Opiniones de usuarios

Well this is one of those movies you wonder why they make them. It should just had been a short movie instead as you could fit that whole story in about half an hour. Because there is not much going on in Autumn Lights. It's not a mystery and I wonder why it's categorized as such. A woman died in the beginning and that's about it for the mystery. Don't expect any answers or why they even showed that part of the movie as it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story. The actual story is about an unfaithful wife, a tramp let's just call her like that, about her depressive state of mind, and about other men trying to have sexual intercourse with her, and this while her husband is the most naive guy ever. It's boring to watch, so don't believe any of those perfect ratings on here. The only good thing about this movie is the view of the lake but then again National Geography has way better documentaries about lakes.

Autumn Lights is a drama about the main character, David, who is on a work-related vacation in Iceland. The movie focuses on his interactions with the people who live near his vacation house. Since it is a remote location in Iceland, he frequently meets up with a couple, Johann and Marie.

The Good:

A lot of the conversations that were had in this movie will be very relevant to most people and it gives the viewer some food for thought when they leave the theater.

The actors were able to communicate their characters' thoughts and feelings about a situation with just a look on their face. This allows for quiet moments of tension that enhance the tone of the movie.

The Bad:

The overarching plot is a paint-by-numbers of many movies that came before it which led this one to be predictable.

The actors all give subdued performances. Most, if not all, of the dialogue has a monotone delivery which removes some of the emotional punch that could have been present. The director attended the screening I was at and he said he wanted the actors to give quiet performances because it adds to the mystery and depth of each character. This would have been a plus if it was applied to maybe just one character and not all of them.

Overall, if you like movies that are more focused on the conversations that the characters have than the actual plot, you will most likely find some enjoyment from this one. If you don't like slow-paced dramas, I would stay away from this one because it's nothing you haven't seen before.

Beautiful locations, so-so (if not dull) cinematography, and useless scenes riddled with weak and expositional dialogue. For an independent film, it looks serviceable, but what is technically satisfactory is doubled in it's problems considering character, plot, and performance. The writing and execution needs work - and though one can see the creators' vision and the concept itself has potential, it ended up resulting in an amateur product. It focuses too much on trivial threads, scenes are repetitive and drag. As a personal project, it's good - but as an actual film, it's a feather - it holds no weight to it. Nothing's really all too incredible except the location of Iceland itself, and let's be real - it's not difficult to make Iceland pretty on screen. It's one of the most moody, scenic, and beautiful places on earth - it's just that the story didn't do anything to service that. Heavy handed and boring, even pretentious, this film brings no revelations. Too much telling and not enough showing to bring about the emotional context it so desires to play on. Tries to be earnest without much substance to its subject, as well as predictable.

Though this film wasn't that much of an experience to get through, I wouldn't object to seeing any future pieces of the director/studio's in hope that their next project will be much more competent. All that I've taken from this film is that I need to visit Iceland, but I've already known that for a very long time.

Snorri Englibertsson, please read the scrip before you do another drab film like this. The G on G scene was so boring and humiliating to watch. Don't bother watching this one.

Where is the action in this movie , where it's going

Normal story that could use some twist to spice it up with the great views .

Acting is ok. Photography was good but the writing is very poor.

The general response to this film is bipolar. Either a masterpiece or godawful. I thought something in between. It is definitely a psychological rather than action movie, but I found the interpersonal dynamics interesting enough to hold my attention. The acting was good, and the characters pretty well crafted. People exhibiting a mix of behavior one will find familiar and unfamiliar. Overall it seemed to me a worthy effort. The critics certainly felt otherwise.

As the movie progressed, I was wondering if it was one of those that I wouldn't be able to finish. It was mostly predictable which is something I never like. Despite this, there were a few minor curve balls, and the characters were interesting enough to keep me watching. As the end neared the movie was looking like a high-3 / low-4 rating until the ending. It was good - quite good actually and one of those that keeps one thinking about well after the movie is over. Was it enough to make this worth watching? For me it was.

... doesn't-take-long into-this-movie & you realize-see how dumb-it-is... acting-writing-directing... location the only-positive... then you get halfway in wondering if it'll get any better

... sitting here now half-way.. wondering-guessing is-it-worth continuing-on

... and should it be decided to have nudity... have all actors in-agreement... otherwise scenes incorporating logical-nudity stand out against those that don't.

As a first review and as a fan of small, foreign films, I happened to stumble upon this title when it was being advertised as playing in Los Angeles & New York. But to my surprise, the title was available on VOD and after watching the intriguing trailer, I gave it a whirl with my husband. I was very moved by this movie. It was unexpected. And I unexpectedly am now writing a review.

To start, the craftsmanship is superb. The music, the cinematography, the strong performances and the direction were not formulaic and expected. It's a film of bold choices and it felt very original. I applaud the director and writer of the film Angad Aulakh for creating something so different... Massive superhero fatigue in this household.

