ThiefHott Too much of everything

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Maynard Handley To understand my review, I should say where I'm coming from. I'm not especially interested in, or moved by, art. I AM, however, interested in history. I found this movie utterly fascinating as a depiction of history, specifically of history as it was commonly lived. (As opposed to, for example, "Caravaggio", or "The Agony and the Ecstasy", both of which I found too obsessed with "story" at the expense of showing me something I didn't know about history.) The movie IS boring, as some people have complained, in the sense that nothing much happens, and indeed long stretches of time go by without a word being uttered. I did not try to watch it in one go but rather spread out over four nights, and I think this pacing worked very well for my purposes, allowing me to sink into the world for 25 minutes or so, then leave when I was saturated. It is an added bonus that the movie is so beautiful, so crisp, so sharp in its colors, so mannered in the composition of almost every scene. Another reviewer complained that this crispness and vibrancy is not really true to the Bruegel. Maybe so. I've not seen the original, and the pictures I have seen certainly have more muted colors and less well defined edges. But, as I said, I don't care about the art as much as the history; and the history seems, IMHO, done very well. Towards the end Bruegel makes a rather heavy handed and utterly obvious reference to Auden's "Musée des Beaux Arts" and the point that ordinary life goes on regardless of whether great events are happening somewhere. And that is, mostly, the ethos of the movie --- the portrayal of the ordinary events of life of the time, whether kids playing or barnyard animals being tended, against the backdrop of the specifically out of the ordinary of that time and place, namely the search for and treatment of heretics.The only criticism I have is that (as opposed to the Auden reference which is, actually, rather delightful) there's rather too much "woe is humanity, why must be this way?" spoken voice-over throughout. Mary says pretty much nothing but these vapid, irritating, and completely content-free clichés, and maybe half of what Nicolaes Jonghelinck says is along the same lines. The movie would have been a whole lot stronger if it had simply shut up during those scenes and allowed the visuals to speak for themselves.The one recommendation I would make is to try to see this at the highest resolution possible, at least Blu-Ray. The texture in almost every frame is so rich that you'd be missing out if you were to view it at DVD resolution, let alone at VHS quality. Finally some other reviewers have complained that the scenes where everyone freezes are poorly executed, that one sees the animals moving, along with the occasional person in the background, and wind motion. This criticism, IMHO, misses the point. Obviously if the director wanted a Ken Burns effect, he could easily have obtained it: just take a photo and pan over it. The point of the minor movements in an otherwise still frame, IMHO, is to act as metaphor for the artist's mental composition. The bulk of the characters have been established, and they stand still, while the artist's mind toys with minor modifications of a few characters, which we see as those characters moving more or less substantially.

nelsoneric44 Set in Flanders during the 16th century, It is inspired by Peter Bruegel the Elder's 1564 painting The Procession to Calvary. The drama depicts Breugel's creative process conceiving and rendering the painting while life goes on around him: the gentle humour in the pastoral activities of the peasants including Breugel's own family, along with the arbitrary and horrible crucifixion of alleged Protestants by the red-tuniced Spanish Inquisition militia sent from the Vatican.If you're looking for an interesting narrative, action, character development, witty dialogue, or any dialogue at all, you're out of luck. The film is in English, but the amount of melodramatic mutterings from the only 3 English speakers would barely fill a page (all of the rest of the actors are Polish). This film dies on a small screen. If on the other hand, you're able to watch it on the largest possible screen in HD, you're in for a rare treat. The narrative is not what it's about, it's almost entirely about the remarkable imagery.Bruegel was inspired by the work of Hieronymus Bosch, both in his depiction of religious events and his style of rendering. Like Bosch, Bruegel depicted many scenes of human activity within one painting (art as a narrative medium for the illiterate). In The Procession to Calvary, Christ carrying the cross is depicted small in scale, at the centre of the composition, surrounded by many other apparently unrelated groupings. The whole scene is dominated by a mill in the background sitting precariously on an impossible rock perch. Bruegel seems to have been working in the period before the formal rules of perspective entered the visual language of painters. His figures do shrink in size from foreground to background, but the terrain they occupy appears parallel or flat to the picture plane.This quality seems to make it ideal for the director's whimsical depiction of the painting taking shape in the artist's mind: groupings of real figures, all apparently shot in isolation, animate the entire surface of the painting, waiting to be frozen in time by the Bruegel's brush. Seeing the painting briefly in this manner is one of the most charming moments of cinematic art in recent memory.The director doesn't stop there in his use of a Bruegelesque approach to a visual medium Bruegel could't have imagined. There are numerous scenes where the camera gazes steadily on elaborately staged action in the distant background while something else transpires in close up. Both parts are in sharp focus. Trying to achieve this in-camera would present the cinematographer with an impossible depth of field situation. I expect a lot of scenes were carefully staged in this way, to be digitally knitted together in post-production. In every scene the colours and textures are a visual feast and the lighting looks deceptively natural. The costumes are stunning and the production design like a painting by Bruegel.As for the dialogue: this film might have been better without any; maybe a bit of voice-over at best. Rutger Hauer's craggy features make him entertaining enough to watch as Bruegel. He needn't have opened his mouth. Michael York as Bruegel's patron Nicolaes Jonghelinck just looks old and Charlotte Rampling as Mary delivers her standard serenely sad gazes, but is otherwise forgettable.

