Opiniones de usuarios

A staunch queer cinema visionary and nonconformist, Portuguese filmmaker João Pedro Rodrigues' fifth feature beguilingly takes a leap of faith onto a religious theme, a pilgrimage to Saint Anthony of Padua, conspicuously transcribing its story into the existential trials and tribulations of our titular ornithologist Fernando (Hamy), which is also St. Anthony's birth name, stranded in a modern-day Portuguese waterway and forests.

Fernando, an atheist from the word go, embarks on his stork-scouting journey with gusto and alacrity, and the implication that it is not his first sortie in the area makes his adventure quite up his alley. Few background information is purveyed, other than he is under medication and has a male lover who is caring for him. Contrasting Fernando's bird-watching/telescopic angle with different bird's-eye views, it is the modus operandi brings home a numinous frisson of watching and simultaneously being watched, literally sublimates the nature's gaze with a plethora of wild feathered friends hovering around incessantly through the film. When Fernando's kayak is upset during the rapids, the story starts to take shape into a multi-layered religious mythology through Fernando's various real/surreal encounters, garnished with sexual innuendos (undressed and tied- up by two young Chinese female God-bothers, a sadomasochistic position enticing one's fantasy; the urolagnia experience in the darkness among a contingent of masqueraded roarers), and an in- the-buff dalliance with a deaf-mute shepherd boy named Jesus (Cagiao), which ends in manslaughter, a startling incident but concocted with blasé wantonness.

Conceivably, when one liquidates Jesus, there is nothing but a road to redemption beckons him, Fernando must carry on his mythical transmogrification into a pious St. Antony by dint of his self- inflicted ritual for absolution (that is where symbolic tunnel, tableaux vivants and inscrutable gestures abound), consummated by being dispatched by the alter ego of Jesus, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, if credits must be given to Rodrigues' wheeze of contemplating a grand mythos within an entrancing temporal sphere, his didactic exegesis is less a merit to be reckoned with.

Leading actor Paul Hamy credibly shoulders on a role which requires boldness and physical exertion, instils his open-faced earthiness into the overlaying mystique and alone-in-the-woods background, which successfully retains Fernando in the cynosure, even when narrative longueur inevitably lurks. Tellingly, the film renders a captivating landscape to those eyes yearning for natural's majestic design, whether it is the picturesque on the surface or the uncanny residing in the deep, also the foley artists (Nuno Carvalho and Martin Delzescaux) ply their own distinctive aural intrusion to that latter effect: eerie, preternatural and strident. In the end of the day, THE ORNITHOLOGIST is another contrived fable trying to mythicize religion in order to elicit a sense of meta-sanctity of our own existence, but the fruition thuddingly slumps between artsy-fartsy and nonplussing, on top of that, where are the storks, anyway?

A bird-watcher in jungles of Portugal gets lost and embarks on a journey of rediscovery of self and religion.Apparently ,this Portuguese film is an homoerotic allegory of the life of St Anthony of Padua,who is considered the patron saint of lost things,and whose original name was Fernando.The film is shot at beautiful locations to start with and works well till the ornithologist gets lost while kayaking.Then begins the torture,as the film descends from realism into supposed transcendental surrealism.There appear two Chinese lesbians tied up in a bondage relationship,members of a cult who dance and kill a boar in the middle of the night,a shepherd by the name of Jesus who makes out with the protagonist and who the latter ends up stabbing,nude huntresses riding horses and remains of a monastery.I am not sure if this work shud be classified as magic realism.The ornithologist was on medication since the very beginning,and ends up losing his pills when he meets with an accident.It can be argued then that whatever happened after that was in his mind.I watched the film because this film was on the ' to be watched' list of a friend.Maybe the cinematography made him like this nut job.

I can't say that I don't respect this film. There's a lot going on underneath, but it's one of those films that you either get or you don't. I don't think I fully got it, either in a intellectual level or on an emotional one. Even if the former doesn't come at first, if the latter does, that's all that matters. The film lost me, but I also know it's one that will benefit from rewatches and further introspection. I can't wait to really gather my thoughts on it to see how it fares with time for me. In the meantime, I recommend it, with hesitations, but only to the right people.

