I wonder if you can for a refund when a description of a film is completely misguiding. This has been introduced as "romantic comedy". Seriously! Did the writers of that introduction think they could fool some people into the cinema by giving the film this label? Others called it "stylistically confident". I become more and more convinced that this is in most cases used as synonym for pretentious bullshit - which is true in this case. Some observers have traced "sharp wit". If there is any it was wasted on this observer.
This film does not do justice to Kleist or the romantic era in general. Yes, the pictures are well composed (and sterile), but looking at a painting is more interesting than watching these doll-like actors hovering around. It seems that Hausner wants them to act as artificial as possible. Add the stilted language of the script and you get 96 minutes of dullness. Usually I avoid those terms, as dullness is an impression and not a description. But I really don't know any other term. Toy theatre is more vivid than this one.
OK, Kleist wanted to find somebody for a suicide pact - but why does he have to perform like a sleepwalker?
The more I write about this, the more I hate it.
1/10
This film does not do justice to Kleist or the romantic era in general. Yes, the pictures are well composed (and sterile), but looking at a painting is more interesting than watching these doll-like actors hovering around. It seems that Hausner wants them to act as artificial as possible. Add the stilted language of the script and you get 96 minutes of dullness. Usually I avoid those terms, as dullness is an impression and not a description. But I really don't know any other term. Toy theatre is more vivid than this one.
OK, Kleist wanted to find somebody for a suicide pact - but why does he have to perform like a sleepwalker?
The more I write about this, the more I hate it.
1/10
No comments:
Post a Comment