The 20th Century

Fantastic graphics, mesmerizing actors and actresses, the film is fun as hell and makes something as dry as Canadian federal politics in the early 20th century something with a crazy adrenaline kick / drug fever to it. Ive never seen a Guy Maddin film which takes inspiration from but I think it is very unique and I will revisit this film a lot more in the future.

This isn't a typical movie. It's more like a theater production of something to do with something. I'm sure it had some point and so it's lucky it's not being given one star. Is this historical? Some boot sniffer, the SNIFFER sir, I call thee a sniffer!! It's kind of entertaining in a never will I ever bother watching this again sort of way. I don't understand people saying things about Monty Python because some of that stuff is actually funny. The Holy Grail is the best of Monty Python and this movie has none of that charm whatsoever. It's a bit like when people would hear some "alternative" music in the late 80s and describe it as like R. E. M. It was nothing like REM but people associate certain things with certain things. Of course REM are so mainstream it's laughable but in a world ruled by synth pop or hair metal it was different at the time. Where does that leave The Smiths, The Cure, The Psychedelic Furs and a million other bands that were at that time the latest of the waves of newness. But I digest, nom nom. This movie is sort of not funny, but it's oddness makes it seem unusual.

After Hemingway received the Nobel Prize for "The Old Man and the Sea" he was asked about it's many metaphors and their validity. Hem answered in words to the effect that it was true those symbols represented many things depending on what the reader brought to the sitting.

Well friends, this jeweled marvel is very much like a woman or sea, capable of bestowing or witholding great treasures! I just discovered it and now the world seems just a little less desolate, a little more comforting.

And why are we affronted by and attack those things we don't understand? The very best professional critics are guilty of the same.

Ok so I'm laying it on pretty thick but I'm trying make a strong point to the hosers. All I ask is that you please at lease skim a Wiki page before lending this, my new favorite film a discouraging rating.

An aesthetic of a certain English cinematography of the 60s and some references to filmmakers now considered classic, like Kubrick. The political content of the film is relatively interesting, including humor sometimes reminiscent of the group The Cynics, but the obsession with sexual jokes of dubious taste becomes boring due to its childishness. Not really bad, but not at all striking, despite a desire to establish itself as a singularity which, however, is in fact only a pastiche of what has already been done in a much better way. Let us note the fine work of the actors who knew how to avoid kitsch acting.

It certainly leans on Monty Python vibes, but if you are looking for Monty Python you are going to be disappointed. It's a darker tale, and it uses a lot of Canadian type humor and feel. There are some decent Freudian ques and overall it does a good job of making you feel for and against various characters and their positions.