21 May 2012

Pushing strange to the max

This review is from: Valhalla Rising (DVD) I bought the film after reading some great reviews. I must admit that I would have really enjoyed this movie if I was either stoned on crack, or was recovering from a nervous breakdown. I enjoy gritty , historic films with realistic action scenes. and I was hoping that this would have been in the vein of the 13th Warrior, or possibly the first Highlander movie. Alas this is not the case here. Although the sets, costumes, and props look authentic , the story goes nowhere. After the main character gains his freedom and it is never clear when or how he became a captive in the first place, he embarks on a journey to the holy lands with a group of vikings. After getting lost in a fog ( probably the same fog that the director got lost in ) , they wind up in what looks like North America and start getting attacked by ( indians )? Between fighting among themselves, getting lost and dodging arrows that come out of nowhere it is a wonder that any of them make it to the promised land, or in this case the top of the mountain. If this story was supposed to be based on Viking legend of Erik the Red, essentially that a party of vikings landed at Flowers Cove, Newfoundland roughly 500 years before Colombus "discovered" America , then please let us in on it. There wasn't much dialogue in the movie. Maybe 50 lines or so. I always find it refreshing when a character mentions something that happened recently, within the context of the film . This gives the audience a point of reference as to when the story is taking place. Sadly that is not the case here. Not only do we have to guess WHEN this is taking place but also WHAT they are trying to accomplish, after they land .I would have to give this one star out of five . Maybe I will watch it again some night when I can't sleep. I might find a new meaning in the movie.

argurios-825-56795

20 May 2012

worst film ever

this is quite simply the worst acted, worst written and worst directedpiece of crap of a film i have ever had the misfortune to watch. ididn't even pay to see this film and i still got angry for all thepeople who had. it amazes me that films this bad can still, in thismodern day, be allowed to be made and that actors of Mads Mikkelsencaliber accept the parts!! Honestly, who read this script and thought'this will make an amazing film!' i don't think its going to far to sayi could write a better film than this after being labotomised, andthats not me claiming to be a good writer. its just me saying that anidiot like me with half my brain removed could do better. i genuinelyfeel very bad for anyone who paid to see this film, and for the poorpeople who review it for a living.

Nickijah

18 May 2012

Incorrectly Marketed - Led To False Expectations

Don't get me wrong: I do appreciate a good mindbender of a flick, andwhile there are some things to savour in this film, overall I wasrather disappointed. Although I will admit that the primary source ofmy disappointment is that I expected rather a lot more violence thanwas forthcoming in this film.To start with the good points: The director handles the storycompetently if with no great style. Mads Mikkelson is VERY good as thestoic, mute One-Eye. The cinematography is beautiful and captures thebeauty and savagery of northern Scotland (location for filming) withaplomb.Now for the bad points: The film is PAINFULLY SLOW. The story seemscontent to rely on symbolism and interpretation rather than narrativeflow. As I mentioned earlier the marketing and poster for the filmseems to lean more towards a "hack-n-slash" vio-pic, rather than thebrooding existential art-flick that it actually is.I must admit that I am not a fan of this kind of film- making.Certainly there is a place for it in the movie canon, but it is not tomy taste unfortunately.

18 May 2012

Do Not Miss This Film

This is just an incredibly filmed and acted little miracle. The captured warrior remains mute and expressionless throughout, yet through a miracle of acting, he drives the story like a rising and falling piston engine. Amazing. I recommend this film. Don't miss it, but don;t expect a lot of action; it's mostly internal, in your own skull.

stecum

15 May 2012

Worse film Ive ever seen

I know what people will say "oh you don't get it" but this film wasn'texactly hard to get, it was trying to be untraditional and "artsy".This film like many others leaves the view open to his or hers owninterpretation so you can't not get it.The story lacked structure, interesting characters.I normally have a positive outlook on things but this film was sopainfully overrated, I can't help but think it was rated high by peopleworried they'd be accused of conforming to the norm.Deep thinkers, avoid this film, leave the brain at the door people,also avoid this film.

Tim Fearn

15 May 2012

A movie without any purpose or real story

I watched this movie with my son and I felt compelled to write areview. Don't waste your time, we watched it to the bitter end mainlyin disbelief at such a disjointed and pathetic story. The title andfilm synopsis promised so much but delivered nothing. Film is slow.Film has a stupid storyline. Film is dark and dismal. Rubbish. Slow. Myson and I laughed at the end as we could not believe we actually satthrough to the bitter end.I am not against low budget films justrubbish low budget films. I had to add this last bit to pad out myreview, don't waste 1hr 29mins on this movie. Please please pleasewatch some paint dry instead.

