Tuvalu (1999) User Reviews

A genre bending film

[Shiva-11 · 8/10 · 13 September 2000]

I attended the preview screening of "Tuvalu" for one simple reason - it was the first film of the day and fit into my schedule. Having read a brief synopsis of the film, I went in with mixed expectations - the review snippets lauded the film, but could a two-hour black and white film largely bereft of dialogue really be that entertaining? Please pass the crow...

Set in a dilapidated indoor swimming pool (the Central Baths in Sofia), the film details the efforts of Anton, a clueless dreamer who yearns to sail the world, and Martha, the button obsessed cashier, to maintain the illusion for Anton's blind father that business is thriving. Working to sabotage their efforts is Gregor - Anton's brother - an amoral developer who is determined to raze the entire town and construct a sprawling condominium complex. Gregor engineers an accident that seems certain to doom the business and in the process steals away Eva, the beautiful woman of Anton's dreams. Will Gregor's dastardly plan succeed? It is difficult to categorize this film as it refuses to fit neatly within the confines of any particular genre. Taken on its simplest merits it is a slapstick comedy in the tradition of the Marx Brothers, Chaplin and the Keystone Cops. On this level, alone it will satisfy most viewers. A closer examination reveals a beautiful fairly tale with an innocent dreamer fighting to save his world and loved ones from evil. Finally, there is the none- too -subtle rail against the freight train of modernization, particularly relevant in many areas of post-Communist where vast construction projects are radically altering the cityscapes at the expense of history. However, one need look no further that our own city to see this -only recently have serious efforts been made to safeguard heritage buildings in Vancouver - some fear it may already be too late.

Originally filmed in black and white, the stock was laboriously tinted to give the interior shots take a Sepia tone and the exterior shots a muddy turquoise- grey, providing further contrast for the story elements. The visual experience is further enhanced by masterful cinematography, most notably the underwater sequences, which take on a wondrous ethereal quality. The sound engineers have also created a richly diverse auditory realm that meshes uncannily with the onscreen action. Finally, the exaggerated expressiveness of the actors, both emotive and physical keep the action flowing seamlessly.

If you are in search of an unusual, intriguing film, look no further.

Drab colours, annoying characters... call me crazy but I liked it

[rooprect · 7/10 · 25 August 2006]

This is one of the weirder movies out there. But I can't say it's original, because Jeunet & Caro pioneered this exact style 18 years earlier in "Le Bunker de la dernière rafale" (1981). This is so much of a rip-off that I wonder if the director was deliberately making an homage to "Le Bunker", right down to the weird woman's chewing gum collection (except in "Bunker" it was boogers. yeah, yuck).

Also, let's get something out of the way in case you don't know it already: this is basically a black & white, silent film. So you need to have a good attention span. It also has some of the ugliest actors I've ever seen. So don't expect to instantly fall in love with any of the characters, the way we do with Johnny Depp or the Hollywood prettyboys. Instead we see a lot of wrinkly guys in need of a good orthodontist. Welcome to European cinema.

If I haven't scared you off yet, then maybe there's hope. Now let's get to the good part. Even though the plot is simple, it's a very challenging & fun film to watch. Because there's very little dialogue (mostly grunts, a few shouts and oh yes, the most hilarious line ever: "TECHNOLOGY... SYSTEM... PROFIT!"), you're forced to work your brain to understand even the simplest situations. In that respect, it reminds me of those emergency cards you read on airplanes. You know, the goofy cartoon icons without any words which are supposed to explain how to save your life in the event of cabin depressurization. It's all so retro.

Some of the gags are classic, and you may be reminded of some old Charlie Chaplin material.

And even though I said it's black & white, there are some downright magical colour tints which give it a dreamy feel. In one particular blue-tinted shot, we see a graveyard of half-sunken ships. I couldn't think of a better way of showing it--all the colours in the world couldn't express it better. Imagine if "Metropolis" (1927) had been re-done with seamless camera-work, cranes & dollies, and a very convincing set. That should give you an indication of the visual style.

Really the only reason why I'm rating this a 7 instead of a 9 is because it lost points for lack of originality (Jeunet/Caro rip-off). But that shouldn't diminish its effectiveness as a work of art, especially to those of you who haven't seen "Le Bunker de la dernière rafale" or "Delicatessen". In any case, it's definitely worth the rental fee.

