User reviews

Matthew Barney's "Cremaster" series of 5 feature-length videos are an exploration of this artist's various interests. He's basically interested in everything, and manages to squeeze everything into this series. "Cremaster 3" is the centerpiece, wherein architecture, Freemason ritual, and folklore (Irish, Irish-American, American) take center stage. Barney offers little insight into his interests, simply presents them, overlaps them, as if he just made a list of stuff he likes and then visualized them. Luckily, his visual sense is utterly dazzling and eloquent. As a director, he is undoubtedly indebted to Kubrick and Hal Ashby. The images are elegant but pungent, finely polished but visceral and even gory in parts. The tone of the video, however, is deceitful (for lack of a less harsh word), suggesting a story or plot that doesn't really exist, or is so buried in the visual splendor as to be insignificant. It could be seen as a puzzle, but, in Barney's own words (according to the DVD commentary of "The Order" segment of "3"), it is merely a series of illustrations of ideas that have already been well drawn out (ie. Freemason ritual). Still it's worth watching, and listening to as well. Jonathan Bepler's score is truly gorgeous, reminiscent of Danny Elfman but even more haunting.

"Cremaster 3" is a bold, vibrant, thought-provoking, if disturbing, film. In this respect, it recalls the psycholinguistic-immersed nature of another film, the (in)famous "Un Chien Andalou". However, in terms of pure filmic artistic revelations, the film is hardly anything new and its power comes from its subject matter and presentation of that content. Again, this is brings "Chien" to mind, as that films raw psychological energy catapulted itself at the viewer, not with abandon but with an intent of destruction. This is where "Cremaster 3" comes in. The film's cinematography is the masterful, colourful stroke of the brush onto that Barney uses in lieu of a canvas and paint. Like, "Chien", the movie has only this energy of the visual to contribute to the world of film, and film manipulation is far from the likes of true film pioneers like The Lumiere Brothers and Scorsese. However, there are many scenes in "Cremaster 3" that I would compare to the deadly "eye-slitting" scene in "Un Chien Andalou". The film delves into the masculine mind and, of course, sex to a degree as a consequence. "Chien" also had its thematic roots in the psychological, using sex and the inhibitions of everyday life on the modern man as a template for its odd imagery. "Cremaster 3" is the modern version of Salvadore Dali's 1929 screenplay - a groundbreaking artist made a film then and a groundbreaking artist makes a film now. Both have this in common, and both have the distinction of ambivalence that my film professor once told me about "Chien": either it all means something, or it all means nothing. "Cremaster 3" is brave, visceral and powerfully unsettling, and so was "Un Chien Andalou". It will be interesting to see what the scholars 80 years from now think of the Cremaster series and its contribution to the world of film.

Curiosity seekers… seek no more. Pretentious and `arty' could describe it… but I have to say I thought some very good work went into the production design and music. Less such into the "story". It's the top of the Matthew Barney pyramid of art films, culminating in a three hour orgy of celtic mythology, masonic legend, truly retch inducing reverse dental surgery, hardcore punk bands, beautiful models with masonic symbol pasties, double amputee model Aimee Mullins as a catwoman and with clear acrylic prosthetic legs, artist Richard Serra tossing molten vaseline against the walls of the Guggenheim, a sojourn up the elevator shafts of the Chrysler Building, a demolition derby in same's lobby… shall I go on? All the above said, the movie is still truly what it advertised itself to be. The same couldn't be said of many truly awful commercial films, i.e., "Gods and Generals" or "Gigli." You get the broken promises of entertainment and/ or involving historical drama. With C3, you get a chariot race with zombie horses, covered in blankets with the `Cremaster 3' crest emblazoned on them. And don't forget to stop in the museum's gift shop as you leave the theater. Thank you.

Though Matthew Barney doesn't identify himself as a filmmaker per se -- he's a sculptor by training and practice -- his Cremaster Cycle has me convinced that he has a more expansive vision for the possibility of cinema than any new director since Godard grabbed the audience by the hair and pulled us behind the camera with him.

I think part of Barney's resistance to the filmmaker label is that, like the rest of the world, he's been conditioned to believe that movies are only intended to serve a limited set of purposes, namely to act as filmed imitations of ankle-deep novels or plays; that a literal narrative, propelled throughout by actors talking, is the essential element of any movie. This model has been so deeply embedded in all of our psyches that even when a guy like Barney says "f*&^k all that" and defies every conceivable convention, he still feels as though he's doing something which is only nominally a film, even if it is in fact the opposite: a fully realized motion picture experience.

For those who don't know, The Cremaster Cycle is Barney's dreamlike meditation on ... well, I guess it'd be up to each viewer to decide exactly what the topics are, since the movies deliberately make themselves available for subjective interpretaton. Clearly Barney has creation and death on his mind, as well as ritual, architecture and space, symbolism, gender roles, and a Cronenbergian fascination with anatomy.

The movies are gorgeously photographed in settings that could only have been designed by someone with the eye of a true visual artist. In the first half of "3," Barney reimagines the polished interiors of the Chrysler Building as a temple in which the building itself is paradoxically conceived. The second half, slightly more personal, has Barney's alter ego in garish Celtic dress scaling the interior of a sparse Guggenheim Museum, intersecting at its various levels what are presumably various stages of his own artistic preoccupations -- encounters with dancing girls, punk rock, and fellow modern artist Richard Serra, among others.

In the end, what kind of movie is it? It certainly isn't the kind of movie that'll have Joel Silver sweating bullets over the box-office competition. Nor is it likely that more than three or four Academy members will see it, though nominations for cinematography and art direction would be well-deserved. It sure isn't warm and fuzzy: for my money, it might be a little too designed, too calculated. I always prefer chaotic naturalism over studious control. Friedkin over Hitchcock for me. It *is* the kind of movie that the most innovative mainstream filmmakers will talk about ten and twenty years from now when asked what inspired them. Barney's willingness to work entirely with associative imagery, to spell out absolutely nothing, and to let meaning take its first shape in the viewer's imagination, is the kind of catalyst that gives impressionable young minds the notion they can do something they didn't before think possible.

i would suggest to anyone that is fond of dismissing things as "pretentious" that it would perhaps be helpful to look that word up. (b. expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature). no where in the film did i get a sense stated or implied that the film was even important at all or of any significance. there was alot of obscure humor in cremaster 3 and if someone didn't get the jokes etc. then they should just say so. there's nothing wrong with not understanding some things...there's alot of things i don't understand. stuff flies right past me all the time. like that Harry Potter stuff....i just don't get it. it is beyond my capacity. does that make it pretentious?..... no. does that mean it's intending to be better than me...no. if you want something pretentious go read the bible.....really the "word" of the creator of the universe...how pretentious is that?

Also dismissing things as 'arty' is another pet peeve. 'art' is just anything that communicates something in a subjectively aesthetic manner. so all films are 'arty'.

it's just like because doesn't know what the word "pretentious" means doesn't make the dictionary pretentious.

as far as cremaster 3 goes...the first hour and a half dragged a bit. but over all it was a very funny film. the giant...the gnome/elf thing...that crazy little girl song......Murphy's Law vs Agnostic Front....Masonic references? i was rolling on the floor. the Masons are a very secret organisation....the masonic references in cremaster were secret. the film was practically a documentary....

Matthew Barney's Cremaster 3 is simply brilliant. This film is one of the most inspirational works of art i've ever seen. Barney has created one of the most visually stunning films ever. Because it was shot in 24p - a video mode that shoots at the same frames per sec as film - Cremaster 3 has an incredibly unique look to it. Anyone can appreciate this movie as a work of film art, but to be fully respected one must be able to comprehend the meaning behind the film.

Before viewing Cremaster 3 it is recommended that you familiarize yourself with Celtic and Masonic symbols/rituals/myths - as these are dominant themes throughout the film. Also, it helps to be familiar with the other films in the cycle and know a bit about the history of the construction of the Chrysler building. These concepts are all referenced in the film and may be hard to grasp if you are not familiar. Many people criticize Barney's work because they claim it's a meaningless 3 hour movie with obscure symbolism. It is not. It just takes a lot of knowledge in the subject to fully comprehend.