D_Stalker

13 May 2012

In the land of the blind the one eyed is KING!

The wrath of god goes to the heart of darkness...on Ayahuasca. A moodyelliptical trip into the dark corners of the human psych,Our violentdebut, our fears and pains,all packaged in stunning cinematography.they want @least a 10 lines review, when only "Stunning" describes thewhole thing, so anyway, here is the rest!The wrath of god goes to the heart of darkness...on Ayahuasca. A moodyelliptical trip into the dark corners of the human psych,Our violentdebut, our fears and pains,all packaged in stunning cinematography. Thewrath of god goes to the heart of darkness...on Ayahuasca. A moodyelliptical trip into the dark corners of the human psych,Our violentdebut, our fears and pains,all packaged in stunning cinematography.

motorheadrulez

13 May 2012

Big Disappointment

I was quite excited by the look of this film as I do think properViking based films are difficult to come by. Unfortunately this is notIt, after seeing the DVD case which depicts (in Britain any way)"One-Eye" standing holding a sword covered in blood and tattoos withhundreds of warriors behind him in a shield wall of sorts, this is myfirst complaint, this never happens, it gave the impression of being anEpic with a climactic battle at some point. Next complaint, the mainCharacter never speaks. This can work to great effect in some films,The Dollars trilogy for instance "Blondie" hardly says anything butmost films like that have a good story and development not a series ofmoody shots of scenery. Thirdly where are they supposed to be in thebeginning? If this is in Denmark or Sweden then they should hit Englandbefore America, if it is Norway then you are still more likely to getto England, Greenland or Iceland first and if this is Scotland orEngland, why the hell are the people called Vikings? (the Vikings hadbeen driven out of England by 954 AD, this film being set in 1000 AD Ibelieve). This brings me onto why are they referred to as Vikings atall? Vikings were Pagan Raiders that attacked coastal villages, theusual term for non-raider being Danes, Pagans or Norsemen. In additionto this why is the "great Viking vessel" a boat no bigger than a rubberdinghy manned by about 8 people? History rant over...There is practically no dialogue, no explanation, no characterdevelopment and barely any plot. It seems that this is what pretentiousarty types want however so if you like fine art and pretentious crap,go ahead but otherwise it's an hour and a half you'll never see again.

Sir_Cellophane_Beak

13 May 2012

Viking Saga with Modernday Tribal Tattoos......

Much like the equally anemic "The Transformers: The Movie", "ValhallaRising" is a terrible ploy by high-powered executives to sell more oftheir product (in this case action toys).Mads Mikkelsen (who had a little celebrity after "Blomsterfangen") isOne Eye, a mystical warrior in another world who is trying to save hisuniverse from his evil enemies (Jamie Sives and Gary McCormack). Soon adevice is created that Gudmond wants, but the heroes are able to use itto escape to Earth before he is able to close in. Naturally the planetis strange to them and the magical device has fallen into the hands ofhumans Stewart Porter and James Ramsey. Thus a race starts to get thedevice back between the good guys and the bad ones. The productionvalues would like to be higher than they are as the film-makers triedto get youngsters in with crazed visual effects that look hopelesslydated. Parents were also suckered in by this mess and the productionended up being a mild success, but not good enough for furtherinstallments. Thank goodness for that anyway.

13 May 2012

Not for most...

I'm going to make this brief. If you like going to art shows with pretentious work that you need an art degree to understand, you will like this film. If, however, you like films that don't feel like they have to sacrifice enjoyability for the sake of artiness, then stay very far away from this film. Half, and I mean half, of the film is made up of shots of people staring off into the distance with serious looks on their faces. I kid you not. I think this kind of film making is lazy. Art doesn't have to be boring to be art. It just has to be meaningful.

dleary69

12 May 2012

A Dark and Moody Masterpiece

I had reservations about whether I'd actually like this film, based onmixed reviews. Fortunately, I don't go by by reviews most of the timeunless it's a comedy that I'm on the fence about. This, however, is abrilliantly dark and moody masterpiece. When you watch this film takemy advice and don't try to think about it, take it in, go with it, andthen let your breath out at the final scene. This film seems almostFellini inspired, on a similar visual effect level as The SeventhSeal(Det sjunde inseglet (1957)), also dark and moody. There are timeswhen I honestly can't rationalize what is actually occurring on thescreen. Frankly, don't even try to. You could be in a room with 10people of various backgrounds and get 10 different interpretations ofthis film with the ending throwing away whatever interpretation youarrived at by mid film. Is this a SciFi film? Yes, no. Is it areligious journey? Yes, no. Is it a film you need to sit down with yourfavorite beverage and snack, having already used the restroom, andwatch uninterrupted till the final credits? Yes! I could tell you manydifferent reasons why this isn't mainstream entertainment and directyou to the same old and boring theater crap that's being releasednowadays, but this is something so different that it needs to bewatched. If you like cartoon ogre's and talking VW beetles you'll hatethis. If you like real film this is a keeper. I, for one, loved it!

Mike Willcocks

11 May 2012

Dull

This is possible the worst film i have seen for many years, it was notonly dreadfully un-entertaining but also flawed cinematically andtechnically. I found the narrative dull and difficult to follow, i didnot feel any sort of alignment to the main character, perhaps this isdue to him being muted however and not saying a word throughout theentire film. I found the variety of shots very limited and there wereno establishing shot to give me a proper idea of the surrounding and igathered no sense of place from this film. To me it felt cheap, it wasalmost as if they used close ups to hide the fact they could not afforda decent set, i have no problem with lower budget films providing thenarrative delivers, however I felt it did not. The narrative issomewhat tedious and it takes a long time before any words are spoke,even then it doesn't really give you an idea of the narrative, thefilms ideology was somewhat bland and as a whole i would not recommendthis film on any grounds.

wvhaugen

10 May 2012

What Rubbish!

I couldn't finish this movie last night, so I was interested in whatother IMDb reviewers thought. Imagine my surprise upon reading positivereview after positive review. I didn't finish them all, so there may benegative reviews out there. Since I am going to write a negativereview, here are my credentials: M.A. in anthropology, graduate levelcourses in Old Norse language and saga literature, paper on VictorTurner and his misuse of sagas to analyze symbolic anthropology,archaeologist, practical knowledge in viking weapons and armor, bothcrafting them for sale and fighting in them in SCA-style combat(Society for Creative Anachronisms). My people come from Norway andSweden and have been farmers for the last 400 years (as far back as Ican trace). I also understand the berserker mindset intimately.To start off, slaves were too highly prized to be slaughtered forentertainment. Horsefighting was the preferred Old Norse analog togladiatorial entertainment. Real men used real swords and hacked eachother to death for purposes of law, or revenge, or real wealth changinghands. Shields were just as important as swords in these duels. Theoverall level of filth was not only unhygienic and would have led todeath, but also unlikely because the Norse were often quite vain andbathed a lot. Around 1000 AD, the ladies at the English court preferredNorse warriors to the Anglo-Saxons because they bathed regularly.There doesn't seem to be any settlements around and the idea you couldmaintain a trained fighter in a wind-blown cage on a diet of gruel andno daily exercise is ludicrous. The ridiculously small boat with lowgunnels could never have gone anywhere besides along a coast, much lessa deep sea voyage to Canada. That boat would have never made it to theOrkneys! As for the location, one of the Christians mentions they arein Sutherland, which locates them in Scotland. I have done several biketours in Scotland and the terrain is right, but the adaptations to theenvironment are all wrong. It really does take a community workingtogether to make a living in such a land.The upshot is that the director was probably limited in his budget, butthe level of detail has an important role in making a movie. Theintroduction of Chrisianity into Scandinavia around 1000 AD was basedon cold-blooded calculation of wealth and domination. It was not abunch of half-starved groaty cast-offs wandering around trying to savetheir souls or mitigate some sort of existential psychological paininside their heads. Any Old Norse warrior would laugh or be insulted bysuch a characterization (or both!).If this was supposed to be some sort of oblique view of what modernsoldiers are going through in their psychological difficulties withincipient PTSD, it fails miserably. There is more than a littlebureaucracy in any structured warrior grouping and certainly in theViking Age. Read a little about the Jomsvikings if you don't believeme. This movie was all about fantasies - fantasies driven by verylittle knowledge of what life was like back then or what life is likenow. If you want a REAL look at combat and the mindset of the vikings,go to the sagas first, and then do a little more digging into themythology and skaldic verse. I suggest Njals Saga, Egils Saga orGrettirs Saga as good places to start. Njals Saga especially has a goodlook at the introduction of Christianity into Iceland.As I have said many times before, "No anthropologists were harmed inthe making of this film."

andymcneill75

09 May 2012

Great wee film!!

