I kept seeing this come up on lists of disturbing or weird movies. Never cared to watch it unless it was free. I had the rare chance to watch and boy was I happy it was only like 20 mins. That's right, you guessed it. Crapola. I will give it kudos for being ahead of its time. I don't expect too much from an old silent film. I was fine with it being all avante garde and dreamlike and pointless. I didn't even care that there was no plot. What bothers me are the people that put this thing on a pedestal like it's a pivotal, momentous film. No! It's a silent film that was very much like watching a film student's poorly done thesis. If it were any longer, I'd have fallen asleep. I couldn't tell any of the male characters apart. The woman was actually pretty good as far as expressing herself without words. But not enough to save it. When I watch a film, I like to be told a story. The director's one job is to tell a story. When they can't put something together, it suddenly becomes a work of art. No! It means you suck at your job. If the makers came out and said we just wanted to mess around, then that's cool. But leave it at that. Don't try to find hidden meaning in this. There's none. It's just a series of images that have no cohesiveness. But that doesn't give the future generations the right to glorify it. It was poo. Smelly poo. Since it's short, I don't see why you can't watch it. But, unless you're a pretentious film snob who doesn't appreciate the art of actual filmmaking (i.e., telling a story), understand you're in for a borefest. 3 stars is being generous, but it was ahead of its time.
Review of Un chien andalou
