The Twentieth Century

If you have to use Monty Python as a reference, then you have a limited film vocablulary.

My initial snapshot of referential inspiration here includes Expressionism/Max Beckmann/the Zeigfield Follies/Flash Gordon/Metropolis/Barry Lyndon/Touch of Evil/The Cabinet of Dr Caligari/Sam Raimi horror. I think it's Canadian national cultural asset - not wiping out the warmth of Terrence and Philip, but containing it's own sense of identity. Given some of the orthodoxic independent output of the other half if the cointinent, a refreshing change. The only reference to Python would be if Terry Gilliam was what the other reviewers might have meant, and what they were expecting to see. They are blinkered. You can curse me afterwards, but if I'm wrong, I'll have only wasted and an hour an a half of your time, and considering you've likely wasted a year not following all those failed good intentions of self improvement during the pandemic, you may not have much of an argument. Put it this way: if you're at all afraid to try new foods, you maybe should avoid this film, it's not for you. If you do like trying something that's not offering the received comforts of cinema, then go ahead. Not encouraged for non-adults, but that caution is out of politeness to social normalcy. Not that that there's anything wrong with that, is there? Is there?

An aesthetic of a certain English cinematography of the 60s and some references to filmmakers now considered classic, like Kubrick. The political content of the film is relatively interesting, including humor sometimes reminiscent of the group The Cynics, but the obsession with sexual jokes of dubious taste becomes boring due to its childishness. Not really bad, but not at all striking, despite a desire to establish itself as a singularity which, however, is in fact only a pastiche of what has already been done in a much better way. Let us note the fine work of the actors who knew how to avoid kitsch acting.

I saw this film at the Glasgow Film Festival. The film is very heavily influenced by Monty Python and it takes a little while to get used to it. Not everything worked and the film is not as funny or as shocking as it thinks it is. Nevertheless the film has enough going for it to maintain interest.

It certainly leans on Monty Python vibes, but if you are looking for Monty Python you are going to be disappointed. It's a darker tale, and it uses a lot of Canadian type humor and feel. There are some decent Freudian ques and overall it does a good job of making you feel for and against various characters and their positions.

After Hemingway received the Nobel Prize for "The Old Man and the Sea" he was asked about it's many metaphors and their validity. Hem answered in words to the effect that it was true those symbols represented many things depending on what the reader brought to the sitting.

Well friends, this jeweled marvel is very much like a woman or sea, capable of bestowing or witholding great treasures! I just discovered it and now the world seems just a little less desolate, a little more comforting.

And why are we affronted by and attack those things we don't understand? The very best professional critics are guilty of the same.

Ok so I'm laying it on pretty thick but I'm trying make a strong point to the hosers. All I ask is that you please at lease skim a Wiki page before lending this, my new favorite film a discouraging rating.