I bought Valhalla Rising the other day and was quite surprised by thisviolent, little thought-provoking thriller. Director Nicolas WindingRefn from Denmark is quickly becoming a very stylish and talenteddirector and the film is almost an art film as well as a drama /thriller. The story revolves around a mute one-eyed viking warrior (called One Eye ) who is used as a slave and paid to bash the livingdaylights out of and kill other fighters in the glens of the Scottishhighlands. One Eye fights for his owner but eventually overpowers them,slaughters most of them and walks free. He befriends a young boy andends up meeting a clan of Christian warriors who say will he join themon their journey to the holy land on their boat. The film is verymoody, beautifully shot and shows the amazing scenery of Scotlandthrough wide shots, tinted filters and stunning imagery, there is apart where the film gets quite slow but never loses you and it's 85 minrunning time is just about right. Mads Mikkelsen ( Le Chifre fromCasino Royale ) plays his part brilliantly without speaking a singleword and Gary Lewis, Jamie Sives and Ewan Stewart all lend goodsupport.An interesting little film and you should check this out as with ThePusher Trilogy, Fear X and Bronson also on his CV Refn is a directorworth keeping an eye out for, he for me uses elements and styles from avariety of people including Hitchcock and Werner Herzog and the film isvery similar to Aguirre - The Wrath Of God. 8 and a half out of ten.Stunningly beautifully shot film.

Davy

09 May 2012

Boring nonsense

There is no message in this film, just random scenes of medievalviolence. OK, this is a film about Vikings and we know that life wasviolent at those times. So what. The film is also very slow and boringand in the end you understand that there was absolutely no point ofwatching it.There is no story and the pieces of this missing story are not evenbelievable. The group of Vikings cross the ocean and their boatmiraculously enters some river against the current?? The unbeatablesuper warrior suddenly gives up all his weapons and dies without afight?? Nonsense.The worst movie I have seen in a very, very long time, an epicdisappointment and waste of time.Not only the main character is a mute, but the director of the filmturns out to be a mute as well, totally failing his chance to pass anymessage to the viewers. Dear director, if you have no idea how to tella story, maybe you should consider another profession.

Phil210293

08 May 2012

Misleadingly promoted, forcefully arty and pretentious.

