Search - Klimt on DVD

The Decadence of Expressionism?

Luca Graziuso | NYC | 04/28/2008

(3 out of 5 stars)

"The motion picture "Klimt" by the vangardist director Raul Ruiz is a nonchalantly descriptive allegory of the art of Klimt more so than a purist's biopic. The resonant lyricism of the cinematography has an appeal of its own, but the movie suffers from a neurosis of sober surrealism rather than the decadent Viennese indomitable foray of which Klimt is a patriarch. We see Egon Schiele as a flaky genius who revered Gustav Klimt while swirled within a psychotic dispondancy outlined by art critics and a clinical practice where Klimt was receiving treatment for Syphilis. The movie is staged well and creatively portrayed but the artistic intentions of the director become entangled in a state of overindulgence where the fictive recreation of Klimt's last and most productive years are saturated by a prosthetic expressionism that overwhelms the designs of the creators. The farrago of jaded models and Jewish paramours stands to make of the eroticism of the painter into a detached grandiloquence he carelessly stands ceremony upon while critics insinuate and frame to their liking and in consonance with a theoretical/moral decrepitude well on its way. John Malkovich overcompensated for the duldrums of an era and the unaffected delirium that he chances to become a spectator of instead of a victim to. The importunity of such a representation are deserving merit but fail to characterize the passion and zeal of a master who changed the art scene. No reference to influences are made and no epiphanies are ever sallied through the movie. The rhythm is decadent and the mood ominous, but of such talents and expertise we were well aware and even used to when it comes to Ruiz. If Klimt was a precursor to surrealism is a topic for art historians and critics which the movie does its best to undress, but to depict a representative time capsule of an artist and his times in such a fashion neither entertains nor proves insightful. "Klimt" is devoid of both the hypnotism and the opulence of the expressive decadence that is a trademark of the painter's style. The promising pronouncements of this piece are debilitated by a bouquet of inadequate metaphors where decay and derangement seem to speak the same language but cannot communicate with adequacy."

Pretentious, Annoying, Inaccurate Garbage

B. Stockwell | San Francisco, California United States | 01/11/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"This is a very VERY bad film and Dee J. probably didn't even watch it. Klimt was Austrian, not German, okay? He lived in Vienna, Austria. To paraphrase from a review from the Columbus Dispatch, the film sheds little light on the artist. It's the kind of film that gives Art House films a bad name. There isn't much of a plot, just a series of generally bizarre incidents in which Klimt meets potential models, patrons, family and others. He treats them with indifference and contempt, just as they do him. The real Klimt was famous for his reticence and generosity. The film shows him in situations that never happened and with people he never met. Klimt is depicted dying of syphilis. In reality, Klimt suffered a stroke and succumbed to influenza. Malkovich looks good but doesn't do much. He lacks much expression or emotion, but he does LOOK a little like Klimt. So what? He's actually pretty annoying and vapid. Much like the film. If you're wondering why this film went straight to video, read any online reviews. Steer clear of this one. It's gold-leafed pseudo-Artistic drivel."

This is the worst movie I have ever seen.

R.M. Wells | 01/26/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I've never posted a movie review on any web site ever, but I feel like I have an obligation to society to review this monstrosity. This is EASILY the worst "movie" I have ever seen. I put "movie" in quotes, because I don't think "movie" is an apt description of what I saw - a jumble of audio and video is more accurate. I wanted to give it 0 stars, but that was not an option, thanks to Amazon.

From the other reviews, you already know this is not a biopic - which is fine. What is not fine, is that this "movie" lacks any sort of plot, character development, or coherent thought, message or theme. After watching it almost twice, I don't know what I was supposed to take away from this film, if anything.

Also, this "movie" has absolutely nothing to do with Klimt. They could have called this movie Steve or Johnson or Mark or Randy and it would have had the same effect, since there is essentially nothing in this film that has anything to do with the painter, except for the fact that it is set in Vienna.

That's the real tragedy of all this. Raul Ruiz knew he wanted to make a crummy "movie," but to ensure he wouldn't loose too much money on it, he made the title Klimt, because he knew Klimt has so many fans. He basically piggybacked off of a more successful artist.

I am so angry at Mr. Ruiz for ruining what could have been a great subject. I also plan on boycotting any future movies that these writers, directors, producers and cast members become involved in.

Mr. Klimt deserves so much better than this. I thank God every day that he is not alive to see what Mr. Ruiz has done."

"You're In Here, But Outside Of Reality"

Brian E. Erland | Brea, CA - USA | 01/19/2008

(3 out of 5 stars)

"What are the last thoughts, images and emotions one dwells upon before exhaling their last breath and leave their mortal coil? This is the approach taken by writer/director Raul Ruiz in his biographical film about the Austrian painter Gustav Klimt. As he lays comatose in a hospital bed the story of his life unfolds in disjointed, near hallucinogenic sequences.

The audience is moved swiftly from the dying artists' bedside caught up in his feverish visions. Join him at art exhibitions, social events with the rich and famous, painting while surrounded by numerous nude models in his studio, pleasuring himself at a local brothel or gazing through the lens of a microscope at the hospital. Surely Klimt was a man with a lot on his plate.

Recently released in '06, `Klimt definitely falls into the category of an art house film. While I have to award the production high marks on its original and unorthodox approach to the storyline and its ability to underscore the mundane events pictured with an illusory feel that fits perfectly with what one might expect from the mind of the dying artist I must admit that I found the film overall unsatisfying.

Atmosphere can only hold your attention for so long and then one begins to expect something more which this film never delivers. In my opinion there was no attempt to establish some level of personal attachment to any of the characters, no plot surprises, nor any peak moments to re-involve the audience in the story. For me one viewing was definitely enough."