Wordiezett So much average

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Kirpianuscus a story of jealousy. the context, the acting, the script does it credible. Bunuel does it fantastic. because, like each of his films, El is a trip in the heart of reality. the humor and tension and plot are tools of entomologist. the irony becomes cold instrument for define the fall of a man for who desire and love are pillars of personal hell. a film who gives portrait of society more than a case from many. and that does El seductive. because it is, in many moments, the story of the viewer. crumbs from ordinary events, gestures who seems be ordinaries. the fear who change entire life. and the solution who could be too realistic for ignore it. a film about love. in its darkness' sides.

Armand cold, strange, cruel. like majority of Bunuel films. a window to darkness. and too realistic to be only shadow of fiction. it is a good film. and, in many senses, picture of our time. the ball of paranoia and love as scary, the need to control and menace, the desire and the series of masks, the fragility and the madness as form of control, all is, piece by piece, ingredient of our society. this is the secret for who the movie remains impressive. and for who the genius of its director is basis for an inspired art circle. it is a definition of happiness search. and proof of a splendid science of details. a story. and result of an entomologist observations. is it enough ? sure. in measure to be one of the characters.

Jeff Tiresias Jesmorh This film was directed by the famous Luis Buñuel, recognized Spanish film maker that came to México and created a great bunch of surrealistic films (some too sordid for that decade). The truth is, that maybe this picture is good, but too negative for the people that like the great flirting romantic image of Arturo de Córdova: An icon for the following contemporary romantic gentlemen of the "Mexican Golden Age".This film deals with the inner side of a man that let us see his jealous feelings and a sickness love between the central actor Arturo de Córdova and his co protagonist Delia Garces; taking them to a violent relationship that ended in a tragedy...

rudronriver As his most technically accomplished Mexican-period movie, and almost a mainstream one, this film can be an enjoyable first introduction into Buñuel's obsessions: the same ones that ruled the surrealistic movement. The underground psychological streams in the mind are finely expressed in this story of a pathological jealous and his victim. In his Mexican exile, Buñuel was forced to make "nourishing movies", that were the most conventional ones in his filmography, but he managed to smuggle his surrealistic ideals into all of them (even he could make the absolutely surrealistic "The Exterminating Angel").Based on an autobiographic novel by Spanish fellow countrywoman Mercedes Pinto, this film is the vehicle for displaying many marvelous surreal moments. It can also be viewed as a brilliant clinical recreation of paranoid distress, but Buñuel recognized that the protagonist, Francisco Galván, although insane, had many of his own obsessions: his view of love as an absolute imperative, the violent impulses, the fetishism for female feet…The story shifts from one point of view to another, which is the only way to understand the "two stories" in psychotic disorders.Part of the story and many of the ideas were used later by Hitchcock for his masterpiece "Vertigo (From among the dead)". It is difficult to say plagiarism when talking about cinema, but this would be one occasion for it. It is not coincidence that both directors share a taste for the expressive properties of objects (not only as Macguffin); as two reluctantly catholic directors, objects usually act as "sacraments" for their narrative. In "El" the church and its symbols are the background for the repression and the blooming of instincts; other Buñuel's stories may be more connected with religion than this one, but "El" shows a life absolutely permeated by the relationship of primary impulses ("eros" and "thanatos") with spiritual transcend ency. With churches as the setting of the key moments of the story (desire, love encounter, the urge for murder, disappointment), church is at the beginning and the ending of this story narrated by the man who said "Thank God, I'm an atheist".Although was filmed in three weeks, in the midst of the limitations of Mexican film industry, the movie is close to perfection in formal terms. In contrast with his previous movies, in which a still camera was predominant, in this one the camera movements are constant. The performances and the choice of cast is the most accurate of the Buñuel's Mexican-period.