OK, everybody be nice because this is my first review; hopefully thefirst of many. I have been reading reviews on IMDb for ages to help mechoose my next film purchase, and this has, for the most part, stood mein good stead. So I have decided to give it a bash myself. Let me makeit clear; I am NOT a film buff. I enjoy television (entirely too much,sometimes :P ), so this will hopefully be helpful to those like me;people who WATCH films, not analyse them. I don't consider this a job;I'm not sat in a chair with a clipboard. I prefer a bean bag, and somecrisps (chips to the Americans reading this). So without further ado,my review of Valhalla Rising.- Plot: Hmm. The artsy types will probably be saying that a lot whilethey watch this film, as I can imagine the writer/director did while hewas filming it. It's supposedly an "art film" from what I gather, andit certainly feels that way. It's rather dull, and rather pretentious.It tries very hard to create a dark, moody atmosphere with thelocations, the extended scenery shots, and what little dialogue thereis from the brooding characters. And all this leaves it with a strongfeeling that the director was stood whilst filming (presumablydirecting) stroking his goatee, wearing a frown upon his face. And aberet. It's been forced into being an art film, rather than letting itdesign itself. And with all that, it seems they forgot to make anythingactually happen. The main events are (and I assure you these are notspoilers): some people die. That's it. Spread over an hour and a half,and interspersed with a lot of, well, nothing. 6/20- Cast and Characters: Well, Mads Mikkelson, the guy who plays LeChiffre in Casino Royale, plays One Eye, the protagonist of the film.You'll be surprised to learn that One Eye has one eye, the otherpresumably lost during his previous battles. I expected Mr Mikkelson todo a decent job, having enjoyed him so much as his Bond Villain. And tobe fair to him he did his best with what he was given, which was, umm,nothing, actually. Not a single line, because, of course, his characteris a mute. Which didn't make a very compelling lead role, if I'mhonest. I couldn't even be bothered to investigate the other actors,because their characters were as dull as the dishwater they spent mostof their time sailing on/ wading through. Fortunately, there were onlyabout 12 people in the whole film, though I barely kept track of eventhat meagre number. No one in the film gives you any sense of empathy,their thoughts and emotions remaining utterly alien throughout, evenwhen they directly express both. 6/20- Scenery: Wow. This was the one redeeming feature of the film. It wasshot in Scotland, which, despite me living in England, I have never hadthe pleasure of visiting. However, some of the most breathtaking viewscan be seen throughout the film. Especially when the entourage arrivesin the new land, the wild, unspoilt landscapes are a feast for the eye.The dark, mysterious marshes and moors are perfect for creating themood intended by the film, which makes it all the more confusing as tohow they failed so miserably. There are mountains and hill shrouded inclouds standing guard above dense, untouched forests and mirror-smoothlakes. There are dark, misty moorlands clinging to steep hillsides,rocks protruding from the ground, refusing to be buried beneath thebrush. It is truly a beautiful location, the one thing about the film Itruly enjoyed. 18/20- Music: Well to be honest I was that bored, I wasn't paying attentionto the music. There was a lot of ambient, tense "soundscaping" that forsome reason made me think it was composed by a local Nine Inch Nailstribute band. And I'm not a particular fan of Nine Inch Nails. Thereisn't much to say about the music really; it was neither here northere, and I shall score it as such. 10/20- Overall: My main criticism is that it is trying far too hard to bedeep and arty. Had it been allowed to develop more organically, ratherthan being coerced into something intended to be more "highbrow". Thefact that it has been promoted as a totally different film also annoyedme; the first impression of the trailer and the cover slip werescreaming of a testosterone-fuelled, violent, bloody rampage acrosshellish landscapes and gory bloodbaths as often as you blink. Whichisn't particularly my type of film anyway, but I was in the mood toindulge in a good fight film, and I was left thoroughly disappointed.7/20In summary, what I was expecting to be a film of one angry man leavinga trail of blood and destruction, turned out to be 90 minutes of emptyspace. Well, mostly; one guy got his head caved in, and someone gotsome "surprise butt secks" whilst drowning in some mud in what lookedalarmingly like a gay rape scene. But hey, what do I know. I don'trecommend this film to anyone, except perhaps the pretentious,art-types that have a personality well matched to the film. Poor.47/100

artzau

07 May 2012

Disappointing

What's the story? Simple as that. Man's inhumanity to man?Self-realization? Redemption? An odyssey, perchance? A brutal killingmachine, chained up for fighting like a dog, attended by a boy by aViking chief with a gambling habit. Some violent, dirty scenes foughtin the mud, all staged for the pleasure and gaming spirit ofoverlording on-lookers whose agenda is never made clear. Slightsuggestions of tensions along the way. Lots of staring. Lots of goinginto the mind tableaux. lots of dirt, rain, discomfort and violence.Everyone's a cut-out caricature. The pagans are pagan. They despise theChristians. The Christians are Zealots, killing for Jesus. All throughit, One-eyes stares, kills, spares no one and is says nothing. Histhoughts are expressed through the boy. His Christian shipmates loathand fear him.The journey, to save the Holy Land, takes them to someplace mindful ofthe New World. The arrows that appear from unseen sources are stone.The confusion builds and then, ... sacrifice? Man, this film had somepotential but the mythic underpinnings are so convoluted, at the end,you wind up saying, "Huh?" Alas, the writer of this disappointingventure just didn't do his homework. The reason this film doesn't workis because there is no story. One-eye is a great Norse Metaphor asOdin/Woden gave his eye for wisdom. But, that's as far as it goes:One-eye had his eye taken from him, one surmises, in a fight. He's asurvivor. His finding an arrow blade becomes the key to his immersionfrom the lower depths. But, it goes no further. His mission, after apoorly defined revenge, then is to go somewhere he's not a slave. Theboy, his alter-ego, says he's looking for his "home" but also says,he's "...from Hell." The problem with that metaphor is that it doesn'tfit the myth. So, we're left with a ensemble of stereotypes arrayed ina series of very boring, staring scenes, sparked by bloody violence.It could have been better.

