Koch Lorber Films | Release Date: September 14, 2011
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 17 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
11
Mixed:
4
Negative:
2
Watch Now
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
7
cabritaJan 10, 2012
A great artistic movie that is easier to admire as a novel art movie but that does not meen it is easy to like. I found it very difficult to be engaged into the film nothing was relatable. It was a tough sit but overall it had some very wellA great artistic movie that is easier to admire as a novel art movie but that does not meen it is easy to like. I found it very difficult to be engaged into the film nothing was relatable. It was a tough sit but overall it had some very well directed and well thought out shots. My favourite being the one at the end of the film of the painting in the museum. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
CMCOct 14, 2011
Short review: Commendable idea and effort that is in the end disappointing and tedious.
Longer review: This film is an attempt to capture in film *something* from a painting. This is the problem: it never figure out what it is trying to do,
Short review: Commendable idea and effort that is in the end disappointing and tedious.
Longer review: This film is an attempt to capture in film *something* from a painting. This is the problem: it never figure out what it is trying to do, or how to do it. There are many hints of possible approaches, and some are very interesting. The least interesting is the use of the painter doing first-person narration, explaining the painting (and some of the elements of the movie.) It get worse when it is a weak dialogue between the painter and one other person inquiring about the painting. As for the interesting stuff, many scenes have a visual flatness that very successfully look like a painting. A few don't work well and look like badly registered 90's green-screen, but many are interesting. There are slow pans, with some people moving and others frozen, all with a strange light. This all looks good, but cannot hold interest long and does not a movie make. Then there a few "scenes" that are really good; in particular one with evocative light where kids are pillow-fighting in some dingy farm room. The sound is good here- kids yelling, but no real coherence, no discernible word spoken. Another great scene that suggests a very different direction the film could have taken occurs at the end of the film, where all the people dance in a strange way that is suggested by a Bruegal painting. There are other parts of the film where people move and act strangely, and this all works well. Another successful aspect is how characters seem to perform their roles with a sense of inevitability. This mimics well the sense of these paintings that a drama is unfolding and that everyone is performing a role, without much individual personality. I easily imagine that the filmmaker did not know what to expect, and when the edit was done it was too late to go back and do it right. Too bad. I give it a rating of seven because it is an admirable pursuit, far from conventional filmmaking. As entertainment, it is a 1. Unfortunately, it is hard to watch to the end, and this is not in a good way that I say this. Most people will not like this film.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
CitizenCharlieOct 17, 2011
The Mill and the Cross is a movie inside of a painting, specifically The Way to Calvary (1564) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Pieter Bruegel (Rutger Hauer) is the main character in the film which takes turns following him as he decides how hisThe Mill and the Cross is a movie inside of a painting, specifically The Way to Calvary (1564) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Pieter Bruegel (Rutger Hauer) is the main character in the film which takes turns following him as he decides how his painting will take shape and who will be in it and also follows the local peasants who go about their daily business in middle of 16th century Flanders. The background is always the actual paintingâ Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
ZackLemcheckFeb 15, 2012
I don't think it's appropriate to expect a narrative from a snapshot - an allegorical snapshot at that - conveying the spiritual cosmology of peasants in the Renaissance. We might as well go to a movie based on "The Persistence of Memory"I don't think it's appropriate to expect a narrative from a snapshot - an allegorical snapshot at that - conveying the spiritual cosmology of peasants in the Renaissance. We might as well go to a movie based on "The Persistence of Memory" expecting to get a melodrama about a Spanish watchmaker on LSD. How banal would that be? For me it's enough that the film immerses us in Brueghel's world, from the mud to the heavens, and successfully communicates something of its way of life and thought across an almost interplanetary gulf of psychological distance, through the imagination of the artist. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews