Antarctica

Life is full of metaphors and this is a great interpretation. A romantic tale, a love of fantasy and could have beens............... I really enjoyed this movie. It was engaging and had me hooked from the start. It was hot and the mirrors started to steam as i was introduced to the characters, satisfied with the pornesque start i didn't much care for content. The shots and the arrangement of images would have satisfied me for the entirety of the movie. But little did i know that i was just watching the caterpillar before the butterfly. The process is the movie. Well done to the director and the actors to a collage of beauty. "No matter how big the world is from a village to a city of millions you live within the same shell with the same circumference."

Unclear as to why Israel has such a repertoire of gay films, but they all seem to have one thing in common: a very conceited, shallow, self-centered protagonist. In this case, the writer attempts to have the hedonistic protagonist come off as having a "heart" or soft-spot, when he allows an old "fling" (who was apparently the first guy the young lad had ever hooked up with) stay with him. The dialogue is pretty meaningless, but as they say in Hebrew, "it sounds funnier in Yiddish". But mostly, the film is just a bunch of blurry fast-paced sex-scenes with hairy Jewish men. If that's your thing, then this is the film for you.

I had pretty high expectations of this movie after reading a very short synopsis; I really like ensemble movies and 'Antarctica' being a gay movie and from Israel added to the attraction (I see a lot of Hollywood movies as well). I came out pretty disappointed.

There was very little story in this and hardly any substance. I found it rather shallow while the premise was full of possibilities for an engrossing film. There is great potential in ensemble movies but only when a director and/or a writer know what to do with it… clearly in this case there could have been much more of a plot if the writer had left out a couple of characters and had focused on the remaining ones for some depth and background.

I am somebody who enjoys striking images - by which I do not mean pictures of sunsets and lavish homes, but images that, whether they are pretty of ugly, enhance the story - but there was no beauty at all to be found in this movie. I am not referring to the cast because some of them were actually rather handsome, but the sets: apartments, kitchens, streets, surroundings… nothing spoke to me. It looked like nobody had been hired for cinematography. Now I am aware of the budget factor but there is a big gap between lush Hollywood sets and cramped TL-lit spaces. From where I was sitting a little more attention to imagery would not have distracted from the story; it would probably have enhanced it.

But the one thing I could not get over was the casting of the character 'Omer's Mother'. This person was so ridiculously out of place that it hurt. I sincerely wonder what the deal was here because I cannot believe that any casting director who takes themselves seriously would voluntarily cast this character the way it was done, destroying any credibility the movie had to begin with.

'Antarctica' in my view is mediocre at best, I give it 5 out of 10.

if one forgets for a moment that love relationships shown in the movies are homosexual and not heterosexual, it is a simple film about people trying to find love and till they find one keep on trying. There is central character who is librarian and group of his friends and similar individuals they come across.in all there are 5 main male character and they are developed well given the time constraint, especially the journalist, librarian, the young boy and the Casanova. sub plot of hero's sister also being lesbian or their father being cross dresser seems unnecessary. there are comic moments though when their mother gets a new husband or one of the the character who works at a fashion store cracks jokes. Overall a good movie about love, commitment and relationship

The film begins with a serial depiction of pick-ups by one of the film's characters, that appears promising - then, oh no, the character cries in the shower: the emptiness of his life, we gather, and also that the film is fishy.

One bold leap three years ahead.

Dear director, do not attempt such things if you have not foregrounded a story, however elliptic.

Actually there is no story, just amateurish shots of characters that confuse our endeavors to figure what happens, why this one appears, if it is central or peripheral to what is going on, then a female character appears played by a male actor, and the film by that point becomes "inferential" at best: we "infer" that this "transvestitism" is an Almodovar-like take; that the film shows the givings and misgivings of destiny in a group of people that meet, or fail to do so, in the end; we "infer" that the "alien thing" is comic, and stands for tenderness in the very end.

But the transvestitism is actually a travesty: a travesty for comedy, for relief, for enacting any sense of locality; the "alien thing" not only fails to engage in locality as well, but actually forecloses any sense of geographical specificity, and becomes a psychotic symptom for avoiding to do so (another film from Israel, that met with critical success, "The Bubble" engaged in the specificity of time and place, though it presented a nihilistic political point of view that, combined with its cinematic tendentiousness, turned it into hypocrisy).

It is a sad, expansive phenomenon that such uninformed sense of engagement masquerades as a kind of hurt sensibility, and a plea for sentimental and spiritual gathering of souls, a plea for love beyond our shortcomings, be them racial, sexual, ethnic ones. The film reads like a juvenile attempt at themes it fails to attack: what it means to be lonely and insecure and crave for it or be well-poised etc. but all this is to "infer"; let alone the preposterous thing going on between the journalist and the salesman: a journalist that has a humane streak falling for a gossipy, cliché-carved little nelly? There is no plausibility concerning the hovering, changing sentiments and this is so severe that comes off depressively and in the end, with the actually mad closure, pathologically I dare say.

Or,the three years leap is slumped on us for signaling the older dancer's reawakening of feelings for the young dancer? For the story we did not see in the beginning? That, OK, could be evolved in a later part of the film for bigger dramatic effect, but for what? So that we learn they passed three weeks together? This is the kind of thing the late Quentin Crisp serenely and acerbically mocked as three weeks of "meaningful relationship". This must also be the writer/director's sense of meaningful film-making.