Stealing Klimt recounts the struggle by 90-year-old Maria Altmann to recover five Gustav Klimt paintings stolen from her family by the Nazis in Vienna. From the end of the War up until last... See full summary »
Michael J. Bazyler,
At a wake one night in 1945, a group of aged women recall the life of one of their number. Sixty years before, Thérèse was barely 20 years old when she eloped with her boyfriend, Firmin, a ... See full summary »
In a bar in Santiago, two old men talk over their past. This is a strange discussion. In fact, they talk of themselves as if they were dead. We don't know what is true or false, what is dream or reality.
A character study and a meditation on art in a time of opulence and syphilis. Gustave Klimt (1862-1918) lies in hospital, dying. In reveries, he recalls the early 1900s: it's fin de siècle Vienna. At the World Exposition in Paris, Klimt meets Georges Méliès, who does a moving picture for him, and Klimt falls under the spell of a woman who may be Lea de Castro. We see Klimt in his studio; we meet his mother and sister, who suffer from mental illness. We watch Klimt the libertine. On his deathbed and as a younger man, he imagines things as well: encounters with ministers and waiters and with women who are willing participants in his pleasures. Is this the source of art?Written by
When Klimt mashes the cake in the man's face, the icing on the man's face is not covering his right eye. In the next close-up shot, there is a large blob of icing covering the man's right eye. In the next long shot when Klimt starts to wipe the man's face, the icing is no longer covering the man's right eye again. See more »
A concept that changes as the era changes. For him nothing is ugly. It just depends on the era.
See more »
what a stinker! i went to see this new movie with the best intentions. what could go wrong? it was an austrian-British co-production about an artist i like who painted sexy pictures, and it starred john malkovitch.
well, everything went wrong. perhaps the director thought that in portraying an artist who defied conventions, it is a good idea to defy cineastic conventions. so there is no real storytelling, there are no opening shots, and the sound is clinical horror of over- synchronized voices with ever-dominant emotive music. however, instead of replacing conventions with the bold and new, the director uses theatrical clichés -- a shot of blood&sex here, broken glass there, some fistfights and some insanity, and an overdose of flashbacks.
and there is talk, so much talk!, and the talk is boring. is art truth? should art be new? must the artist be insane? the topics are OK but there is nothing original to be found here, nothing witty or even mildly humorous. if you know an odious person who likes to speak through his nose about how Art is Good and Society is Bad: he may well enjoy this movie. but i found it as annoying as hell.
32 of 62 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this