Not entirely original, but yet a good movie

[jpinto · 8/10 · 9 March 2000]

I had the chance to see this movie in the Porto, Portugal film festival Fantasporto 2000. The story revolves around a decadent public swimming pool, run by a blind old man who's mind still lives in the building's days of glory. It focuses on the people still using it, and on the persons still working there: a woman with a fixation on buttons and one of the old man's sons, who struggles to keep the building alive. The antagonist is the old man's other son who eagerly waits for the destruction of the building so he can build condo's.

I found the concept of making a film without dialogs very interesting. Although people might think this could make the film boring and hard to follow, this doesn't happen at all. Merit goes to the actors, who deliver a very expressive and quality performance, without falling into ridicule, and to the rhythm given to the plot.

Regarding directing and photography, all is presented neatly, but I can't help mentioning the similarities to Emir Kusturica's (namely in the portraying of the 'post-apocalyptic' universe and the nonsense touch of the plot) and to Jeunet & Caro's work (the building and the 'impossible romance' between the main characters is shown very similarly to Delicatessen). Although this impairs a bit the final result, I believe that in the end it is a nice movie which most people will enjoy and be surprised with (specially if they haven't seen any Kusturica or Jeunet & Caro movie).

A Great Film

[phasmatodea · 9/10 · 3 December 2000]

I enjoyed Tuvalu immensely. I found it to be a very touching and heart-warming look into the life of an ordinary man living in an extraordinary world. The story was great. It had elements of suspense, romance, tragedy and quirky humour. The actors also did an excellent job of bringing to life the odd and endearing characters. I also found that the film really succeeded in bringing across a mood with exquisitely bleak scenery and visuals which I found reminiscent of both "City of Lost Children" and "Brazil". Tuvalu is an incredible surrealistic journey through a world full of fantasy and wonder. I highly recommend it.

A wonderful experiment in the basics of film making.

[dzstroke015 · 29 September 2000]

This is a film that filled me with warmth and appreciation for the cinematic artform. Using tinted black and white film and a suggestion of dialogue, Veit Helmer was able to successfully tell a story in the way they were told within the first 30 years of cinema. It should renew anyone's faith in this medium who thought that Hollywood productions were all that were left to call "entertainment".

Andre is the younger son of a blind man, left to run a delapidated bath house in a fictional European city a few years in the future(?). He not only has to juggle the possible closing of the house by local authorities, keep business going as usual, and keep his Father from finding out the true plight of which they face, but also face his first true love, Eva. All this and an evil brother who wants to see the bath house torn down in way for a new development and you have a formula that has been seen many times over.

However, several elements come into play that make this an outstanding film. One, the film is shot using tinted black and white film, giving the decaying sets a life of their own. Second, Veir opted out of having any "real" dialogue and instead presented a combination of gestures, expressions and universally known words to convey the words. This made way for the kind of acting that was predominate in the first 30 years of film history, and if he had decided to illiminate the dialogue altogether it would have come out the exact same way. Not since the premiere films of Luc Besson, David Lynch or Lars Von Trier can I stress the incredible treasure that has been created.

I hope that many more of you have the chance to see this film.

Very different and occasionally very good

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 3 September 2016]

"Tuvalu" is a German movie from 1999 that runs for approximately 95 minutes. "German" is only true though in terms of which country it produced and where the director came from as the actors in here come from all kinds of countries and there is also no German language in here. The writer and director is Veit Helmer and he is somewhat known for bringing a foreign note to all his films usually, frequently they aren't in German just like this one here too as a consequence. Helmer had worked on other films, for example on Wim Wenders' movies before making this one here, his first directorial effort. This film here is quite an extraordinary project, especially for a 30-year-old director. I am not surprised at all it won so many awards and was nominated for many more as this is definitely a pretty unique work. You won't really find anything remotely similar in film in the last 20 years. The result is that this is certainly not a work that will really appeal to many many audiences and I would be surprised if this was a commercial success back then. Fittingly, the lead actor here is Denis Lavant and he is known for his pretty remarkable role selection in terms of alternative cinema. He plays the main part very well and same goes for his co-lead Chulpan Khamatova. Both were convincing casting choices. Due to the lack of language in here (even if there is some silent talking and lots of mumbling throughout the movie) and also due to the style, this reminded me of a silent film at times. Taking away some aspects, it perfectly could have been a film from the early 20s, also in terms of how the actors presented their characters. I believe this may be a good watch for everybody who likes "The Artist" for example. I myself would not call "Tuvalu" a really great film, but it succeeds at what it attempts, tells an interesting story (especially the romance parts) about likable characters and (even with Helmer's short film experience) it is a really respectable work for a rookie filmmaker.