Altogether, it is incredible that Barney can tell such a story strictly through the use of visuals, symbolism, and ambient music - there is absolutely no dialogue for all 3 hours and 5 minutes. The whole film is just beautiful and is recommended for anyone who can appreciate film as art.

This movie is THREE HOURS LONG. I tried, I really tried to understand what the hell was going on, but this epic, incomprehensible art film is nearly impossible to follow, even if you've read the synopsis on the cremaster.net website. There are a lot of visually interesting images, the "car crash" scene and the "dentures" scene being particularly strange and disturbing, but I kept looking at my watch wondering when this awful movie was going to end. However, I can't give it a 3 or a 4, because some of the images, like teeth traveling through intestines, and the leopard lady, are stunning and strange, so I'll be generous and give it 5 out of 10. But I can't recommend it to anyone but the arty elite. When it finished, I got up and said "Thank God that's over!"

The Cremaster Series is a generally misunderstood piece of work. The general public sees a moving picture and assumes that because the picture is moving it must be like every other moving picture they have seen in order to be 'good.' Matthew Barney is using the film medium to convey emotions and ideas to the viewers. Since the films are highly stylized it is easy to say that they are "stupid" and irrelevant or that they have no point. Few stop to think that maybe the point of the film is that it is not supposed to have a climax or plot. It could be commenting on the redundant and tedious nature of life from an existential viewpoint (that viewpoint being what happens happens and it does not matter because we are all going to die in the end). The Cremaster Series would be best shown with an explanation of why the film was made and what symbolizes what.

In summary: If you see this film, please watch it with an open mind. This film is very symbolic but it may be hard to understand the "point" of the movie.

I just saw Cremaster 3 on a big screen (Castro Theater in San Francisco).

First the good:

• It looks great. The cinematography is beautiful.

• There are some interesting and unusual scenes and images.

Now the bad:

• The movie is a bunch of scenes which act as if they're going to add up to something but really don't add up to anything.

• There's a lot of "product placement". In Hollywood movies, product placement means that the characters drink Coke or subliminally (or even overtly) advertise some product. In Barney's case, this means that the characters use or play with white plastic sculptures which are what Barney sells for lots of cash. Just think: you could buy one of these things that might have been used in the movie for only $50,000.00.

• There is a long sequence in the Guggenheim museum in which Barney showcases his rock climbing skills. Great. He's so buff. Isn't it amazing? Talented AND buff. Sorry, that rock climbing was just a show-off. It added nothing to the film otherwise. Much has been made of how Barney was a football player, and he seems to feel obligated to keep proving that he's a jock. The novelty of it all... a jock artist! Oh my.

• In the same Guggenheim sequence he has two punk bands playing at once with punks dancing, while sculptor Richard Serra throws liquid vaseline at some steel plates, with some of it running down a channel that goes down the inside of the spiral walkway. The main point of this seemed to be "look how cool I am. I have punk bands and big deal sculptors here with me!"

If you want to see some strange scenes and don't mind spending 3 hours at it, go ahead. If you expect art or something of significance, you will either be sorely disappointed or perhaps you'll be snowed like the most critics and will believe you saw just that.

When I got out of the theater after seeing this movie, I was stuck with one major question: how does one get the financing to make such a movie? How do you sell a movie so unusual to investors?

I must admit I desperately wanted this movie to make sense. I wanted the mason to have a legitimate reason to fill an elevator with concrete, and I wanted this reason explained later on in the movie, but I could tell the answer would never come. I know my expectations were conditioned by years of conventional cinema and storytelling. For this reason alone, Cremaster was worth watching. It stirred me up, exposed me to very personal and thorough symbolism, and made no apologies.