Justin H. Achneepineskum

07 May 2012

Native Americans View

Saw this on Satellite TV just now. It seemed okay at first. Nice artsylook at vikings which always interested me. Very little words. A lot ofenvironmental focus though. But when seeing how they handled thenatives with an introduction of an arrow fire, i was like "WHAA?!?!"Obviously, the writers didn't do their research. I won't say much or as to why, but adding Native Americans in a form ofa mysterious threat is just ridiculous. These guys were either Inuit orMi'Q Mac; and knowing at least half their beliefs (half of which areuniversal to almost all natives of north America), starting a fightwith foreign peoples risks the survival of their community through war.The people of the North did not have that kind of luxury. Survival wasalways of importance. They knew that everyday they lived was a concernin itself because of the difficulties of finding food. And they wereprobably just as scared,clueless, and curious as the vikings were uponmeeting.And if these two peoples had met through combat prior to the movie, itwould have most likely happened on the edges of Greenland with jerkoffs (on both sides) fighting over food or paranoid beliefs. And if ithad happened, all of the vikings would likely know about these nativesbecause of their verbal / storytelling culture. Thus, they would haveknown where they were and who they were dealing with.This (like most movies from Hollywood) is the usual result ofprimitive, uninsightful, western thinking. Do your research next time!

sjensenstrad

06 May 2012

Dont watch it unless you want to get bored

It just SUCK! It gets one star since I could not give it zero or less.Have to write ten sentences but the movie isn't even ten sentencesworth it is one long disappointment, I watched it all the way to theend just to see if something good would come up, but no it just gotworse and worse. The title for this movie should have been "StupidVikings on a road trip to boredom". In particular the boat scenes wasHilario's bad. Think of this there ain't no win and still they get allthe way from Europe to America and it is foggy all the way to, not surethere is much fog out on the Atlantic ocean. Of course an easy andcheap cover up for a real boat scene but.OMG..

charles000

06 May 2012

and now for something completely different . . .

Even though I jest somewhat by using the famous Monty Python opener tostart this review, Valhalla Rising really is . . . different and thensome.Without question the cinema photography and audio tracks merge togetherto form an experiential tone poem that's difficult to describe exactly,but very compelling.Beautiful and terrifying, brutal and spiritual, iconic and barbaric . .. all of these seemingly unlikely dichotomies and more are woventogether into this tapestry that takes the viewer back to 1000 AD, atime when essentially all of Europe was cloaked in the morass of theDark Ages, and in the northern yonderlands, life was as harsh as canpossibly be imagined.And yet out of this maelstrom of harsh realities, where sanity itselfis but a wispy hint of potential behaviors comes what could beinterpreted as a deep probing into the very concept of existence,consciousness and the soul, compressed together into a manifold ofperpetual adrenalin infused danger and lurking potential direconsequences of the worst imaginable sort.I won't spoil this by providing a clue to the ending, of course, but inthat ending there is yet another layer of profound contemplation thatthe film invites the viewer to ponder, if so inclined.There is one scene in the latter part of the film, though, which isstill a bit mysterious. The Viking clansmen, along with "One Eye" passaround a clay jug of "something", followed by what could only bedescribed as various episodes of hallucinogen catalyzed behaviors. Myguess is that this was a jug filled with a tea of sorts, imbued withhallucinogenic mushrooms, an activity that was surprisingly common invarious ceremonies of that time and culture.They had arrived in this mysterious and foreboding new location, andthis was the ceremony . . . the bonding of spirit and place in this"new world" as it were.It could be easy for some, I suppose, to simply dismiss this work assome sort of odd, violence prone dark adventure saga . . . but there isso much more to be experienced here, if one chooses to probe the layersof context and symbolism woven together in this piece.In terms of originality of concept, style, and delivery, this is a workof art in the true sense of the term, albeit disturbing in many ways,but an art piece to be absorbed and contemplated for future reference.I give the directors and writers of this work a lot of credit forstepping more than a bit outside the box, and allowing the actors tolive out their characters probably as well as could be possibly donefor this type of a film.I like this film . . . very compelling to watch and experience, but itmay not be for everyone. Having said that, in the proverbial 1 - 10scale, I'll place this in the 7.5 to 8 range. If you can be open to"something completely different" as it were, you won't be disappointed.