"Fernando" (Paul Hamy) is out in the Portuguese wilderness doing a bit of birdwatching when he gets caught up in the rapids, his canoe is trashed and he finds himself rescued by two rather curious Chinese women - "Fei" (Han Wen) and her girlfriend "Ling" (Chan Suan). Things get a bit on the surreal side from this point as his journey continues and he next encounters the handsome, mute, goatherd "Jesus" (Xelo Cagiao) before a rather unfathomable tragedy ensues and the story takes on an almost fantastic nature that sees "Fernando" having to come to terms with his actions all under the supervision of a beautiful white dove that clearly has a more symbolic function as yet to be explained. Is he ever going to make it to civilisation? Does he really want to? It's quite a curious film, this, with no obvious purpose to it. Initially, it looks more like a natural history docudrama with some lovely photography of birds in their natural habitat and us (and him) as mere observers, but once his trip becomes less routine the story starts to head seriously off piste and becomes a bit too random for me. It's not that it isn't structured, it's that director João Pedro Rodrigues doesn't seem so bothered about taking us with him as his mind wanders for two hours of really quite eccentrically indulgent moviemaking. There's little rhyme-nor-reason to the second act, if you like, as "Fernando" discovers what looks like the abandoned garden from the late Michael Jackson's estate amidst the forest then some Amazonian type paintballers with Centaur aspirations! It's quirky and inquisitive about attitudes to faith - and not just 20th century faiths at that - and I did like the last five minutes, but on balance I found it quite a long watch to leave feeling slightly bamboozled.

When I came out of The Ornithologist I was totally perplexed and unsure of what I had just seen. At one point I thought it was a film about one man's descent into madness, at another I thought it was a tale of the mystery and spirituality of nature and the unknown, a film about loneliness and despair, then I thought maybe it was a character study of queerness and male sexuality. For all I know this film could be all of these things or none of them whatsoever.

Because I don't want to spoil anything - and because I can't describe what happens in this film without sounding like a lunatic, I'll say this: the film follows a solitary Ornithologist who gets lost in the forest and the increasingly strange things that happen to him as he tries to find his way home.

Funnily enough, The Ornithologist plays almost like a parody of an art-house film - and like most art-house, this is not a film for everyone. Consider yourself warned. In terms of its structure, the unfolding of its narrative as well as the way it uses images and sounds to unnerve and to hypnotize you - this is either going to infuriate or bewitch viewers. I can happily say that I was completely bewitched. I fell under its spell, it got under my skin in a way that I cannot describe and I couldn't stop thinking about it after I saw it. I am under no illusion that I understand most of what I saw, but watching it I could tell that this is exactly the film that director João Pedro Rodrigues wanted to make - it makes no compromises for anybody.

The Ornithologist is daring and strange - there are so many unanswered questions, and I couldn't possibly explain to you what it's about or what happens without sounding certifiably insane, but I am so fine with that - I was completely mesmerized. Give it a chance; you might hate it with every fiber of your being or you might love it and be as enchanted by it as I was.

The movie is about a bird watcher out on a camping trip doing his thing when his raft boat crashes in the woods forcing him to struggle to get out while some odd things are happening.

It was a pretty awesome adventure, as the The Ornithologist would encounter stranger and stranger things, like two good Christian Chinese girls who wanted to offer him to the evil spirits in the forest and a group of topless girls on horseback in a hunting tribe.

Thought it was cool watching this dude survive his odd wilderness experience, but I must admit, my mind is not as open as I thought as there was a naked man on naked man sex scene that I could not watch. I scene other movies where two dudes kiss and have sex but I don't think I've ever seen two men full frontal naked getting romantic. If it makes me seem unenlightened that I had to keep my head turned the whole time then so be it, cause I had too. It was funny cause the scene walks you into to it very easy but still could not take it.

But I did like the movie. I thought it was a great adventure movie about a guy in the wilderness. Hopefully it has also soften me to men or men love scenes just in case it comes up again.

http://cinemagardens.com

The distinct individualism of João Pedro Rodrigues' worldview is turned inward via an unflaggingly intriguing poetical riff on the life of St. Anthony of Padua in "The Ornithologist."