beautiful film, I watched it a second time in the theatre!

[eduardo10075 · 9/10 · 19 February 2003]

It's been a couple of years since I saw, but would like to see it again. I remember it being magical. Everything works well in this film: the acting carries the film without dialogue, the color of the film (sepia) gives it a surrealistic, fairy-tale quality. Great story, focusing on saving a family-operated bathouse from evil developers. Many memorable scenes, including fooling the blind father that the place is full of customers. Another example of a film that Hollywood/USA could never make.

Fail Better.

[micaelamorrissette-1 · 6/10 · 29 March 2006]

When some movies fail, it's boring. When some movies fail, it's hilarious. When some movies fail, it's grimly satisfying. Tuvalu is a movie that only just fails, and it's almost agonizing how close it comes to wonderousness.

Like the British film Hotel Splendide, Tuvalu is an atmospheric fantasy, the central character of which is a building populated by a supporting cast of whimsical caricatures, mostly Adorable but occasionally Evil. Both films are melancholy and eccentric, and both draw widely on an aesthetic of detritus, on the cobbled-together and the half-broken, on jumping, jerking, smoking, gurgling machines insecurely constructed of loose bolts and clanking valves. And both employ the same central motifs –water and the state of being marooned. In Hotel Splendide, hydrophobia maroons the young and Adorable Stanley Smith (Hugh O'Conor) on the damp and dreary island where the run-down health spa Hotel Splendide has settled its grey, ungainly (once-majestic, once-romantic) bulk. Will the pert and rather noisy Kath (Toni Collette), who arrives to fill the position of cook, be able to save him? In Tuvalu, the boyish and (sort of) Adorable Anton (Denis Lavant) is marooned in the immense, run-down (once-majestic, once-romantic) building where the murky community swimming pool is housed, restrained from leaving perhaps by a fear of the outside world or possibly by a fear of lace-up shoes. Will the pert and (way too) Adorable Eva (Chulpan Khamatova), who comes with her father to swim at the pool, and who becomes Anton's enemy but also his beloved, be able to save him?

Tuvalu has much, much, much to recommend it. The stylized and pointed avoidance of dialogue is a bit precious, but director Veit Helmer carries it off – only just. The complicated and baroque malfunctions of the architecture and its plumbing are ingenious, and the machinations of Anton and various pool patrons and other characters to save the building from demolition by masking its various deficiencies with complicated tricks and childish cosmetic alterations are winning, but the gleeful scene in which the complex conspiracy to deceive the building inspector takes place is somewhat over-choreographed, too delightful somehow, too ready to morph into a Broadway musical, with the scurrying up and down stairs, the popping in and out of heads from behind shower stall doors, the rapid cross-signaling and mis-signaling via the tapping of pipes. The scenes of the decrepit patrons paddling in the pool are languorous, luscious, balletic, but the quirks of the patrons themselves are too easy, too cartooned, and too familiar – an old woman paddling herself in an inner tube with crutches, grungy, kindly sailors in tattered suits. Karl (Philippe Clay), the proprietor, the father of Anton and Anton's villainous brother Gregor (Terrence Gillespie), who is not only literally blind but blind as well to the disrepair and disuse into which the pool has fallen, is a marvelous figure – dictatorial, terrifying but beloved, and artificially inflated – but his eventual death is artificially inflated too, into a cumbersome and top-heavy symbol of brotherly rivalry and paternal betrayal.

