3 recensioni
Very good for a Swiss Movie, but Freddy Murer tries to put too many elements in this movie. Everything about Switzerland has to be shown : a racist, rich people, fake, solitary, all languages. This gives a very general picture about Swiss culture. The problem in the film is that the mixture of reality and mystery in Twin Peaks style seems much too artificial. Some scenes are only silly, e.g. the ritual with glass moving.
However, nice try and worth to see anyway.
However, nice try and worth to see anyway.
Fredi Murer is a good film maker - as proved with "Höhenfeuer". But his thriller/satire/drama "Vollmond" is a misfire of epic proportions. It's so utterly bad that some misguided intellectuals & artists actually found it good and defended the movie because "it has something to say". I know, it's hard to believe.
The story itself is not that bad. It deals with children that suddenly disappear. Why not build some X-Files-kind of story out of this? No, Murer goes the path of a morality play. What morality? I don't know. Probably that children are better people than grown-ups. And there's more. Murer tries to give a full-fledged picture of contemporary Switzerland. Meaning: He puts *every* topic that concerns the society into the film. Racism, single-parent-families, conflict old/young, religion, sects, materialism - the list is endless. As if that wouldn't be bad enough, it's the way he puts the topics in that is most insulting: People would talk and suddenly spout their views on something completely unrelated. Everything comes utterly unmotivated.
And it's long. The Swiss-cut was 150 dreadful minutes, the international release was around 2 hours. Both way too long. Murer should have really hired a good editor. Remember those DVD-commentaries or film school or whatever where people tell you that if a scene doesn't forward the story, you normally cut it out for pacing reason? Not Murer. There are dozens of pointless scenes in "Vollmond". A man walks on a street. Cut. A man walks on a retaining wall. Cut. Nothing happens.
And the esotericism and pretentious symbolism. The most primitive component of the film. Examples: Blind people see more than seeing people. Children put their hands on their eyes and see "more". There's wood laying around on every corner. It's impossible to tell what Murer wants to say with it - I had to read that this actually symbolized the Arche Noah. The movie is full of stuff like that.
And finally the acting. Terrible. The main child actor was utterly annoying. The old rich guy was plain bad. And the final scene in the TV-studio is the culmination of embarrassment. Bad acting meets hammy storytelling. Really, who could see something good in this? Who would say that Murer's cheap and pretentious symbolism "means" something or is "deep". Not deep. Shallow. Utterly. And bad. Avoid!
rating: 1/10
The story itself is not that bad. It deals with children that suddenly disappear. Why not build some X-Files-kind of story out of this? No, Murer goes the path of a morality play. What morality? I don't know. Probably that children are better people than grown-ups. And there's more. Murer tries to give a full-fledged picture of contemporary Switzerland. Meaning: He puts *every* topic that concerns the society into the film. Racism, single-parent-families, conflict old/young, religion, sects, materialism - the list is endless. As if that wouldn't be bad enough, it's the way he puts the topics in that is most insulting: People would talk and suddenly spout their views on something completely unrelated. Everything comes utterly unmotivated.
And it's long. The Swiss-cut was 150 dreadful minutes, the international release was around 2 hours. Both way too long. Murer should have really hired a good editor. Remember those DVD-commentaries or film school or whatever where people tell you that if a scene doesn't forward the story, you normally cut it out for pacing reason? Not Murer. There are dozens of pointless scenes in "Vollmond". A man walks on a street. Cut. A man walks on a retaining wall. Cut. Nothing happens.
And the esotericism and pretentious symbolism. The most primitive component of the film. Examples: Blind people see more than seeing people. Children put their hands on their eyes and see "more". There's wood laying around on every corner. It's impossible to tell what Murer wants to say with it - I had to read that this actually symbolized the Arche Noah. The movie is full of stuff like that.
And finally the acting. Terrible. The main child actor was utterly annoying. The old rich guy was plain bad. And the final scene in the TV-studio is the culmination of embarrassment. Bad acting meets hammy storytelling. Really, who could see something good in this? Who would say that Murer's cheap and pretentious symbolism "means" something or is "deep". Not deep. Shallow. Utterly. And bad. Avoid!
rating: 1/10