While possibly the director's most accessible film to date, calling this visually striking work "accessible" doesn't mean most audiences will fully understand Rodrigues' delightfully meandering paths, nor appreciate his homoerotic, playfully blasphemous modernised hagiography.

Religious conservatives will be as apoplectic as they were with Godard's "Hail Mary," but art-house lovers, including those not always in sync with the "To Die Like a Man" helm-er's style should find much pleasure, even if they're perplexed by what it all means.

Narratively, the film gets even more bizarre. A Latin-speaking Amazon (performance artist Juliane Elting, whose stage moniker pays fantastic tribute to Julian Eltinge) calls Fernando by the name Anthony, and by the time he meets Jesus' identical twin brother, Thomas, actor Hamy has been replaced by director Rodrigues.

Visually, "The Ornithologist" is Rodrigues' most classically shot film, and the first entirely lenses outdoors. Regular collaborator Rui Poças brings out the richness of the forest and river canyon in all its natural splendours, at times almost hinting at a European version of the sylvan spirit of Thai magical realism rather than the lurid spectacle of the director's "The Last Time I Saw Macao." Unsurprisingly given both the title and the director's academic training, avian scenes are lovingly realised and a constant source of wonder.

Imagine if Robert Bresson and Walerian Borowczyk were a single person, a synthesis filmmaker. Now imagine that person is gay. Now imagine that person had a fever dream. That dream would be "The Ornithologist". (If you understood that sentence we're soulmates).

If you're in the market for a psycho-sexual erotic biblical parable that flirts with bondage, urination fetish, bestiality, and just good old fashion beautiful men rolling around naked on a beach, but, you know, all done in an artistically austere, under- emphasized way and then hazed into a hallucinatory mist of a story, then this is your jam right here.

What did I think of it?

I thought it was AWESOME!

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it's not predictable. I kept watching just to see what ridiculous thing would happen next. When the bare- breasted huntresses on horseback appeared--one blowing a horn, I lost it. If anything, it makes for good conversation when talking with friends about weird movies.

it is the most comfortable definition. and, maybe, the most precise. because, except the trip of an ornithologist across a forest, strange meetings and fantastic adventures, nothing could be known. but, it is not exactly an enigma. and not a cryptic improvisation. it has a lot of cultural references and this does it, in same measure, a religious film, an art film, a form of fairy tale - the rules are the same - or an experiment remembering Bunuel. but significant is not what the director says . the key remains the final feeling. without a reasonable name but who could be defined as fascination. and this is the basic virtue of this challenge/provocative film. to recognize pieces from Romano Catholic hagiography, to see fragments of expressionism, to admire an eulogy of psychoanalysis or the deep solitude like a source of escape from yourself.

My fondness for Nature and the idea of sharing this movie with a couple of birdwatchers brought this movie to my attention. Was i ready for it? Not even close!!! Not ready for the Religious subtext, not ready for the graphic sexual images, not ready for the dreamlike script that never gave away the meaning of it all and most of all not ready to enjoy it so much.

If your kind of movies are mainstream blockbusters with plenty of action and a fast-food script stay away from it, you are in risk of severe damage to your beliefs, feelings and mind constructs.

But if you like to go into the rabbit hole of other peoples heads just go for it, it´s one hell of a ride.

An ornithologist is out surveying birds in the wild when his canoe is swept over rapids. He is rescued by two Chinese hikers but they, due to their religious beliefs, perceive him as a threat. So they tie him to a tree.

Dull, meandering and pointless. From the outset you can tell this is going to be drawn out unnecessarily, as we see long scenes of birds, and nothing else. (Yeah, yeah, Mr Director, we get it: he's an ornithologist, as if the title and plot summary didn't give it away).

After all the gratuitous bird shots, the plot, what there is, just goes in random directions. Just when you think at last things might be coming together, something random and bizarre happens. Last few scenes make no sense at all.

Avoid.

