Raging Sun, Raging Sky

This has to be one of the worse things that I have ever seen! I can't even call it a movie because I have no idea what is was about. There is no dialog. It's in boring B&W. I couldn't tell who was who because no one had a name. There's tons of full-frontal male nudity of sexy men but no tender love-making, in fact, even very little kissing. Keeping the FF button on overdrive, I managed to cut down the pain to a little over 1 hour. 1-star for the sexy naked men!

Where some seem to feel the film lacks a story line or lasts to long, even claim pretentiousness.. I disagree... Admittedly I have a soft-spot for long-winding stories, but in this case it actually is instrumental in creating a feeling and atmosphere which is very well captured. The actors manage to show all they need to show without saying so much as a word, which to me is proof of real acting qualities. The story is a strong and powerful tale, served well by the equally strong images that invoke Pasolini, Almodovar but also the likes of Baron Wilhelm Von Gloeden... This is definitely an instant favourite and will get a place of honour in my film collection

This movie is visually stunning but otherwise almost completely unsatisfying. There is more full male nudity than in any other non-porn movie I have ever seen, and the casual way it is handled is marvelously refreshing; but despite abundant nudity and the theme of gay love interrupted and reclaimed, this is the LEAST erotic and the LEAST romantic movie I have seen in ages.

Every second of its over three hours is so tightly choreographed, every slightest movement so obsessively under the director's control, that it might as well be claymation. It is bloodless and cold, so cerebral that the flesh on abundant display might just as well be clay in an animator's studio.

As long as I had no idea who anybody was, how they were related to one another, and what the point of the movie was, I was fascinated just watching the people move like dancers through the fantastic sets and landscapes. But when its point began to come clear, that point was so trite that I wished it had stayed cold and confusing but fascinating to watch.

Overall, though, I'm glad I watched it, because it changed ME in a way I never would have expected. I discovered for the first time that I've spent all my life thinking of Mexico as a barbaric country full of poverty, drug lords, brutality, violence, filth, ugliness and absolutely nothing worthwhile. A country like that could not have given birth to a movie as accomplished and sophisticated as this movie is, so I'm completely overhauling my attitude toward our neighbor to the south.

For a film as well made as this, you would rightly expect a good deal of praise. However, it is horribly self indulgent and far too long. I could get 30 minutes out of it without even trying and I think it would still retain its many qualities. Ambiguous storytelling has its attractions, but what is the point of being so ambiguous that the film becomes incomprehensible, even to an old film buff like myself, steeped in 50 years of film festivals and the many cinematic challenges they throw up. I found much of the film compelling viewing, but it was obvious that the director simply didn't know how to end it and so the denouement drags on endlessly. The fast forward button on my DVD player was a Godsend.

A naive question first: how many masterpieces of world cinematic history can this fascinating work hold up to its credit? Too many to be counted. I would definitely add the influences of Glauber Rocha and Ingmar Bergman, among others. So is this original? Yes, but at some point it becomes an overarching exercise that tries to join the horny/corny and the sublime. I am wondering -- and this may be futile -- how much money was spent on the making of this heavy creation that seems geared for so many audiences that could not possibly be satisfied at once -- or could they, would-be Pasolini? I Haven't watched Broken Sky yet but then...