain before its invasion and subsequent religious reversals and recantions is just lacking completely in continuity. No character is really explored deeply, Forman changes focus far too often. Take the sudden jump of 15 years midway through the film. Most characters are done away with completely and all others are beyond recognition except the main protagonist, the painter Goya. Even he is not really that interesting. He paints paintings. For different people. Natalie Portman's character serves as obvious pathos at the beginning, then her character turns into a demented and ruined savage. Forman never allows any identification, or any centre of interest establish itself. One moment the film seems to be dealing with religious fanaticism, other times with hypocrisy and social upheaval, other times with war.

The film is simply too disjointed, the characters mostly dull and the plot far too linear for this to be ranked amongst Forman's masterpieces. It spends too much time weaving around aimlessly with any apparent focus or goal. It seems Forman wanted to portray a period different any specific purpose or moral lesson - which is what he has achieved although really the cultural observations are equally diluted. Overall, a boring and plain film lacking intent or artistic endeavour, it is like Goya himself - nondescript and a little on the plain side.

There is one great flaw here that almost everyone mentions... and it's true. The accents of the non-Spanish actors clash terribly with the Spanish ones, as well as with each other. That's a real flaw, but if you can get past that, there's a great film waiting to be seen. I found I forgot all about it after the first 10 minutes. The critics just don't get this film. A lot of regular people seem to miss it too. They want a film with a typical "leading" role. They want their morality tales (which this certainly IS) delivered in easy shades of Black and White... no gray. They don't understand films where the title character is primarily an Observer. Sometimes that CAN be dissatisfying, but here the Observer is a genuine genius. Some people want him to be a moral giant, but he's not, he's simply an observer who has actualized the doctor's oath: First, do no harm. This is a brilliant story, and a morally complex one, too. There are some parallels to America in Iraq, though that is not the primary goal. This story illuminates the folly of any regime, liberal or conservative, as each picks its friends and foes, taking 180 degree turns from whoever was last in power. Javier Bardem gives an incredibly canny performance! Natalie Portman is totally unsentimental and totally committed to her multiple roles: just great! Stellan Skarsgard threw me off at first with the sound of his voice, but builds a performance of power and truth, in spite of it. Randy Quaid was a small revelation. And of course the film looks and sounds spectacular, with it's numerous and detailed textures, compositions and sounds. If you want to think; if you like having pat assumptions challenged; if you love people and history and art: see it!

Imagine the paintings and drawings of Goya in all their darkness and beauty coming to life - this is Milos Forman's masterful film. Goya (and us)witness the folly of the Spanish royal court, the murderous sadistic perversion of the Catholic Church, the cruel inhumane madness of the Napoleonic War, along with the sensuality and beauty of life passing. This is the film's main focus: to let us experience the time and place as if seen through Francisco de Goya's eyes. As expected of a Milos Forman's film, the locales, the customs, and the overall production replicates the Spain of the late 18th century and early 19th century with the exactitude of a court painting. The cast is also excellent. As an Inquisitor turned a Napoleon's officer, Javier Bardem deserves another Oscar nomination. Stellan Skargsdar as usual does a chameleon-like transformation this time into Goya. Natalie Portman elevates herself into a higher realm of acting as the doomed, beautiful Ines. And Randy Quaid steals the screen for a few seconds as the King. Milos Forman again has given us an emotionally- and intellectually-challenging portrait of a dark era and the role of art and artist. Although some of the dramatization is slightly contrived, the film is compelling and moving and its vision lingers as Goya's art.

I'm going to recommend putting this one in the "skip it" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fiancée rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....

The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.

The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fiancée is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the "soul" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.

Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.

Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.

Stellan Skarsgård was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.

Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.

The script reads like one of the "choose your own adventure" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.

Disappointing.

(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum)

This is a period drama as they have to be.

Not a biographical drama, as the title might suggest.

This isn't about Goya, neither about his muse, nor the Spanish Court, nor the 'Holy Office' (ie: The Inquisition). This is just a big canvas about an era. Ojectively painted, well lighted and well balanced between the chief characters and the bystanders. The features of the selected actors deliver a touch of Goya's characters, and that is true from the vogon-like archbishop to the very last extra. The world is dark, intriguing and deceitful, yet it doesn't lack a sense of humour.

The plot is not as cohesive as you can get, but that's forgivable.

Goya is just an artist with no intention to be a champion of justice, but you forgive him as artists often go that way. He's just a chronicler, but he was damned good at it, wasn't he?

Ines is just a girl, and 'God bless her soul' she remains one forever,and you like her for it. I never thought about Natalie Portman as a capable actress, but as a worn off, tortured half-wit released from the dungeons I have to give her some kudos.

