Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA Hollywood actor grows tired of making the same corporate movies, so he moves to Argentina to find more experimental and meaningful work.A Hollywood actor grows tired of making the same corporate movies, so he moves to Argentina to find more experimental and meaningful work.A Hollywood actor grows tired of making the same corporate movies, so he moves to Argentina to find more experimental and meaningful work.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Chloé Bello
- Translator
- (as Chloe Bello)
Leticia Brédice
- Dalmacia
- (as Leticia Bredice)
María Abadi
- Olinda
- (as Maria Abadi)
Mario Alarcón
- Gonzalito
- (as Mario Alarcon)
Héctor Díaz
- Pacheco
- (as Hector Diaz)
Avis à la une
Warm little movie. A collage of digressions and partial thoughts, no apt for who is looking to be caught in a melodrama. To see great actors playing with such a freedom, makes me think on the cynical and shallow part of this art form.
As soon we have the chance to liberate our mind, we dream, and snore. As soon we seat front of the TV, we are forced to dream the dreams others, sometimes just money makers
This movie have much of a dream, but is enough imperfect, rough, and sometimes nonsensical, that you can hear your own mind without feeling being used.
As soon we have the chance to liberate our mind, we dream, and snore. As soon we seat front of the TV, we are forced to dream the dreams others, sometimes just money makers
This movie have much of a dream, but is enough imperfect, rough, and sometimes nonsensical, that you can hear your own mind without feeling being used.
Pacino's character was right in this film. It's lais·sez-faire approach makes it poignant, up close and real and makes modern feel modern all over again. It's nice to see American actors getting to be like in European movies, talking back about American politics like that, without being lazy-cynical or nihilistic, just saying what is, and keeping it playful-real. Friendly, like it's supposed to be, even though all the darkest themes are on the roster. This is the dialogue America needs to be having. I loved all the songs too. They sport classic pop/rock undertones, with some of Hipp's Philly cheese steak grease warps in just the right places. Lyrics! Melody! I feel like I got to hang with the boys on this one, and watch them play at life, however daunting the playground.
This might be the worst film I've ever seen. Oozes pretentiousness. Has no plot. Isn't funny. Lacks characters do nothing to endear you to them. They have no arc. And now they're making me write 5 lines on it, but I just had to write a review so nobody else fell in the trap of watching this film. It's also stupidly long considering that NOTHING happens. How it has an average so high I'll never know. End of story.
Was far much better the version I saw in the BAFICI festival, I miss that music and some scenes that are not there. This is now a kind of "making off" of what had far more sense and story, plus atmosphere. But, anyway, even if is not a real work of Agresti, and the Americans touched it like know all-know nothing typical spoiled, colonialist kids some are over there, I still I enjoy the freedom that exudes from the director's original. Hope Netflix could show us the original!!!
This movie belongs to the "film within a film" genre that opened up half a century ago with Fellini's 8 1/2. It features John Cusack and other American actors summoned to Buenos Aires to make a film that, we are told, experiments with cinematic language. The story is improvised (there is a script but nobody seems to take it seriously) and some scenes (like in Godard's La Chinoise) actually belong to the film within, as the point of view changes and we see the cameras rolling and the booms in place. Sequences are announced with title cards, also in Godard's style. The view of Buenos Aires and its people is that of an average American tourist; there are some comments about Peronism and the 1976-1982 military dictatorship but there is no depth or meaning in them. Everything we see or hear is capricious and at best whimsical, at worst pretentious and at times boring.
Al Pacino plays the mysterious (and somewhat devilish) long distance mastermind of the project, He gets the best lines and makes the most of them; the short time he is on screen is the best part of the movie.
The movie ends up saying nothing significant. Although some ideas may be interesting, it it difficult to gauge the intentions of the director. All in all, an unsatisfactory film.
Al Pacino plays the mysterious (and somewhat devilish) long distance mastermind of the project, He gets the best lines and makes the most of them; the short time he is on screen is the best part of the movie.
The movie ends up saying nothing significant. Although some ideas may be interesting, it it difficult to gauge the intentions of the director. All in all, an unsatisfactory film.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film is loosely based on John Cusack's take on Hollywood creativity according to interviews and Looper.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is We Are Not Animals?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 902 $US
- Durée1 heure 30 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was No somos animales (2013) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre