VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,7/10
16.402
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un asino che incontra nei suoi viaggi persone buone e cattive, sperimenta gioia e dolore, esplorando attraverso i suoi occhi una visione dell'Europa moderna.Un asino che incontra nei suoi viaggi persone buone e cattive, sperimenta gioia e dolore, esplorando attraverso i suoi occhi una visione dell'Europa moderna.Un asino che incontra nei suoi viaggi persone buone e cattive, sperimenta gioia e dolore, esplorando attraverso i suoi occhi una visione dell'Europa moderna.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 1 Oscar
- 33 vittorie e 67 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
The biggest surprise of the Cannes film festival this year was probably that the Prix du Jury went to a film about a donkey. Not just that a donkey played a big role in the film, but the donkey was the protagonist of the film, and genuinely played by a donkey.
Surprisingly enough, that works. It might sound crazy at first to watch a film which follows throughout the entire runtime a donkey which can't speak or really express his feelings, but it actually works. That's due to the fantastic work of the team behind the film. Much of the success is due to director Jerzy Skolimowski, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing and how he wanted the film to look in the end. But he wouldn't have succeeded in making an interesting film about a donkey if it wasn't for his DoP Michal Dymek and his film editor Agniezka Glinska. Their collaboration results in giving the donkey a character, and making us believe that EO is actually played by a fantastic actor. There were a few moments throughout the film where I actually thought that this donkey should get an Oscar. Of course I was always fully aware that a donkey can't act, and that this is only technical expertise. Film editor Glinska used for example one of the oldest montage techniques of the history of film, the Kuleshov effect, which proved that editing is the key to every film, and that the audience can actually interprete the actor's feelings rather by the following shot than by his expressions. When Kuleshov tested the effect, he edited a (never-changing) close-up of an expressionless man, together with three alternate ending shots: a dead child in a coffin, a bowl of soup, and a woman lying on a divan. Audiences interpreted the expression on the actor's face as sadness, hunger and lust, although it was always the same. This effect got reused by Hitchcock many times, especially in his masterpiece "Rear Window".
In EO, this effect is used many times: A shot of the donkey's eye followed by a shot of animals being mistreated, makes us believe the donkey is actually sad. Another shot of the donkey (who was probably only wondering why people are standing for weeks with a camera around him) followed by his circus "mother" returning to him makes us believe he is happy, and so on. Paired with incredibly impressive and beautiful images, EO actually turns out to be a very interesting and refreshing film, even amongst experimental cinema.
Nonetheless, you're watching a donkey for 80+ minutes. And after a while, you start to feel that. You're waiting for some kind of emotional conflict, some interesting dialogue, etc, - which the director then tries to include by introducing side characters. But those side characters don't work at all, as they only distract from the main story and leave the audience completely cold. Even a great actress like Isabelle Huppert can't save the film's triviality by smashing a few plates when talking to her gambling addict son (who brought the donkey home with him). Instead, her acting - and every other actor too - feels completely misplaced and exaggerated, which is also due to the fact that the donkey always moves on very quickly after having met new persons, so no actor has more screen time than just a couple of minutes.
Last but not least, the film also doesn't manage to entertain enough through the message alone. As to expect, the film speaks a lot about animal exploitation and mistreatment and ultimately advocates for animal rights, but the message is clear after a few minutes, and the ending of the film - which I won't spoil here - doesn't work either, which ridiculousness the message a little.
But after all, EO is an interesting experiment, which surprisingly works due to the fantastic technical aspects. The film's main flaws are in the screenplay (and of course also in the fact that the protagonist is a donkey), but luckily, the film runs only 86 minutes, so you can overlook these weaknesses and still enjoy watching it.
Surprisingly enough, that works. It might sound crazy at first to watch a film which follows throughout the entire runtime a donkey which can't speak or really express his feelings, but it actually works. That's due to the fantastic work of the team behind the film. Much of the success is due to director Jerzy Skolimowski, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing and how he wanted the film to look in the end. But he wouldn't have succeeded in making an interesting film about a donkey if it wasn't for his DoP Michal Dymek and his film editor Agniezka Glinska. Their collaboration results in giving the donkey a character, and making us believe that EO is actually played by a fantastic actor. There were a few moments throughout the film where I actually thought that this donkey should get an Oscar. Of course I was always fully aware that a donkey can't act, and that this is only technical expertise. Film editor Glinska used for example one of the oldest montage techniques of the history of film, the Kuleshov effect, which proved that editing is the key to every film, and that the audience can actually interprete the actor's feelings rather by the following shot than by his expressions. When Kuleshov tested the effect, he edited a (never-changing) close-up of an expressionless man, together with three alternate ending shots: a dead child in a coffin, a bowl of soup, and a woman lying on a divan. Audiences interpreted the expression on the actor's face as sadness, hunger and lust, although it was always the same. This effect got reused by Hitchcock many times, especially in his masterpiece "Rear Window".
In EO, this effect is used many times: A shot of the donkey's eye followed by a shot of animals being mistreated, makes us believe the donkey is actually sad. Another shot of the donkey (who was probably only wondering why people are standing for weeks with a camera around him) followed by his circus "mother" returning to him makes us believe he is happy, and so on. Paired with incredibly impressive and beautiful images, EO actually turns out to be a very interesting and refreshing film, even amongst experimental cinema.
Nonetheless, you're watching a donkey for 80+ minutes. And after a while, you start to feel that. You're waiting for some kind of emotional conflict, some interesting dialogue, etc, - which the director then tries to include by introducing side characters. But those side characters don't work at all, as they only distract from the main story and leave the audience completely cold. Even a great actress like Isabelle Huppert can't save the film's triviality by smashing a few plates when talking to her gambling addict son (who brought the donkey home with him). Instead, her acting - and every other actor too - feels completely misplaced and exaggerated, which is also due to the fact that the donkey always moves on very quickly after having met new persons, so no actor has more screen time than just a couple of minutes.
Last but not least, the film also doesn't manage to entertain enough through the message alone. As to expect, the film speaks a lot about animal exploitation and mistreatment and ultimately advocates for animal rights, but the message is clear after a few minutes, and the ending of the film - which I won't spoil here - doesn't work either, which ridiculousness the message a little.
But after all, EO is an interesting experiment, which surprisingly works due to the fantastic technical aspects. The film's main flaws are in the screenplay (and of course also in the fact that the protagonist is a donkey), but luckily, the film runs only 86 minutes, so you can overlook these weaknesses and still enjoy watching it.
IO stayed with me for days. This film is experienced and digested in the flesh. There are not many words in it so it is impossible to distance yourself from it by intellectualizing it. The places where animals live; the situations that happen to them - nothing we didn't know about - but shown from a different perspective - perspective of a donkey, a creature that is dependent on humans: it's owners (caretakers?) and the laws regarding animals.
I was touched and moved by something I had hitherto passed by indifferently: the fate of animals that are not given names. This film was difficult for me and appealed to me at the same time.
And last but not least I'm always very happy to see Isabelle Huppert on the screen.
I was touched and moved by something I had hitherto passed by indifferently: the fate of animals that are not given names. This film was difficult for me and appealed to me at the same time.
And last but not least I'm always very happy to see Isabelle Huppert on the screen.
The circus was your home but now it's closing, new outcomes are ahead, life's recomposing, a journey has begun, there'll be sorrow and some fun, lots of being led around and often roaming. You'll take the opportunities, that you're presented (you don't have a choice), and quite often you will feel, like you're resented, poorly treated by humans, but not always, some are friends, though they'll always seem to be, distressed, tormented.
The life of a donkey, the people it encounters, for good or bad, and the array of farms, fields, pens, containers, sanctuaries and otherwise that are used to restrict it, often quite unsuccessfully, as it's pushed from pillar to post - just as most animals are on their journey to the abattoir or slaughterhouse, does it remind you of anyone you know?
The life of a donkey, the people it encounters, for good or bad, and the array of farms, fields, pens, containers, sanctuaries and otherwise that are used to restrict it, often quite unsuccessfully, as it's pushed from pillar to post - just as most animals are on their journey to the abattoir or slaughterhouse, does it remind you of anyone you know?
Inspired by Bresson's 1966 Au Hasard du Balthazar, EO is a very worthwhile contemporary revision of an innocent animal's experience of the human condition. Our folly, our greed, our anger and violence, our hypocrisy, our hubris ... and many more vices, but occasionally moments of redeeming compassion. When human beings were hunter gatherers we were much closer to the behaviour of animals, and coexisted in an ecologically natural state. Well deserved Palme D'Ors for both the music and the movie. Excellent photography and sequencing too. This film takes us on an inexorable journey involving a gamut of emotions. See it at a cinema for the best experience.
The film tells a story of the world, which is shown through the eyes of a donkey. It is worth admitting that the film is very strong and affecting. Although, there is almost no talking in the film, but everything is still clear. The whole mood is created by visual effects, sound effects and, of course, donkey emotions.
In this film, the most important thing is the donkey and his experiences, emotions like sadness and fear. In fact, the strength of this film is the emotional background, which does not require any dialogues or monologues, and is focused on the world of the animal and the world around.
Unfortunately, after watching the movie, you get the feeling that in reality, sometimes a person can act like an animal and not have any humanity in him, and the animal has not done anything bad to this world, but it is treated cruelly. The film is very impactful and stays in the mind for a very long time.
In this film, the most important thing is the donkey and his experiences, emotions like sadness and fear. In fact, the strength of this film is the emotional background, which does not require any dialogues or monologues, and is focused on the world of the animal and the world around.
Unfortunately, after watching the movie, you get the feeling that in reality, sometimes a person can act like an animal and not have any humanity in him, and the animal has not done anything bad to this world, but it is treated cruelly. The film is very impactful and stays in the mind for a very long time.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDirector Jerzy Skolimowski has said that the only time he ever cried while watching a movie was with Au hasard Balthazar (1966), which is about a mistreated donkey. The story heavily influenced Eo (2022).
- BlooperWhen Kasandra gets off the motorbike, she hangs her helmet over the right rear-view mirror of the bike. Later, when Dude puts his helmet back on, Kasandra's helmet is still hanging there, but after the next cut, when Dude gets on the motorbike and starts the engine, Kasandra's helmet is now hanging over the left rear-view mirror. In the next scene, when Dude drives away, Kasandra's helmet is gone, but later, when she runs after him and gets on the motorbike, he hands her helmet to the back.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is EO?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- EO
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Jezioro Bystrzyckie, Dolnoslaskie, Polonia(Eo in front of the dam)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.068.782 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 24.000 USD
- 20 nov 2022
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 2.584.344 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 28min(88 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.43 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti