Reviews

I've known about this movie for years and never got around to seeing it. Finally tonight I had the random occasion to watch it with a group of friends, some who had seen it and some who had not, all creative-type people who work in film in Los Angeles. I think most of us were expecting some kind of visually stunning masterpiece or a totally fresh creative way to do a classic story or something else that blurbs on DVDs told us. So we were obviously stunned when what we saw was an overwrought mess of bad acting and horribly dated costume design all in beautiful locations with a monotonous spew of Shakespeare lines on top, many of them poorly dubbed in.

Granted I had seen some of Taymor's more recent "Across The Universe" and I hated it but I had heard stories of studio interference and Titus seemed to be considered her untarnished masterpiece. But really I was struck with how bad the whole presentation was. Obviously a lot of work went into the design and execution of the world she was creating but there was a resulting disharmony between the visuals and the dialogue. Entire scenes would progress with an endless parade of oddities and anachronisms and over top just endless words that seemed to have an abstract connection at best to what was on screen. And even in the times where there was a discernible connection the emotions of any given line or moment were so buried in the general wackiness of the actors or the "crazy" sets and costumes that they almost never hit. It honestly felt like a movie directed by an alien or robot from the future who has no comprehension of human emotions, things like why people laugh or shout or cry or jump around or fight or anything.

I know that Julie Taymor is supposed to be an amazing artist and I respect that, but really it felt like the only thing even attempting to hold this mess together were her own whims and fancies. No logic was applied to the whole thing, just whatever she wanted.

Of course it's just my opinion, but for my money the fresher Shakespeare adaptations are Branagh's Hamlet and Baz's Romeo and Juliet. At least in those two films they care about the language, which is really why we care about Shakespeare in the first place.

I saw this film at a special screening with Q&A with director and cast and was really blown away by how not-good it really was. I saw "The Sweet Hereafter" and loved it and I guess I expected "Adoration to be somehow in the same class of film.

It was not.

Adoration is a lot more like a student film, it was kind of embarrassing to watch in many parts and even more embarrassing to hear the cast and director talk about it as though it was a really thoughtful, well-made film. Don't get me wrong, I know they were trying very hard with this movie and it was intended to tackle all sorts of tough topics in a latter-period Godard sort of way, but it just didn't work.

I don't know why there are so many good reviews coming out for this film, I'm fairly certain that most of the people who it will be unhappy about their experience. I saw it with four film-literate, film-working friends in Los Angeles and we were all disappointed.

I really don't want to hate on films and filmmakers that have credibility but I don't want audiences to be misled into thinking this is even close to an enjoyable film, because it is not.

Much like I imagine the filmmakers here to be, I am a fan of Lovecraft. Not a crazy, super-protective, strict by-the-book fan, but a fan none the less. I certainly have heard the call of the mighty Cthulhu. So I understand why one would want to make this film, I really do. Lovecraft's stories are so imaginative that they seem to cry out to be seen, literally, on screen.

The problem is that I don't think they can truly work in film.

See so much of what makes the stories work is the idea of things that cannot exist. The terror comes from imagining how paralyzingly horrifying these experiences would be if they happened to you personally. So by that token watching a filmmaker's version of the images will always fall short of what yr own mind makes happen when reading the story.

Additionally the actual prose is a huge part of what makes the stories good and obviously that is (due to the nature of the film medium) lost when watched on a screen. A character sitting in a room reading can be horrifying in a Lovecraft story, but it will not be that scary in a movie when you have to watch an actor sitting in a room looking distraught.

And on top of all of this the silent movie treatment turns the whole thing into a hokey exercise in nostalgia. No silent movie is as scary as a Lovecraft story can be. So why turn one of his best into a low-budget throw-back experiment? These guys obviously put a lot of time and work into this movie and I will not bash them for trying. If you like Lovecraft then maybe you should watch this, for fun. But if you are new to Lovecraft then don't let this be yr introduction.

I respect the effort but it doesn't result in a satisfying film.

This film is visually very beautiful and very well-acted by the entire cast, especially Cillian Murphy. It is a well-paced film that is enjoyable to watch.

However the writing and use of music are both frequently immature, especially given the subject matter of the film. I felt that many of the emotional turns in the story were not well earned by the narrative development.

Cillian Murphy's character in the film is always denying anyone else's' ability to analyze his suicidal tendencies and my biggest problem with the film is that I think if his character were a real person who saw this film he would hate it and say that it was dishonest.

My last statement does suggest that Murphy's character was developed enough for me to even have ideas about what he would feel outside of the film, so that is a positive thing.

I think "On the Edge" is a good enough movie, but the same actors/characters with the same cinematographer and director, but with a different story, could have made a much better film.

Don't bother with the review of this film that clearly comes from a jilted Seattle local, this is a beautiful film. A pure mood from start to finish, the entire film is an experience inside the mind of the protagonist. Terrence Malick is the closest comparison in terms of style, but these days I find referencing him to be cliché.

I decided to start this film at 2:00 AM and fully expected to get tired after the first fifteen minutes but I was glued to the screen the whole way through. I have a great appetite for 'obscure' and 'difficult' films, but this was totally watchable and I would recommend it to even the most artistically ignorant of people because the art in this film is built on a foundation of empathy. If you liked Godard's "Hail Mary" then you will probably like this, but if you don't have to have even heard of "Hail Mary" or Godard to enjoy this because everyone has the capacity for empathy.

Just watch this film, it is short and has a constant pace. And when you finish it may or may not be your favorite film, but I refuse to believe you will hate it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates Cinema as art.

I hated this movie. I saw it in the theater and after it was over I just felt horrible. I was hungry but I didn't want to eat anything, I was tired but didn't want to sleep, I didn't want to talk to any of my friends, even my cigarette tasted bad. I ended up going home and washing dishes. Three or four hours later I snapped out of it but it was real downer.

It's not even like the movie was depressing, I like depressing movies, I like dark movies and sad movies and horror movies. But this was something different, it was life-ruining bad. And it wasn't even that any one aspect of the film was flawed specifically, (although I particularly hated the editing) just the entire movie turned me off. I don't know what I am supposed to leave this movie with, a lot of people keep saying that the entire film is a magic trick, which would make the film's director the magician. so in the end when he outsmarts me with his twist ending, I guess I am supposed to be amazed and astounded at how clever he is, and how not clever I am.

I don't know why anybody would want to see a film where the director is just flaunting his intellectual superiority over his audience.

The movie is like some awful prank, like director Chris Nolan took my car keys and through them in a river.

I recognize I will be immediately outed for being American... But this film is total garbage. I should clarify that I love every other Von Trier film I've seen, Dogville happens to be my favorite. I am anti-Bush and anti-war like every other person with a brain in their head, so nobody give me any haughty European attitude about my country's regrettable foreign policy.

All that being said, it feels like this film was written by a precocious fifteen year-old who just found about out all the history "they didn't teach you in schools". Von Trier's snappy I- bet-you-didn't-know-that approach to history in post civil war America in laughable, (I went to public high school in the south and none of this was shocking to me) and if he thinks he is turning any heads about the Iraq war I offer that the only people who watch this movie are liberal-minded intellectuals to begin with. Not that preaching to the choir can't be easily confused with rallying the troops, but please spare me the claims that this film is either "important" or "brave", look to his past films to fulfill these claims.

Dogville was delicate and artful, difficult but justified, frustrating but ultimately powerful and a valid "important" statement about all of our (especially the artist's) roles in society. Manderly is a ham-fisted jab at "america's" "underbelly" that will certainly leave you sore, but probably not in the way it was intended to.