This movie is not cinema as you've come to know it, it's performance art caught on film. I've heard that the artist explains a lot of his symbolism on his website but I'm not sure I want to know, at least for now. I'd rather let the images simmer in my mind for a few weeks and let meaning bubble up. For now, three days after seeing it, I'd say the movie is basically about the powerlessness of the individual against the powers that be and the necessity for an artist to pander to those powers to achieve his vision. This necessity is also the struggle that drives the creative process. Lackeys and employees are numbed by their position, and some of them express themselves in a creative way to alleviate the numbness and feel alive. Whether they succeed or not is not the point.

Barney's 3rd installment of the Cremaster cycle is perhaps the finest of the five. To judge the film as art is difficult and to judge the art as a film is even more so. The feat undertaken by Barney is most certainly a tremendous one and keeps the viewer, at all times, on the edge of their seat and occasionally watching through slightly opened fingers. (Much like the first time I saw the Exorcist when I was like 6 or something)

Barney's true accomplishment is that he makes this art film look like anything but. That is to say, of the art films I've seen, and I've seen many, this one is by far the most exorbitant. Absent of the exasperating white noise so typical of art films and crisp as a Hollywood blockbuster shot on the highest quality film, Cremaster 3 is simply a marvel that leaves one wishing it would never end (a lot to be said of a film that is 183 mins long).

Although I find Matthew Barney's funding mechanism -- limiting the number of copies to a literal handful (10 copies) which can be afforded only by the super-rich -- fundamentally hypocritical inasmuch as video/film remains an essentially democratic medium, this is great art. I don't want to admit it, but it is.

You won't forget what you see in the Cremaster films. You may not like what you see, you may even think what you see is derivative or stupid -- but I assure you that you won't forget.

The films initiate a new language consisting not of words but of images and music. One can't view this work without becoming a part of it. Which makes it all the more tragic that you'll only ever be able to see it unless you happen to know one of the ten luckiest art collectors in the world, or happen to catch it when a museum near you decides to show it. Absolutely despicable. I hate Barney for that. But, after Cremaster, especially Cremaster 3, the best and longest of the series, I must admit that I love his work.

I just saw this film tonight and I must say that I am glad I did. This is the first of the Cremaster Cycle that I've seen, but I will certainly go see the rest. If you haven't yet seen this film, but have the opportunity to, you owe it to yourself to see the lush imagery and hear the rich sound work. I will not reveal much about the film in these comments. Suffice it to say, if you liked the Jarman film, The Garden or Greenaway's - Prospero's Books, you will probably appreciate this film too.

I think the mistake that many people have made, who commented negatively on this film, is that they expected some kind of traditional linear story line. From my perspective, this film was primarily a gallery with the narrative as a side bar. The film is packed with scenes that are all masterfully shot and incredibly captivating in their beauty and their ugliness. Much as you would walk through a museum looking at the various works and find them either gorgeous or hideous, each scene in this film should be weighed in the same way.

Another mistake is that the viewer absolutely must pay attention to detail. There are many recurring symbols throughout the film and just finding them in nearly every scene is as enjoyable as evaluating each scene. Be obsessive in your attention to these details as that is what it appears that Barney wants the viewer to be.

Much like the scenes in the film, the sound work can also be perceived as beautiful or ugly. This is what reminded me of Jarman's - The Garden. The music in Cremaster 3 is intensely intertwined with the visuals and at other times completely juxtaposed to great effect. Particularly captivating was the the an early scene where loud squeals in the music slowly and laboriously rising in pitch appear to mimic car sounds that you hear minutes later.

Finally, Barney appears to be refreshing when compared to most "art film" creators in that he has a great sense of humor. The inclusion of the two punk bands was definitely not an attempt to illustrate his cool affiliations as another reviewer commented. It appeared to be an honest sign of a sense of humor. Much like the bartender's "bagpipe playing" at an earlier point in the film. The bartender was quite hilarious and apparently intentionally so. He almost had a Shemp Howard quality about him.

