उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Yes it's a great movie but needs an upmost restoration to be able a better look by us who really loves the seventh art, is quite impossible at least to me measure a picture in these conditions, l don't know whose belongs the copyright of this one, but Lars Von Trier didn't deserves such bad shape allowed to sell, unfortunately will be see Monalisa blurry, by this just 7 out 10!!

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

Wow, this is an inspired film. It takes the myth of Jason written by Euripedes and a script by Carl Th. Dreyer, boths testimony has been proved by the test of time and makes a fantastic low budget masterpiece epic of it. Some people think that its production values spoils the experience, but I would like to ask them this: would Claude Monets paintings look better if they were polished? We see into the fabric of film here and I think that only heightens the realism or it makes me believe it the more as a film, if the focus was on making it look real several other things would get lost.

How big the debt to Dreyers movies are I cant tell as I haven't seen any of his work yet due to poor availability, but as huge it seems it actually makes me a big fan of Dreyer himself, which von Trier also is and don't try to hide.

Metaphors are a plenty here and somehow it works, experiments with filming, post production and so on is evident and really made this a wonderful testimony to an inspired mind. Respect to Lars! Especially for the water scenes, the wind, the golden fleece ...

Art direction may not be 100% historically correct, but it looks very good, Medea herself must have inspired 'Orbital' for their 'The Box' music video some years later.

The revenge she gets are the most raw and brutal I have seen by the way.

"Medea" is a truly haunting film, but you have to be a true lover of cinema to appreciate this gem.

The cinematography is ground-breaking, and at times it's hard to figure out exactly how the images are being filmed. Sometimes it appears that the film was shot, then filmed again off of a television screen. That's not to say that the images aren't beautiful and breathtaking, just that they're a little unorthodox.

I won't go into the storyline, as you can read the synopsis above, but rest assured, if you're a film buff who truly appreciates a fluid film that rewards the eyes, mind, ears, and heart, this film will leave you very satisfied.

On the other hand, if you're a high school girl who is more interested in checking the text messages on her cell phone than watching the required film in class, then you'd better go down to the multi-plex real quick.

Fascinating film which was filled with wonderful experimental cinematic effects. I'd love to have a 4K version of it. What spoilt for me it was that Lars Von Trier doesn't know that there is NO TIDE in the Mediterranean!

It is a masterpiece, it is a perfect adaptation of the Greek tragedy Medea from Euripides, a version where the Gods willing and intervations are absent. Medea is the tragic character that after helping Jason in the Voyage of the Argonauts (myth says that she has even sacrificed her own brother for Jason's success), she gets from him only betrayal, as he arranges to marry the King's of Corinth daughter. The king decides to exile Medea, as she is a danger for his daughter happiness, but Medea asks from him just a day… before she goes outside the borders. That day Medea gets her revenge….. That day we see how Jason is demystified, driven by his lust for a young princess becomes a tragic character. Jason is a man driven by women's strength and willing, he reached the levels of heroism because of a woman, he seeks to get more strength with the help of another woman, who guides him with her sexual power. We see the tragic abandoned woman, taking revenge sacrificing her own children in the name of proving that she still has the power to drive his husband emotions. Is it that also true in our societies? How many times children are the mean for adults' revenge?

Medea's story shown through an epic atmosphere. It is a film perfectly directed. Trier used so nicely light and nature in order to transfer to us the whole atmosphere of tragedy. A tragedy that is created by humans and not Gods…. A story that can be met in our civilized neighbourhood, a story that has for sure heard in the news. As about the actors… a fabulous cast makes this film a work of art. I am glad that I 've found it in the store, I am glad I watched it.

Lars von Trier´s adaptation of the ancient Greek play (HIS tribute to Carl Th. Dreyer, who originally wrote the manuscript but never got around to filming it) is absolutely stunning.

The actors´ performances (above all Kirsten Olesen, incidentally one of Denmark´s top actresses makes you gasp), the wide landscapes and carefully selected sparse dialogue, but especially Lars von Trier´s direction makes this film a shocking look into the disturbed mind of a woman who has been scorned and left. Medea´s revenge is horrible but never unbelievable. She does what every sane person would do, when deprived of all that she loves. The film burns itself into your mind and leaves you with a lasting impression of what human misery can be like.

