La montaña

Fair enough that this film is a vehicle for Jeff Goldblum, and a character loosely based on the infamous neurosurgeon who invented the transorbital lobotomy ought to give him plenty to work with. In those days, there were no meds yet, to control patient behavior, and lobotomies were a response to that urgent need. The real-life Dr. Freeman was obsessed with the need for social conformity, and thought that his compliant, lobotomized patients were an improvement on disorderly nature. So, how could Goldblum turn him into someone so bland? His Dr. Fiennes has no insight into his own status as monster. He seems to be a latter-day Don Quixote, meaning well, riding the roads with his '52 Plymouth (instead of a horse named Rocinante) with his faithful Polaroid-Land-Camera carrying sidekick, Andy (instead of Sancho) by his side. Maybe its a statement about the banality of evil. It does not work for me.

(i'm going to structure this review so that you have the same feeling that I did while watching this movie)



The mountain is great at

times?

(inconsistent inconsistent)

It struggles to maintain a consistent theme, often

rambling rambling thematically?

I understand the value of "show don't tell" don't get me wrong?

(Depressing psyclops)

But, there is a science to the abstract.

(Kauf Kauf)

Charlie Kaufman's work is a great example. (Eternal Sunshine, Adaptation, Being John Malcovitch) He gets pretty WEIRD and abstract, sure. But

(HELP HELP I'M FALLING?)

He makes sure to lay down a simple groundwork first, so the viewer doesn't get too lost in his interpretation interpretation.

THE MOUNTAIN DOESN'T HAVE ANY GROUNDWORK, UNFORTUNATELY. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE. THERe isn't one set theme that you can latch on to. Because of this, the whole film feels wrong

WRONG WRONG KRONK

It's hard to tell what was an intentional choice from the director, and what was just an inconsistent detail.

It's a shame, because the movie was great at times. And I did understand some of

END OF REVIEW

Greetings again from the darkness. It's happened before and it'll likely happen a few more times. A movie ends and I'm at a loss as to how to explain it. What should I tell potential viewers? Is it even possible to "spoil" a movie that is so purposefully downbeat - one that relishes its inability to be analyzed by conventional methods? Filmmaker Rick Alverson has previously knocked us off-kilter with THE COMEDY (2012) and ENTERTAINMENT (2015), and this time seems intent on ensuring our misery.

Tye Sheridan (MUD, 2012) stars as Andy, a functionally catatonic, sexually-confused Zamboni driver at the local ice rink where his dad Frederick (a quite grumpy Udo Kier) trains figure skaters. When dad drops dead on the ice, an aimless Andy is taken under the wing of an enigmatic Dr. Wallace "Wally" Fiennes (a toned-down Jeff Goldblum). Wally previously treated Andy's mother, which isn't really a good thing since he specializes in lobotomies and electric shock therapy. Andy hits the road with the doctor, carrying his equipment and taking before and after photos with the Polaroid Land Camera. Oh yeah, the setting is 1950's Pacific Northwest.

Goldblum's character is based on a real life doctor, and he runs up against an industry that is transitioning to drug treatments, leaving Wally searching for patients. He clearly believes in his treatments, and that leads to Jack, an eccentric whose daughter Susan (Hannah Gross, "Mindhunter") is in need of Wally's treatment. Jack is played by French acting veteran Denis Lavant, and his tirades and wild speeches blend French and English to the point that we lose the point - if there ever was one.

Goldblum's doctor enjoys a drink and the company of women while on the road, and Sheridan's Andy is so ultra-quiet he often becomes nearly invisible in social settings. If there is a narrative foundation to the film, I do wish Andy's Ouija board device had spelled it out for me. Instead, the haunting music contrasted with the use of "Home on the Range" left me understanding that the few words spoken carry little meaning, and we are meant to be disrupted by feelings. My hopeless feeling mostly left me asking "why?", and a bizarre post film Q&A with co-writer Dustin Guy Defa added little context. Actually, that was likely the perfect ending to this film.

Art should make you uncomfortable and make you think and that's what this film does. This movie is like an art installation that you don't want to watch but feel like you should. It's unsettling, slow, stark and sad but memorable. Not a light or easy watch. You've been warned.

I believe the film is an incredible piece. It is, on the surface about a young man who's recently lost his father who goes onto follow a famous lobotomist who had treated his late mother by working as the lobotomoist's photographer.

This film is a walk through hell and it is beautiful.

I'd say this film isn't for everyone, but I hate that because I believe this film should be for everyone. I really like, admire, and respect films like this one. It is slow moving and existential and it completely and totally builds the atmosphere of desperation.

It certainly speaks on the banality of evil and all of our places in it, how we walk alongside next to evil and moral corruption.

The performances are great, Ty Sheridan really shows his talent here. Jeff Goldblum ads an importance to the film.

The end does get a little winding, it could perhaps have been edited a bit better in the last 1/4 of the film. There's two long monologues by an older actor that take the film to some other places than where it was before.

This is similar to films by Michael Haneke and other European existential filmmakers. If you're into that, this film is certainly for you.

It has very touching moments (Like Sheridan's character having a brief physical connection with a patient in her hospital room earlier in the film. It is a brief moment but is touchs your heart so). The film also excels in portraying very alienating moments.

It's truly a special piece and it should be seen but you do need to know what kind of film you will see. It is abstract and it holds no prisoners but it is a hugely important piece.