The 20th Century

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.

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.

If you have to use Monty Python as a reference, then you have a limited film vocablulary.

My initial snapshot of referential inspiration here includes Expressionism/Max Beckmann/the Zeigfield Follies/Flash Gordon/Metropolis/Barry Lyndon/Touch of Evil/The Cabinet of Dr Caligari/Sam Raimi horror. I think it's Canadian national cultural asset - not wiping out the warmth of Terrence and Philip, but containing it's own sense of identity. Given some of the orthodoxic independent output of the other half if the cointinent, a refreshing change. The only reference to Python would be if Terry Gilliam was what the other reviewers might have meant, and what they were expecting to see. They are blinkered. You can curse me afterwards, but if I'm wrong, I'll have only wasted and an hour an a half of your time, and considering you've likely wasted a year not following all those failed good intentions of self improvement during the pandemic, you may not have much of an argument. Put it this way: if you're at all afraid to try new foods, you maybe should avoid this film, it's not for you. If you do like trying something that's not offering the received comforts of cinema, then go ahead. Not encouraged for non-adults, but that caution is out of politeness to social normalcy. Not that that there's anything wrong with that, is there? Is there?

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.

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.