A veritable piece of art, belonging up there with most of von Trier´s works - and above all up there with ALL of Dreyer´s works!

Brilliant expose' and depiction of the classical Greek play. I never had any feeling of sympathy for the character of Medea. I always found her murderous rage against her husband reprehensible. No hatred or anger can justify murdering one's own children. But for the first time, I felt a sadness and compassion towards Medea. Lar Triers treatment and subsequent rendition of Medea's plight made me think of her more than just as a "woman scorned" and I finally understood what moved her to this sacrilegious act of infanticide. Jason was her entire life and the one that she should have killed. So in his absence, she slew his progeny. She wanted to wipe any trace of him from the earth and from her heart. So she destroyed everything at once including herself. There would never be any chance of returning after this unforgivable act.

This is the definitive Medea. Lars Triers deserves praise for bringing this tragedy into focus. For making Medea human instead of a monster he deserves our gratitude.

Although Medea does hint at Lars Von Trier's vast talent, it is no masterpiece as some have suggested. It is beautifully filmed but that does not make up for a very slow-paced story. Also, for me personally, it was hard to accept the fact that ancient Greece bears such a striking resemblance to Western Denmark. And why on earth does the king live in a sewer? It has to be said, though, that Ludmilla Glinska is adorable as Glauce.

. . . though he might have preferred black and white. But that's no criticism. This film evokes The Passion of Joan of Arc, with its stark intimacy; and Vampyr, with its trancelike movement and strange lighting. If ever there were a film that could capture tragic Greek myth, it's this one.

Watching this makes me lament Trier. It's good work. It's more than that, in fact. Beautiful pictures are not uncommon in film. In fact, they are getting so banal, say a postcard-perfect sunset, that we (both viewers and makers) often actively seek ugliness, some imperfection that conveys flawed - human - intimacy. Trier has flitted between the two notions (his Dogme entirely devoted to the latter), mixing and matching in a variety of projects down to his recent Melancholia.

But there are really few makers who can consistently furnish the sunsets, and link between them, that reveal something of planets in their orbits. Tarkovsky is king of that close vision from faraway. Watching this makes me lament Trier, because he could have been our current Tarkovsky, much more than either Tarr or Kusturica, who both flirted with carrying the mantle of that cosmogonic art.

This one lacks that orbital vision in different narrative planes (we only have one thread), and is mostly, rapturously devoted to tone poetry of elemental intimacy. It was very early in Trier's career anyway, but it's still a better and more visual third film than most directors ever managed. It's beautiful, but not in the clean sense of a David Lean epic. I prefer it this way.

That is partly because he's working from a barebones story that is ancient myth as interpreted by Euripides (and written into a script by Carl Dreyer): Medea has fled to Corinth promised marriage by the Argonaut Jason, who reneges on that promise when offered the hand of the daughter of the local king. Medea together with her two children is banished from the city.

It is a simple story of injustice. You are going to anticipate every turn, including (probably) the most tragic finale. It is the conventional Medea of myth, betrayed mother, woman, vengeful enchantress of cthonic witchcraft.

But the visual bell boom of this Rublev stretches far and wide, as he rings into being a gauzy world of untime, last fires, and first voyages out to cloudy sea. If only he hadn't lost himself in anger and cynical pessimism.. Tarr has followed suit. I think about the only thing that can keep an intelligent mind sane, is finding rhyme and music in unreason.

This would have been completely marvelous had Dreyer actually lived to direct this. The strength of the script is obvious to anyone who sees it, but (I'm voiding this comment if it turns out that the DVD transfer is simply shoddy) Von Trier's pre-Dogme Dogme-style camera makes a mockery of Dreyer's intentions. Von Trier makes a disclaimer that he isn't out to make a "Dreyer film," but that doesn't excuse the Dogme-style visual work. The true master Dreyer made films that are supposed to last; this Dogme fad is a travesty: lots of otherwise really good material is just getting mangled for the sake of misguided, thoroughly pretentious (nay, hypocritical) notions of "realism" in cinema. This is a comment on the Dogme-fad-artists' *style*, which panders to the (insert any number of negative descriptive terms) post-modernist sensibilities of the college-age pseudo-cineastes who worship it.