One of the few (if not the only) films that can take so many leaps into the plot, instigating you to embrace the idea and watch until the end. The new film by João Pedro Rodrigues, a guy who has always embraced the theme "queer" in his work, because there are, yes, great films in the gay scene for the LGBT community made by him. One that I really enjoyed was "The Phantom" (2000). It's his, too; "Odete" (2005) and "The Last Time I Saw Macau" (2012). It's curious how your cinema breathes Pasolini (but it's not a comparison). I think Rodrigues, like Gregg Araki, Gus Van Sant and Pedro Almodóvar, citing my favorites, are real filmmakers who hover the flag. But none of them focuses exclusively on the subject as Rodrigues - who also proved to go to other ways with this film. "The Ornithologist" is a journey of self-discovery. A bucolic adventure of a hermit in the wild heart. With some terrifying and surreal passages. The ending is totally wrapped in mysteries (just like the whole movie) and open to various interpretations. Their cinema is not childish, so the drama is strengthened by maturity and always bring erotic situations and sex scenes without fear of the showing. Nudity here is the most curious point, especially in a movie that never shows, a priori, clues to anything, just makes it happen. But, as I said earlier, the swings are the big cheap of the tape. It's a plot-twist after another. It is an exotic, economical and creative production. Yes. "I'm recovering ..." The Portuguese also make a daring and original cinema. This is a real lesson in script and direction. The sensation is almost a trip without purposeful destiny. Is it really that Fernando wants to go home?

Oh, before I forget, it's a religious-themed film, in fact, it could not be missed. It is always pertinent to poke the jaguar with the short stick, right?

It is another collaboration with João Rui Guerra da Mata, art director, screenwriter, and finally, filmmaker, who always works on Rodrigues' films.

Worst movie I've seen in my life and I'm 60. The positive reviews are obviously a coordinated marketing ploy. The movie had no story line. There was gratuitous full frontal male nudity unrelated to the circumstances of the movie, overtones of S&M, etc. Just a gross movie that meanders aimlessly then falls over the rapids like the character in the movie.

Is it the homosexuality in Rodrigues work that does not allow him in the Pantheon of great directors ? He has created one of the finest films in cinema, ' O Fantasma ' and ' The Ornithologist ' is quite simply one of the greatest films I have ever seen. No spoilers but how wonderful to see a Saint in the making make love to a deaf and dumb Jesus by a beautiful river. It is erotic and the nudity justified, and the combination of intense sexuality with mortality has never been so finely expressed. The lead actor is superb, and his beauty of body is equal to his capacity as an actor who can hold all of the film in the palm of his hand as everything is more or less experienced from his own viewpoint. The nature scenes in their strange wildness reminded me of Herzog but better. Everything is seen through the eyes of a visionary and in this unjust world I am appalled that he is not more celebrated. If his subject matter was not so subversive and that his eroticism was not essentially male the mafia of straight critics would be writing books about him. He has a catalogue of work that should be brought out in a boxset ( in fact more than one boxset ) and this should be considered but I guess it never will. A visionary to be discovered and cherished.

I have watched thousands of movies and am no stranger to allegory or symbolism. I absolutely DO NOT KNOW what in the hell is going on in this movie. It is slow and left me constantly asking "what's happening now?" Truly a complete and utter waste of time. It made zero sense. I did not feel enriched by the experience, never mind entertained. Regardless of how Netflix tries to sell it to you, PLEASE, don't fall for it.

I watched this stone cold, with no previous knowledge at all about the film, its themes or content, except that it had a gay ornithologist as the main character. Expecting an adventure story about getting lost in the wilderness after an accident, reminiscent of Deliverance, the film slowly transformed into the surreal, where reality, imagination and hallucination became so entangled that rational explanations quickly fell by the wayside, as the viewer is taken on a journey of perplexing encounters. It wasn't until towards the end of the film, when the main character is renamed Antony, I realised its religious reference, as Flaubert's literary masterpiece The Temptation of St. Antony came to mind (even though that was a different St Antony). It then started to make sense. Christian iconography, largely lost on me as a committed atheist, became predominant and sort of pulled the various elements of the film together for its rather unexpected conclusion. Recommended for film lovers that like a beautifully photographed, thought provoking film, that ultimately will never make rational sense, because it transcends the realm of the rational.