Helmer has been successful in creating an entire, intact world, and any film with this to its credit deserves to be seen. The particular offerings by which patrons can gain admission to the pool, the particular method Eva and Anton use to spy on each other's dreams, the incredibly thorough and cohesive design of both the aesthetics of the building and the functioning of its many complex parts: elements like these imply an entire civilization, an alternate world with its own social structure, physical laws, and geography, of which the village we see in the film is only a small part. The implication of this other reality, which is like ours but is not quite ours, is gracefully and cunningly accomplished. This is a work of real imagination. And to criticize Helmer for his caricaturing of his characters is not quite fair, as this is precisely his objective. But the technique of caricature, of reducing and simplifying human beings, is only productive if, by eliminating or distorting finer shades of meaning, other meanings are revealed. In Tuvalu, the stylization is so affected, rather than effective. Gillespie turns in a terrifically energetic and clownish performance as the grasping and psychotic Gregor, but if he waxes hysterical and strains at the limits of tolerability only in order to emphasize the evils of avarice and the soullessness of progress – tired themes, indeed – then have his efforts really been worthwhile? Khamatova squeaks and goggles and pouts and puckers for all she's worth, but her role in the film is entirely limited to a plot device. Certainly her actions are absolutely intrinsic to the events that unfold, but the personality of her character is utterly self-serving. She could have played the role like a wooden mannequin, or like a sad-eyed siren, or like a histrionic heroine, and the film would have continued apace. She is a machine for moving plot, her robotic heart disguised beneath a sickly-sweet frosting of giggles and winks, and in this and other aspects of Tuvalu, Helmer does not merely play with superficiality, but is superficial.

Superficiality, yes, but a hell of a set designer. And this would be a wonderful movie for children whose parents don't object to a bit of nudity, a blow-up sex doll, and a couple of murders. Making a double feature out of this film and Hotel Splendide would assuredly cast each film in a more interesting light than viewing either independently. Still, even on its own merits alone, Tuvalu is one of the world's best failures.

The most beautiful movie I've ever seen...

[deirdrey2k · 10/10 · 9 June 2001]

I love this movie! It's funny, it gives you material for hours of discussion and it makes you think and dream. my favourite scene is when Eva goes swimming with her pet-fish. Not only that her naked body looks very beautiful in the blue light - what impressed me most was the fact, that the fish believed to be free although it was imprisoned in a bigger vessel. A good film to reflect about your dreams and how to realize the ones that are no pipe dreams.

Disappointed

[Egtrun · 6/10 · 29 December 2005]

I usually like innovative, original and even strange films. When I read some comments on the Internet I thought this movie might be that (innovative, original and strange). Well, yeah it is but, I now think those things are not always enough to make a good movie. I was warned about the lack of color and dialogs (the characters only made cavemen noises and eventually said single words), but I'll have to admit with a lot of shame that I need words in a movie, it was so boring. The "funny" parts are not that funny neither. Maybe if you like the silent films from the beginning of the 20th century you'll enjoy this one, if not (like me) I'd recommend to stay away from this.

I understand the comparison with Juenet and Caro. I'm almost sure that the music at the beginning is also in "City of Lost Children" (may be wrong), the use of water reminded it to me too. And several similarities with Delicatessen can be found. But it doesn't mean that if you liked those two films you'll like Tuvalu, believe me.

It's not all bad, the photograph is really good, a very nice work of art. The story is also very creative, another good point. But as a whole, it didn't work for me. Interesting experiment however.

If you are the kind of person who is in search of "different" movies, I must say this may, but also may not be the one that you're looking for.

Another bad dream makes it to the screen

[merridon · 4/10 · 30 September 2005]

You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.

A Fun and Bizarre Slapstick Fantasy!

[NateManD · 9/10 · 29 June 2008]

"Tuvalu" is a fantasy/ comedy that pays homage to everything from early German expressionism to Buster Keaton, David Lynch, Fellini and Jeanet and Cairo. In fact, in many ways it's similar to the films "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children". In "Tuvalu" a mother and son own a public pool in a creaky old building. Customers pay in buttons to use the pool. Yeah, buttons. An evil contractor, who looks like Jack Nance from "Eraserhead", longs to tear the place down and build a casino. The son falls for a beautiful girl only to have the contractor steal her away from him. He fights to keep the place open and win the heart of the girl. That's the basic plot, although it almost defies description. Even though it's a German film, there is hardly any dialog. The characters communicate by saying each other's names, or using crazy facial expressions, grunts or simple words like "yeah" or "no" which translate into every language. Filmed in sepia tones, It also reminded me of Canadian director Guy Maddin. "Tuvalu" is visually stunning, comical and highly surreal. It is also very cute with its romantic charm.