lreynaert In his brilliant short comment on Pieter Brueghel, the elder, Aldous Huxley states that Brueghel's vision on mankind is still highly topical. His paintings are allegories and show him as 'a man profoundly convinced of the reality of evil and of the horrors which this mortal life, not to mention eternity, hold in store for suffering humanity. The world is a horrible place; but in spite of this, or precisely because of this, men and women eat, drink and dance.'Pieter Brueghel's 'Way to Calvary' transcends its theme. It is a profoundly bitter condemnation of the occupation of Flanders by the Spanish Catholic king. The Flemings are crucified or broken on the wheel, while their possessions are confiscated and their families destroyed.Lech Majewski transformed masterfully Brueghel's masterpiece into an impressive movie. The reconstruction of the idyllic landscapes, of the colorful atmosphere of the 16th century cities, of the epochal clothing and of the cold-blooded reign and the executions by the Spanish mercenaries are simply phenomenal, helped most significantly by a brilliant cast and a fantastic color grading. Lech Majewski's impressive scenes, ranging from simple serene family joys to compulsive sadistic flogging, speak for themselves, while keen commentators, like Breughel himself, critic harshly the savagery of the representatives of the Catholic king.A must see.

twilliams76 The Mill and the Cross is a painting (so not a lot of plot!) come to life and it is unlike any movie I have ever seen before (and I have seen a few)! Directed by Polish filmmaker, Lech Majewski, it is a recreation and interpretation of the famous 1564 painting by Pieter Bruegel, "The Way to Calvary".Glacially-paced and nearly-silent (at first) ... one film critic (Stephen Cole of "Globe and Mail") said that this film's detractors will likely lament that watching this "is like watching a painting dry" (a point I can understand some having). If it doesn't grab one's interest early-on -- the film's opening is the painting coming to life and than slowly drying back onto the canvas -- there is no point in watching it.Another film about the inspiration of a painting (that I loved) -- The Girl with the Pearl Earring -- told a possible story of how a Vermeer masterpiece came into being AND each scene was as lovely as a painted picture. Here each scene looks like a painting as well; but this story isn't necessarily one about a "what-if" (although as a film it technically is). Instead, The Mill and the Cross pretends to show us THIS painting (not the inspiration behind it) as it is being painted.The painting is of the re-imagined crucifixion of Christ in 16th Century Flanders while the region is under BRUTAL Spanish occupation. As Bruegel (Rutger Hauer - Batman Begins, Hobo with a Shotgun, Blade Runner) draws and explains his painting, the scene comes to life so that the audience sees what Bruegel "sees". The premise and style are highly unusual but I appreciated the delicate take (layer-upon-layer of computer imaging) of telling this story.The Mill and the Cross isn't content with looking at a piece of art -- this film is about experiencing it which is rather marvelous as the Flanders countryside comes to life (and it is as if the audience has stumbled upon the same setting/scene as Bruegel). We get bits and pieces of story but no major plot other than the painting and its scenes/images coming to life.This wasn't a favorite of mine by any means; but I do like the originality of it and anybody with a serious interest in art might want to check it out.