2 reseñas
When I was waiting for the movie to start, I was wondering why so many gay couples had come in to see it. However this was all explained as soon as the movie started.
This film indeed is not about Eisenstein making a film (we see very little to nothing of that), or about his time in Mexico: except for some beautiful shots of nature and some dead masks and philosophical bladibla which has been taken totally out of context and are never truly deepened, there is little to no true interaction with Mexican culture. All conversations except for a very small amount are in English.
No, this movie is all about the male body and, to put it frank, gay anal sex. Yes, indeed the butt-loving Eisenstein receives from his Mexican guide Cañedo is probably his most profound encounter with the Mexicans, and for the rest of the movie the two characters do little else than run around naked with their willies flopping up and down. Other characters do appear in the movie but get no real chance at any story or development. The prime example of this are the American brother and sister who barge into Eisenstein's hotel room towards to end of the movie. This is actually the moment that the viewer discovers that Eisenstein has already been in Mexico for 8 months shooting a movie with American funding, something quite essential but completely discarded during the first part of the picture.
The most annoying part of the film was certainly the vertiginous camera work. In the scene in the hotel room just described, the camera spins for about 5 minutes around the bed with a half-naked Eisenstein in it. I had to actually close my eyes as I felt the whole scene was making me sick. The vomiting and diarrhea scenes at the start of the movie had already done the same thing.
In other words, for those profoundly into male nudity and gay cinema, I would recommend to go and see this film; otherwise, you'll probably have some other place you'd rather be.
This film indeed is not about Eisenstein making a film (we see very little to nothing of that), or about his time in Mexico: except for some beautiful shots of nature and some dead masks and philosophical bladibla which has been taken totally out of context and are never truly deepened, there is little to no true interaction with Mexican culture. All conversations except for a very small amount are in English.
No, this movie is all about the male body and, to put it frank, gay anal sex. Yes, indeed the butt-loving Eisenstein receives from his Mexican guide Cañedo is probably his most profound encounter with the Mexicans, and for the rest of the movie the two characters do little else than run around naked with their willies flopping up and down. Other characters do appear in the movie but get no real chance at any story or development. The prime example of this are the American brother and sister who barge into Eisenstein's hotel room towards to end of the movie. This is actually the moment that the viewer discovers that Eisenstein has already been in Mexico for 8 months shooting a movie with American funding, something quite essential but completely discarded during the first part of the picture.
The most annoying part of the film was certainly the vertiginous camera work. In the scene in the hotel room just described, the camera spins for about 5 minutes around the bed with a half-naked Eisenstein in it. I had to actually close my eyes as I felt the whole scene was making me sick. The vomiting and diarrhea scenes at the start of the movie had already done the same thing.
In other words, for those profoundly into male nudity and gay cinema, I would recommend to go and see this film; otherwise, you'll probably have some other place you'd rather be.
- evito1
- 22 jun 2015
- Enlace permanente
The premise holds a lot of potential: The true story of a soviet director making an improvised film about Mexico with some US funding. Elements of political intrigue, Stalin, art, filmmaking, surrealism, a shock of cultures, and the beautiful Mexican landscape all give plenty of opportunities for an interesting film.
Unfortunately, the film version of this story does not make it justice. The movie is plagued by unending pretentious speeches by Eisenstein, these are rather empty speeches and simplistic. The characters in the movie react to Eisenstein's observations as if they would hold unending charisma, wit, or insight, but none is to be found inside Greenaway's script.
It is very clear from the start that this movie is all about Eisenstein getting sex from his backend. There is no tension nor chemistry nor romance . Any exploration of obsession, erotism, love or feeling of sin is badly executed.
The movie has some beautiful shots of Mexico and Guanajuato. The colourful houses, skeletons and the dark and wet Guanajuato tunnels, however any aesthetic gets ruined by the constant usage of three framing, some awful rotating 360 degree scenes that go for way too long and some questionable use of green screens.
The green screens are particularly strange for me. Why is Greenaway shooting with a noticeable green-screened theater backdrop when the scene has no need of a theater backdrop and could have happened anywhere?
A big miss, and one that makes me not want to explore the rest of Greenaway's works.
Unfortunately, the film version of this story does not make it justice. The movie is plagued by unending pretentious speeches by Eisenstein, these are rather empty speeches and simplistic. The characters in the movie react to Eisenstein's observations as if they would hold unending charisma, wit, or insight, but none is to be found inside Greenaway's script.
It is very clear from the start that this movie is all about Eisenstein getting sex from his backend. There is no tension nor chemistry nor romance . Any exploration of obsession, erotism, love or feeling of sin is badly executed.
The movie has some beautiful shots of Mexico and Guanajuato. The colourful houses, skeletons and the dark and wet Guanajuato tunnels, however any aesthetic gets ruined by the constant usage of three framing, some awful rotating 360 degree scenes that go for way too long and some questionable use of green screens.
The green screens are particularly strange for me. Why is Greenaway shooting with a noticeable green-screened theater backdrop when the scene has no need of a theater backdrop and could have happened anywhere?
A big miss, and one that makes me not want to explore the rest of Greenaway's works.
- eduluciodee
- 17 feb 2024
- Enlace permanente