|
Post by JangoB on Jan 29, 2019 16:27:42 GMT
Dafoe was just wonderful here, just wonderful. I liked the film but when it was over I was quite surprised - it seemed much shorter than it actually was. I'm not sure it says anything new about Van Gogh or about a painter's relationship to his art and to the world in general, but in a way it doesn't really have to. What it says is good enough. I was moved by the experience, I just wish it was even more substantial and hard-hitting. As it is, it's really quite good.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 31, 2019 16:11:38 GMT
Very much an impressionistic film more than a straightforward story, At Eternity's Gate is both unique in its approach and yet doesn't really do a whole lot that we haven't seen before. Schnabel's aggressive, literally-in-your-face direction also really overwhelms the piece, and honestly I think it is largely to the movie's detriment. Dafoe's performance is good, striking at times and indeed the scene where he discusses his self-inflicted ear removal is one of the watershed moments of an excellent career . . . but it kind of pales in comparison to Douglas and Curran's takes on Van Gogh (although Dafoe is measurably better than Roth and Dutronc). It's an inspired nomination for sure, and I definitely prefer it over his competition, but as far as a film goes, Loving Vincent left far more of a provoking impact with me.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,211
|
Post by speeders on Jan 31, 2019 17:34:30 GMT
Dafoe was truly transcendent here one of the decade's best performances in the category and truly the Academy's most inspired pick alongside Rampling. This was much better than I expected. Beautiful score and stunning cinematography, loved how it was use as a lens for his unravelling mental state and declining eyesight. Such a meditative, beautiful film. This makes me want to seek out Lust for Life and Vincent & Theo.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 3, 2019 6:23:14 GMT
Very mixed about this one. Schnabel's direction was overwhelming and overbearing, and the film was definitely most interesting/enjoyable when Dafoe was just simply conversing with someone. In between those insightful moments of lucidity and brilliance the film slips into dreamlike montages which substitute for actual plot and I guess are supposed to give the film a cerebral, meditative quality, but in fact they just pad the runtime of already thin material. I would have loved to see what a different director would have done with a much more grounded approach because the elements are here. Dafoe is transcendent and the rest of the cast shines in cameo roles (Seiger and Mikkelsen are just lovely). The landscapes are gorgeous but otherwise the camerawork is just as abrasive and disorienting as the directing and editing. This is why the film's few moments of relative stillness were the ones that connected with me the most. But what I want to know is how come no one is talking about Tatiana Lisovskaya's rapturous score? The music was breathtaking!
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Feb 3, 2019 23:13:05 GMT
Saw it today at my local theather. It's a bit of a slog, to be honest, but I enjoyed the way how colours were used, and Dafoe is quite good (not "decade's best" good, as stated above, but still good). Agree with Tommen that the score is phenomenal and elevates the film enormously.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Feb 8, 2019 23:48:25 GMT
A much better film that I expected it to be. Its a very quiet, philosophical and thoughtful film - almost a bit mediative. Interstingly directed by Julian Schnabel who used some great ankles to tell this very intiminate story of Vincent Van Gogh. It is as Schnabel follows Van Gogh through his last stays and accompanies him to all the places he visited in France where he created one of his biggest portfolios. The film is really beautifully photographed and has a very elegant and relaxing score that just feeds the mediative feel of the film. The famous and tragic artist is fantastically portrait by Willem Dafoe. On the first sight he seems totally miscast becuase of the huge age difference, but not only does he look like Van Gogh (with a few more wrinkles) no he also seems to perfectly understand his mind and was able to evaluate his emotions, thoughts, fears and paranioas amazingly on screen and delivers one of his brest peforamnces, which means a lot for an actor of his caliber and talent. I am glad the role was recognized by the Acadamy, especially considering the film itself is very unconventional in the way it is presented. The rest of the cast is also okay, but mostly are just extended cameos. Oscar Isaac is very good and Emanuelle Seigner has great moments when a lot of thing sjust happen in her face. Great. Its a great artist portrait but also an intersitng film about the meaning of life and how a life can make its own legacy.
Nominations for:
Best Actor in a Leading Role: Willem Dafoe Best Cinematography
Rating: 8/10
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Feb 24, 2019 3:41:51 GMT
Between this, Loving Vincent and Doctor Who's "Vincent and the Doctor", it makes me happy that Van Gogh's life and work have inspired art and biopics that are much more interested in capturing the mood of his work rather than tell his story in a traditional 3-act narrative. That's what he would've wanted, and it's a testament to his talent to move people in the deepest emotional level.
At Eternity's Gate plays like if Terrence Malick' The Tree of Life was a homage to Vincent. It sure does cover the life of the painter, but it's more concerned with showing the audience how his artistic style borrows from his perspective, his experience of the world, his point of view. You might not remember the exact plot points, but you do have the feeling you got to know the man behind the canvas.
The camera is a bit like Van Gogh's eye: it moves like a maniac, and then it stops to gaze at the hidden beauty of the world. This, together with the beautiful score and the fleshy use of color builds an atmosphere that's both idyllic and tragic. Dafoe, as expected, gives his everything and kills the part. He's heartbreaking and heartwarming.
My biggest complaint, however, stems from the same element that makes it remarkable. The movie is too erratic and unfocused. It's stuck between the more abstract storytelling of The Tree of Life and the conventional biopic narrative of the likes of Walk The Line. So, some moments that were clearly meant to dazzle the audience with its almost cosmic beauty might fall as boring because it doesn't fully commit with the experimental elements of the filmmaking.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Nov 6, 2019 4:17:05 GMT
I was wondering if my DVD copy was a bootleg filmed by some guy with a cellphone camera for a while there... It's good, I suppose. Dafoe is pretty great, but Schnabel really holds the movie back with that camera. It's distracting much more than immersive. I have absolutely nothing to say that hasn't been said.
|
|