Now the story... it's a small story. It's conversation-driven. It's not about A to B to C, it's about learning who these intricate characters are and it's a dance between them and how their interactions with one another reward (or the opposite) their lives. My husband and I were engrossed by the heart and soul of these characters. They were wise, astute, interesting people who carry immense pain with them. This is not some hot-button, socially-relevant film but why does every film need to be that nowadays? It was lovely to watch a movie about characters who feel very real and lived in and didn't have to be politically or socially charged.

Now Iceland, if you've ever been like I have, you'll know the spectacular beauty. The cinematography just enhances it. But I love that it's not a travelogue film that uses Iceland as a tourist film would. It's just a setting. And it's cold and barren and is an interesting location to set these characters in.

Ms. Gastini, who was beautiful in Borgia, is splendid as Marie. She's complex and highly-watchable. I was very moved by her character's storyline and emotional dilemmas, as she delves in with the film's David, played by the handsome young actor Guy Kent. He, too, is beautiful and touching in the role. There's subtly to his emotions, his melancholy, his lust, and he feels like a real man from a different generation. As they say in the film, "there's more to him than he lets on, and I find that attractive." Well, so do I. The character of David is interesting and unexpected and was filled by an actor who I enjoyed watching and entering into this world with.

My husband and I discussed the film at length afterward. If you like films that provoke conversation, make you look at your own life and your choices, and inspires you by the artistry, this is a film for you. It's a wonderful movie. I highly, highly recommend this title.

The first Icelandic movie I've been watching, which is so simple and poor quality! Very boring and trivial film, naive and slow... without a point...

The people on here giving good reviews must be connected to the filmmakers This firm is just time you can't get back pointless Utter rubbish for me

I can't fairly write a review because I didn't finish it. But in case you're looking for a rating it's definitely R/16+/MA.

Angad Aulakh is a first time director who seems to defy most analysis. Now, I wouldn't recommend Autumn Lights unconditionally to my friends; not because it's a bad film (quite the opposite, it's a brilliant examination of the human condition) but because it's the kind of movie that would inevitably lead some of them to think "she told me to watch it and said it was great!" This is a film that will resonate very deeply with some and not as much with others.

For starters, Autumn Lights is an art-house film under the guise of a mystery-drama. So the pacing will inevitably be slower. But if you can see past that, put your iPhone down, and forget your Facebook & Twitter, this film may enlighten you more than you would've ever expected. And, it may teach you something about cinema as Angad Aulakh appears to be a master regurgitator of old films, akin to Nicholas Winding Refn, Quentin Tarantino, etc.

The narrative is straightforward. Man gets stroke of bad luck, meets intriguing woman, discovers woman is more than meets the eye, man gets entangled with woman and her puppets (and their strings). While the plot points are familiar, the writing and the revelation of this cast (led by young actors Guy Kent and Marta Gastini) is what takes this film to heights not foreseen.

To begin, the writing is rather strong. At times, the dialogue feels like a play adapted for film. It feels punctuated, heightened, full of emotions and talk of events of the past. That is not easy to do and Aulakh's script is skillfully crafted. The characters dance across conversations of old loves, confusion and their misery, all but to discover that the answer will not lie in those around us, but rather, it can only be found within ourselves.

Punctuated by a great score by two Icelandic composers Hugi Gudmundsson and Hjortur Ingvi Johannsson, Autumn Lights is a visual feast of an indie cinema. This is a gorgeous-looking film of washed-out, epic landscapes, muted tones, and set in beautiful Icelandic and Parisian locations, with a cast to match.

Guy Kent is full of gravitas perfection in the lead role of David. As a young actor in an ensemble of a more veteran cast, he wisely underplays the drama of his character, which otherwise would easily fall into cantankerous melodrama. It is that smart choice which enhances the film tremendously. At moments charming, at moments cold, and at moments as mercurial as the character of Marie, he shows colors in particular shades that make this film what it is.

Marta Gastini is also exceptional in the role of Marie. While her character doesn't undergo a transformation, she's a highly conflicted human being who makes choices to alleviate her own personal suffering. And her performance shows all the layers to Marie's pain, suffering, and sorrow. It's exquisite work.

Autumn Lights is the product of a talented director's feature debut with a clearly personal and distinctive visual and narrative style. I look forward to see what is next to come from him. If you are at all interested in cinema beyond regular multiplex fare, it's definitely worth investing 2 hours of your time.

Le me start here: No one should review this film. Ignore the ratings. The best thing would be you sit down with the expectations you cultivated all your life, and take the trip. For my part, it was maybe 20 minutes after the closing credits I realized what had happened to me. And if you're lucky, you'll find out too.

The superb craftsmanship is severely underrated. The acting, cinematography, music, art direction and wardrobe are exquisitely executed.

The film's 'slowness' is not because of length, coming in at a lean 98 minutes with credits, but the story is about characters and their lives. Inevitably, that means there is a lot of talking. And for some, that might be 'slow'. But with such a fine cast, they find ways to take this quiet story to very interesting places. The complexity of the characters left us more than enough to discuss post-watching.

The most interesting character is the director. Angad Aulakh will become required viewing for me. I wouldn't have guessed he was so young.

This is great thriller movie, avoid the reviews, just watch it. The protagonist did a great job. excellent direction.