That bit of frustration aside, my impression of this film is otherwise overwhelmingly positive. The good aspects of this have Dreyer written all over it. Maybe it can be re-made by someone who actually respects cinematic form and presentation, not some rebellious child playing around with a (low number)mm camera.

Hey, I'm not saying that the visual storytelling wasn't otherwise superb, but for crying out loud, let's actually *see* it as it is, rather than like it's being put through some yellow filter and fuzzed up. Dreyer, unafraid to present his subject matter in the starkest terms, could do it. Why won't Von Trier?

Nevertheless, see it, and then do yourself the benefit of imagining away the travesty part.

I stumbled across this movie while browsing the Internet a couple of years ago and after reading the plot of the movie I had to watch it. After watching it, I sat at my computer for 10 minutes thinking about weather I liked the movie or not. After 10 minutes I had decided that this was the worst thing that Lars Von Trier ever did. This film was so bad that I thought about weather I'd keep watching the director's movies or not. The acting in this movie just sucks and while I was watching the movie i kept pausing it to go do something else because I knew I wasn't going to make it out watching this movie alive. I paused the movie 20 times and watched the movie within in the course of a month. Sure Von Trier was trying the best he could to make a movie that could entertain and don't get me wrong he has made some good movies like Breaking The Waves (1996) or Europa (1991) for example. But this film is him at his worst.

I was stunned by how good this film was. While a made-for-TV production, on what appears a modest budget, it is gripping and beautiful to watch. A very grim story indeed, but wonderfully acted and compelling. I do love Udo Kier.

A breathtakingly intense film with storytelling of the highest sophistication. The novel cinematography and stunning lighting make every single shot of the film a piece of art, which could all be rendered as paintings. The shots are surreal, dark, romantic, and disorientating - von Trier is one of few directors who can penetrate the depth a human heart!

The minimalistic script from Dreyer also powerfully complements the artistic direction and further attenuates the heartbreaking emotions - love, sorrow, and hate.

Such aesthetic approach to film making and storytelling has been lost in modern films - what a pity! This film is an inspiration to bring depth, aesthetics, and artistic expression back to cinema!

After Epidemic, the second chapter of that trilogy that Lars will call Europe, he is commissioned to the same, a television reduction of the tragedy of Euripides, Medea. Obviously the director will develop the project in his own way, taking a cue from a screenplay by his ideal mentor Dreyer, with the variant of infanticide by hanging, which will appear in the logo of the work, creating repugnance to some critics. From a technical-visual point of view, the director continues his coloristic and shooting experimentation, already present in previous films and will continue in future ones of this period (Europe and The Kingdom): sepia turns and grains, video use and machine on his shoulder . But as usual, if you don't get in tune with your way of making cinema, you risk not compromising the result. Finally, another stylistic obsession also present in this film is water, a silent witness to human affairs.

As every art-house director knows, for mood and atmosphere you only need cut out the dialogue - that's easy. Every line of dialogue makes the action more human, more trivial - which may be the main reason why Shakespeare's plays have little emotional value, no matter how rich the poetry and how high the body count. I mention Shakespeare because the visual presentation here kept reminding me of Hamlet, and no doubt Trier could do a good one because he adds plenty of artistry to the most pared-back ideas. It's not rich, but sparse and fragmentary, like a tattered cloth buffeted by the wind, like patches of memory. The characters merge with the natural elements on several occasions, the sea, the windblown grass.

Medea is very much trapped in an imposed psychology, as are we all. The gods are pulling all the strings, or so it seems. She is not callous, not mechanical in killing her children, but tortured as she does fate's bidding. The children are part of the same system and must play their role in honouring their mother's agony. The tragedy is in the passive resignation. Trier communicates this far better than Pasolini, who communicated next to nothing in his version. We're watching someone plumb the very abyss of misery on account of simple vanity. That has always been worth some reflection.