A strange, unique film!

[RodrigAndrisan · 7/10 · 26 February 2023]

Hard to write about this movie. What is it actually? What is the message? Does it have a message? Is it all a metaphor? And if so, what would be the key to the mystery? Certainly for many it's a stratospheric sleepiness. All the action takes place inside an old, dilapidated building, ready to fall down, which houses a public bath with a pool in the middle, where hardly anyone comes to bathe. It doesn't have superheroes flying around in body-hugging suits, with Spider-Man or Batman type masks, over the eyes, not the mouth. You will not see more victims in this film than in the bubonic plague, you will not see shootings, destruction, special effects. You will see only one main character, Anton, a not at all handsome young man who makes sure that everything works well in the public bathroom. You will also see an idiot policeman who comes accompanied by an inspector to check that everything is in order. Everything gets complicated when young Eva comes to the bathroom. I won't say more, I don't tell the action of the movies like others do, too many who write reviews, I'll leave it to you to elucidate the deep mystery of the movie, if you have the patience to see it in its entirety, from start to finish. I will tell you only one more thing: no, we will not see Tuvalu, the island country and microstate in the Polynesian subregion of Oceania in the Pacific Ocean, situated about midway between Hawaii and Australia and no one in the film is from the capital Funafuti.

This is a bore!

[al104 · 1/10 · 25 July 2000]

Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.

A delightful black and white "silent" comedy acknowledging a debt to Chaplin and Buster Keaton

[stebmarc · 19 September 2000]

The film is a beautifully photographed and outrageously funny example of visual story telling at its very best. Performances by all the leading characters are breathtakingly good and never for a moment overdone. I saw this film at the Taos Film Festival 2000 and it was by far the most memorable of the 10 or 12 I saw. I recommend it to anyone who is serious about the art and history of film making.

Almost like a silent epic

[Semih · 10/10 · 7 June 2000]

It amazed me how interesting this movie was even though it had very few dialogue lines which consisted of only a couple words, and it didn't have a wall-to-wall non-stop musical score that actual silent films have. So the power of the movie basically relies on the directing, acting, editing and cinematography. As far as the plot, it was a very simple plot: an old swimming pool in an old building that wants to be demolished by an evil relative of the owner. Whereas the owner tries to make sure that the building doesn't get demolished. That's basically it.

But the details are so intricate and funny that it makes the movie one of the greatest cinematic works in years. The atmosphere reminds me of films like City of Lost Children, or Delicatessen. I highly recommend this film.

one of the best films of the decade

[caleidos · 10/10 · 23 May 2000]

I had the luck to see it at a festival for young directors in Salerno and I was surprised it won for a few votes only.There is something that recalls Chaplin and Beckett's theatre works(the acting,of course)and it also quotes Jean Vigo's L'Atalante in many shots.There is also a quotation from Nosferatu in the early minutes!This flavour of old time silent film is even more present in the wonderful photography and the surrealistic scenography.I love this film and I think that it is far better than Kusturica has done.Moreover the style,so refined, is quite different from Kusturica's works.And mind that the director had made only short films before!

The most beautiful film I have ever seen. World of Dada.

[zorander · 10/10 · 2 April 2002]

Once you sit in the chair in the cinema, the lights are turned down and the movie starts, you enter a wonderful world. The heartwarming work of a Dadaist, which needs no words. Everybody can understand this film.

empty, pretentious, a cinematic con job

[charley-8 · 1/10 · 22 May 2003]

This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.

You will love it or hate

[IOBdennis · 1/10 · 25 August 2003]

I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.

