The Forbidden Room (2015) Reviews

• Maddin's most impenetrable yet

  euroGary2015-12-15

  Canadian director Guy Maddin may be one of cinema's foremost practitioners of arty-fartiness, but he's certainly attracted some big names to appear in 'The Forbidden Room': Louis Negin (a Maddin regular), Roy Dupuis, Charlotte Rampling, Mathieu Amalric, Geraldine Chaplin, Udo Kier... I wonder how many of them understood the film? I certainly didn't, but then, I'm not sure Maddin is terribly bothered what the audience think. The plot, such as it is, features a crew on a doomed submarine who are suddenly joined by a lumberjack. The question of how the lumberjack got on the submarine is never answered; instead he begins telling his story, which starts with a beautiful woman being kidnapped by a finger-snappin', bladder-beatin' tribe of cavemen and grows, in incomprehensible fashion, to include a man who murders his butler to cover up his own failure to remember his wife's birthday; an aviatrix who finds herself accused of squidnapping, and two animated models that are meant to represent talking bananas but which wouldn't look out of place in those smutty 'Flesh Gordon' films. Substance, though, is not important to Maddin: it's all about style. And my word, does that style make this film a tough watch. Maddin has apparently gone for a 1940s movie serial look and while that implies a certain period charm (indeed, the underwater shots of the submarine have a pleasingly cheap and retro look), we also get bleached colour, flickering images and scratchy sound that, coupled with the fact most shots last no longer than 3-4 seconds and even then the bloody camera doesn't stay still, make it difficult for the eye to focus on anything. To sum up, the loose and at times humorous storyline does make this an interesting watch. But the production values mean I wouldn't want to put myself through it again!

  More

• Ultimately Kind of Tedious

  bruwhi2016-07-25

  I admire the film making and the art direction for The Forbidden Room, but while it initially dazzles, it quickly becomes rather tedious. There is no real payoff for the effort it takes to sit through it, and it does take some effort. The most entertaining part for me is the opening titles. The only movie I can compare it to is Stalker, and it isn't a fair comparison. While both share the washed-out, sepia tone Lynch-like visual style, Stalker has a discernible plot beyond just its style. I'd love to intellectualize the film and say it has deeper meaning, but outside of the art direction and distressed film look, after sitting through it I've decided there is just no "there" there.

  More

• Not the best

  Red-Barracuda2016-11-21

  In fairness, this sounds like quite a good idea on paper. A bunch of lost movies from the silent era have been put on film by using old reviews as building blocks. What's more, the idea of visually representing this material by way reproducing the look of old film stock and silent movie techniques seems like a pretty good one. But what it ultimately comes down to is that old adage that some ideas sound far better on paper than they are in practise. At the outset I was pretty much on board with this one and appreciating the visual ideas and general oddness of the content but after half an hour or so I was basically struggling. The visual style, while well done, is basically so relentless that it becomes increasingly difficult keeping your mind on any of the content. So much so that for the most part of this I was staring at it as you would wallpaper. Pretty wallpaper admittedly but staring at a wall for extended periods is hard going and ultimately a somewhat mind-numbing endeavour. I don't think there is any point summarising the plot. I cannot see what good that could possibly achieve. But suffice to say that that the material is dealt with in a part surrealist, part absurdist manner. There is even a few interesting actors involved in this as well but they are pretty much lost is the mix also. As I said earlier there is an interesting visual aesthetic at play here and the concept has potential as an idea but, despite all this, I found this to be a thoroughly unengaging experience. It felt way too long clocking in at two hours as well and, in the final analysis, I more or less hated watching this interminable film.

  More

• A journey to the center of film

  Rizzleness2015-01-29

  This film, like all those of Guy Maddin, has married the weirdness of David Lynch with the love of film and quirkiness of Wes Anderson, all wrapped up in a unique visual style like no other. It's absolutely gorgeous, a true adventure in filmmaking and film watching filled with dreams- within-dreams and stories-within-stories. It is like a love letter to the history of movies that blends silent films, noir, action, myth, comedy, musicals, and even instructional films into an absurd, self-referential ball. But before you go running out to see it, you should know that it has zero interest in entertaining you. Seriously. It's dense, confusing and difficult to follow, and a tedious slog. There's no plot, if by plot you mean something that will emotionally resonate with you and keep you engaged with following the story or characters. Viewers should be the kind of masochist film geeks who enjoy subjecting themselves to such pain and then feel enlightened for doing so.

  More

• The Forbidden Fruit.

  morrison-dylan-fan2016-11-20

  Despite having seen him mentioned a number of times,I've never found a good "entry point" to start with looking at the work of film maker Guy Maddin.Getting the wonderful chance to host an event on IMDb's Film Festival board,I was intrigued to find that a Maddin title had been nominated for viewing,which led to me stepping into the forbidden room. The outline of the movie: The film is based around short unrelated sketches that merge into each other with barely any connection. One of the stories involves a submarine crew eating flapjacks in order to get extra air from the air holes,who are left breathless,when a mysterious woodsmen is found in a dock,who has no idea how he got there. View on the film: Based on "lost" films which Maddin believed would only be seen if he made re-made them himself,Maddin and editor John Gurdebeke work closely together to unleash a rupturing nightmare atmosphere. Washing the screen in volcanic reds,Maddin & Gurdebeke blend the titles in a rugged manner,where the acid reds screech between each changing "dream/nightmare." Inspired by reviews of films which are believed lost,the screenplay by Maddin/Evan Johnson/ Robert Kotyk/John Ashbery and Kim Morgan aim for a dream-logic anthology,spanning disconnected stories which fade in/out at regular intervals. Despite this approach keeping the films focus constantly changing,it also causes the flick to get stuck in a surprisingly sluggish dead-end,due to there being no attempt to give any character the vaguest impression,and the writers giving the recurring stories no feeling of purpose over there return,in a forbidden room that should remain locked.

  More