And 'father' Lorenzo is just a man, after all...and you can forgive him if you insist. I thought he's the ultimate opportunist turn-coat, but he managed to show some guts in the end, so I forgave him.

There's a bit much ingredient in the blender than most people will like, from religion to revolution to royal art-critics to tavern-ambiance to execution, but I liked the taste of the „turmix"(Hungarian equivalent for (milk)shake, I just love this word) And again; this is a period drama, lapping up almost twenty years of turbulent history so it couldn't avoid to be a bit dense and rich.

I was not aware of this magnificent film until 2010 and did not see it till now (May 2011), but it not only does not date, but Natalie Portman was a revelation, considering I have just seen her in Black Swan, and in this much earlier film, she was already proving her acting prowess. Javier Bardem proves his worth as much as in his later award winning films (The Sea Inside, No Country For Old Men, etc.) and I wonder how such a craggy-looking man can be so charismatic. Bardem has something unusual, a rare quality of conveying total realism in his acting which becomes him, not just a superficial persona he puts on. The supporting cast, especially Stellan Skarsgaard as Goya, provide a worthy backdrop for the two central, very powerful roles played by Bardem and Portman who convey the darkness of the period in excruciatingly detailed performances, then reflected in Goya's paintings. The film brings to life Goya's dark, realistic portraits of humanity in all its terror, grotesqueness, cruelty, and suffering during a tumultuous period of war and carnage. A brilliant film by Forman and I recommend anyone wanting a challenge in film to see this if they haven't already done so.

This movie had a great storyline and kept one's attention from beginning to end, a well directed movie, I believe one of the best I've ever seen. While some period movies are overwhelmed by the attention to period detail, in this movie the background enhances and makes the movie more believable. The acting was very well performed and all the actors deserve equal mention. I would see this movie again and recommend to all. I have no doubt that this movie will garner many awards in many categories! The costumes, the backdrops and scenery were bar none and worthy of many accolades. The historical context is well worth mentioning. A terrific period in Spain's history that left a long and hideous scar on its glorious and eventful history. Enjoy and share this movie with a friend and then enjoy comparing notes of what each of you saw and felt especially attracted to!

The first hour of this film I enjoyed very much , the story was very engaging and the ensemble of actors blended in well together despite their varied geographical origins. The second half although still good, unfortunately lost me in places, due to some very obvious 'acting' by Natalie Portman, who was out of her depth and an increasingly preposterous storyline, in her 'characters' case particularly, I'm not sure if any young actress could have convinced entirely. Pity, because overall I wanted to like it and did, as the production design, costumes and use of locations in Spain were excellent, giving it a real quality feel. It certainly personally gave me a lot to reflect on, having been to the Prado and seen a lot of Goya's works painted during this very troubled period of history.

Hollywood will have to wait for long time to see again films of such quality,films that are condemned not to have a big commercial success but films that will remain in the history of art of cinema.The "ghosts of Goya" is taking us back to a past time showing with incredible reality the conditions of this time,and helped by a great performance of the actors,Milos Forman gives us another sample of his rare directing talent.In the question which film i like most "Amadeus" or "the ghosts of Goya" i can't decide which is more great,Mozart-a genius of music composing,Goya-a genius of painting,aspects of their lives under the unique look of Milos Forman.When i went to see this movie,here in a small town of Greece,there were only 25 people in the cinema,while films like "300" were played here for 2 months with the halls full of people.What can i say?History will judge us all...

The story of the Spanish Inquisition,Napoleanic Wars, a monk and a merchant's daughter and how they affected Francisco Goya.

The movie's plot is complicated,perhaps too complicated, filled with turns and changes its trajectory just when you think it's going one way. You could say that though the story is told from Goya's(Sarsgard) perspective and is primarily advanced by what happens to Ines(Portman) the main character is Lorenzo(Bardem). Its how Lorenzo deals with these situations and how he affects the others that is key. The movie was released a year before No Country For Old Men but Bardem still brings much of the evil and menace he did to Anton Chigurh to this role. However, his role in this film,Lorenzo, is very different and not a deranged killer but more of a scoundrel who carefully picks his tune according to who's in power. Natalie Portman gives a strong performance or performances I should say as she plays two characters. I found this to be distracting as nobody is so identical to their parents but the film is a fictional story.

The film is filled with irony and sardonic moments such as how the Inquistor General sentences Lorenzo to death, then Lorenzo comes to power and orders him to the same fate and ultimately the Inquistor General is restored to power and orders Lorenzo's execution which is carried out successfully this time. Or the ending shot of Lorenzo's dead body being carted off with an insane Ines walking beside carrying an orphaned baby and holding his hand.

The film was written and directed by Milos Forman and not though it isn't of the quality One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest or Amadeus it is certainly entertaining and powerful.