Brilliantly offbeat fairy tale around a swimming pool

[Sergeiii · 2 June 2000]

I have never been particularly fond of movies with taglines like "a poetic adventure" or "a journey into the land of dreams" stamped on their front, as this kind of advertising is usually nothing more than a weak excuse for the absence of a coherent plot or some in-depth characterization, leaving you in the guess why the filmmakers didn't stick to the painting of aquarelles in the first place. My expectations sank even lower when I understood that there wasn't going to be any dialogue in "Tuvalu", at least not in the proper sense of the term. So this couldn't be more than a soothing eye candy at best; hopefully free from the embarrassing "isn't our imagination a wonderful thing"-moments or the "why can't we all be children forever"-messages that tend to haunt this specific genre.

After a few moments into the film, I was entirely cured from that kind of prejudice. "Tuvalu" surprisingly brings across the magic that is promised on the poster - and it works well for a variety of reasons. First of all, despite the movie's innocent fairy tale character, it isn't coy about adult themes at all (like all good fairy tales, for that matter). We actually even have scenes of violence and nudity, but both are introduced in a very playful and witty manner; in a style which I should consider perfectly suitable for children.

Secondly, "Tuvalu" is hilariously funny, and at times, the humour is pretty far from being tongue-in-cheek... There is a lot of crude slapstick going on, and sometimes the whole movie is close to the coarseness of a Punch and Judy show; but most of the time one just laughs at the sheer originality and inventiveness of the production. Furthermore, the sparse use of words proves to be a great means of comedy as well - the effect is somewhat comparable to the quasi-absence of comprehensible language in Jacques Tati's films, or, for those who have seen it, in "Themroc".

Thirdly, there is always joy in watching talented and charismatic actors under the direction of a talented director and screenwiter. You can tell that everyone involved in the making was perfectly devoted to the project; and this justified euphoria of the makers comes across in almost every scene. They probably knew that they were doing something special, and this is indeed what they have achieved. Additionally, Helmer's use of light and colour is always original, but never distracting; every scene of this movie is simply beautiful to look at. Yes, I should say, imagination is a wonderful thing and it is an utter shame that we can't be children forever.

101 minutes of Is it over yet?

[succotash · 1/10 · 25 March 2004]

I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.

another opinion

[nweissman · 1/10 · 5 June 2008]

I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.

I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?

on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.

Chaplin's Internet Dreams

[tedg · 23 January 2011]

Going into this, you need some background, because the beginning does not much help you enter this ambitious world.

When this was made, the expectation was that much streaming online video (like Netflix) would be via websites with the suffix "dot TeeVee." That domain (the word itself is significant) was assigned to a tiny Polynesian island nation, who subsequently sold rights to internet speculators. The irony of watching a film, itself a pretense, in such a pretend domain is something that would have given me a chuckle. As there are a number of people like me, there is an audience for extensions of this comic notion.

The film features a wasteland of rubble, in the midst of which is an ornate old-fashioned moviehouse. Every narrative detail is built around various elements of the film experience, and the fantasies that it both evokes and rides on. You would not know that from the film itself however, and I suppose that is intended.

Once entering the building, having passed the box office (you can pay with a button), the immersive experience is a swimming pool. The success of this is fabricated for the senile owner, and threatened by "the authorities." It is powered by a complex steam device, clearly labeled "Imperim," incidentally the name (at the time) of a large movie file sharing website.

Built on this are many overlapping references to film-fantasy borders, using overt film references, mostly from the era of "pure" cinema. One narrative thread has to do with a romance, woven into another with the notion of escape via sea. The "engine" of the cinema is literally moved to the boat of this romantic escape while the moviehouse collapses. It is all something of a muddle, but a muddle in such respectful and complex notions of film, you end up glowing at the sharing of the thing.

If you like Guy Maddin, you will like this. Some scenes simply charm your soul. The one most often cited is our love interest swimming nude underwater with her beloved pet goldfish in a bowl.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Tedious beyond belief!

[ds1909 · 8 February 2002]

This movie tries way too hard to be cute. It's the worst of "art" films because it is so self-conscious. It could have been cut down. It is too long and very hard to sit through. There is nothing compelling going on in the story.

The grunts and giggles got on my nerves -- why not do something daring and make it completely silent? As it is, if characters want something they point and grunt, or if they approve of something, they giggle. Very repetitive and very annoying. The director should stick to commercials or become an art director.

Wanna see a good "arty" retro spoof in black and white? Rent Richard Elfman's "The Forbidden Zone". Or rent the real thing and see a good silent-era film.