Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

pkl66 Such a disappointing performance. Dalí was a complicated figure, but the way Pattinson played it, was was almost a caricature. And a bad one. Beltran's performance was better but didn't make up for Pattinson. The story, was hard to follow and the sound was awful. Never good when the music is so loud, one can't hear the dialogue.

Danielle A truly beautiful affecting movie, but, as others have said, not as involving as it could have been. About halfway through the movie, I turned on the subtitles, because I was having a hard time following what was happening because I couldn't always understand what the actors were saying (I'm not an expert on Spain or on surrealism). Once I had the subtitles, that helped a lot, but it also made me realize what they did in the film, which was regularly throw in a French or Spanish word or phrase without any translation. I suppose a really sharp person could get the meaning from the context, but I thought it created a strange barrier between the audience and the film. I liked the movie a lot and I thought Garcia Lorca's and Dali's relationship was shown in a very honest and heartfelt way. But the movie was unnecessarily confusing, and I would recommend that anyone who watches it, unless they're multilingual, they turn on the subtitles. Though, on the other hand, having the words in the frame will spoil some of the impact of the beautiful cinematography. Maybe it's just a film you have to watch more than once, or study up on Spain in the 1920s before you view it.

nikki-folwell A few people have said already that this is very much a love-or-hate movie. While I can understand what leads them to that conclusion, I can't personally agree with it because I myself don't feel either way. Oh, I'm not completely blasé about it - to its credit it's definitely one of those movies that'll leave you with some kind of opinion. This is at least one thing that it does right. It's just that your opinion is likely to be very conflicted because the movie is so uneven; it has too much merit to be hated and too many flaws to be loved. The fact that young Mr. Pattinson looks nothing like the real Salvador Dali (bar the moustache) ate away at me, but I tried to keep an open mind throughout. They're doing that with nearly every true story these days so there's not much point in letting it bug you. It can be forgiven as long as the acting is good enough to take away from the liberties. And the good news is, the lack of physical resemblance does become a non-issue - the bad news is that this is largely because the mistakes that they've made take you away from it as much as the engrossment.So, the story. Circa 1922 a young Salvador Dali travels to a creative arts school to pursue his passion for painting. There he meets aspiring poet Federico, with whom he forges a connection, and the early scenes focus on the development of their friendship which soon shifts into a romantic nature. But Salvador, either unwilling to accept what he is or just not carrying a mutual feeling (I found that I couldn't quite tell) eventually abandons Federico after a series of mishaps, arguments and complications, and seeks fame and fortune in Paris under the advice of a tutor. It's eight years before he and Federico meet again and by that time Salvador's married a woman, garnered celebrity and developed the wide-eyed weirdness streak that become one of his trademarks. They manage to re-establish contact but old feelings still remain, at least on Federico's part.Now the biggest problem here is that, for a movie which is supposed to be about Salvador Dali, it's hardly about him at all! He starts off being the star of the story but as things progress is becomes more about the struggles of his friend Federico! If they were trying to convey an in-depth look at the life of one of history's greatest art figures then they devoted far too much time to an entirely separate character! Don't get me wrong, Federico is likable, endearing, and the young actor who plays him is superb, but what's the point of making a movie about a famous artist if the focus is going to shift to one of his cohorts less than halfway through? Attempts to get to know Salvador and why he was the way he was are stunted for this very reason. For instance when Salvador leaves for Paris the movie is then immediately transferred to Federico's eight-year goal to try and put his poetry out there, and we don't see Salvador again until he's become famous and strange. Ideally we should have spent those eight years with Salvador to witness his descent into surrealism and why it happened; because we don't, we come away no wiser about what made him tick.So I hate to say it, but it's definitely one of those biopics which fails to get under the skin of its subject. By no means any fault of Robert Pattinson's, he does a remarkable job, it's just that the way in which the plot unfolds (and his strangely limited screen time) means that he doesn't get quite as much chance to shine as he could have. When he does, it works, and you get a glimpse at just how amazing the movie could have been if they'd focused more on his personality and derailed mind. But because they spend so much time on Federico, it ends up coming off as his story, in which Salvador is more like a supporting character and what he did for modern art is shifted into the background. His prodigious paintings feel strangely tacked-on and end up becoming a distraction from the friendship that the two of them share. Considering that this is meant to be a real-life biopic, that's not exactly the right way to do it.But like I said, the movie does have its merits. The acting is flawless, the dialogue is believable, the direction is near-perfect and of course the production is loaded with breathtaking shots of Europe. But this is supposed to be a movie about Salvador Dali - and because it's not, that hinders all of its good qualities to such a large degree that it's difficult to remember the positives. By running's end you realise that this movie would have been much better if they hadn't bothered to make it about Dali. It would have worked if it had been a fictional story about a young Spanish poet and his haughty, mischievous, unrequited artist muse, which they could have dubbed "Inspired by True Events". As it is, it has all of the right ingredients to present an enjoyable treatment of the same subject using its great cast, wonderful production and interesting storyline, but completely fails to work as a portrait of Dali's life.

lloydkat I watched "Little Ashes" last night. I have to admit I watched it mainly because Rob Pattinson is in it, so I was curious. I was prepared to not like it, having read some of the critics' negative reviews. But it was surprisingly good, very interesting and very moving. I don't know how historically accurate it is, but I felt like I learned something from watching it. All the actors were wonderful, and Rob did a great job of portraying Dali and all his eccentricities. Rob claims he never knows what he's doing when he's acting, but I think viewers, whether or not they're Pattinson fans, would be impressed with his acting ability based on this movie. If you've never seen him in anything except the Twilight movies, you'd be pleasantly surprised here. I'd recommend it to his adult fans and non-fans, as well.