The bottom line, if you haven't seen any of the other films and aren't privy to their plot lines, there really is nothing to "get" from this film. Instead there is a rich array of very well shot, framed and arranged scenes with a sound track that is simultaneously relaxing and tension inducing. Prepare to have you senses assaulted.

"Cremaster 3" does not merit analysis because it does not even merit being called a film. It's a series of deliberately cryptic, bizarre imagery and nothing more. It tries to make some artistic statement through its lack of dialogue but succeeds only in rendering its sequences redundant and insultingly boring. People who think crap like this is art fail to realize that stringing together a bunch of unrelated images is no difficult task. Making a coherent, intelligent film, however, is difficult. This director has no talent so he took the easy way out. I choose not to rate "Cremaster 3" because to do so would validate its status as actual filmmaking. I refuse to acknowledge it even exists in the media of film.

Okay, probably 99% of the public will hate this film. Period. The pace is slow, there is no plot, and there is no dialogue. The music is discordant and the story...well, it's virtually non-existent. And it goes on for three hours. So I'm telling you right now, if you're looking for a conventional film, then please, don't waste your time watching this film and don't waste your time writing an idiotic review that, essentially, rehashes this disclaimer in a less-than-profound manner.

For those who like art films and/or are a bit open-minded regarding film, I suggest seeing this. You may come out not liking it, but I'm hoping you can come out appreciating it. The "Cremaster Cycle" (1-5) is less likely to please crowds, as much as it will influence future artists and filmmakers, who may try and infuse some of these ideas into their work down the road. However, I would say that this has happened once already with Tarsem Singh's "The Cell" (2000), as his appreciation for modern art is pretty obvious with the sectioned cattle scene (a la Damien Hirst).

I heavily enjoyed this film, but I can see why many would dislike it. However, it is an undeniably gorgeous film. If you're lucky enough, watch the "Cremaster" series in numerical order. Much of the imagery links together in this manner, which is all the more interesting, considering "Cremaster 3" and "Cremaster 4" are eight years apart. I will be curious to see what Matthew Barney does in the future.

I was able to watch the first about 2 hours and stay interested. It was, up until that point, visually interesting, and I liked the sound aspect of the piece. I didn't expect a "linear movie experience" but I found myself involved and wondering what would "happen next."

But then it just got silly, perhaps stupid. A guy running around in a pink-and-blue plaid dress jumping about on skyscraper mezzanines just isn't interesting or visually compelling. The scene with the bartender unable to control the cask tap and then slipping and sliding around in the beer suds was just lousy slapstick. The theater was almost full, probably with people who thought it was great that they were witnessing "art," but almost nobody laughed through the bartender slapstick. I didn't. I'd rather see Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton do it -- the pretentiousness added nothing and it just wasn't funny.

Overall, I don't think Barney actually had anything much to say. He just had a competent cinematographer and money to burn on this stuff. I liked the music, but a mere change of music, tempo speed-up, and some brevity and we'd have a middling MTV video. I'm sure the hard metal crowd would have enjoyed the demolition derby in the Chrysler Building.

If you haven't seen it yet, and you go, maybe you'll do the one thing I was too inhibited to do ... After maybe 30 minutes of cars crashing in a lobby and an elevator scene, this natty bartender slides open the doors on a bar. I wanted to yell out, "So this whole thing is just an ad for Absolut Vodka!?" Maybe you'll yell it for me.

Glen Helfand of The Guardian was particularly astute in likening Matthew Barney's "Cremaster" films to the 'Star Wars' films. While most 'Star Wars' fanatics would walk out on the "Cremaster" films, these works, like Lucas' series, create a completely new and strange world, with each subsequent film exploring and elaborating that world.

It's easy and lazy to dismiss Barney's work as pretentious. Of course it's pretentious. It's also important. What Barney is doing is taking arcane symbols, myths and images (related to Mormonism, Freemasonry, the reproductive system, historical figures, geographic locations, etc) and making them more arcane by using them as not only the motifs in his films, but the foundations. This is pure cinematic mutation, as Barney assembles these symbols and elements and does with them what David Cronenberg does with flesh and metal. Humans and objects in The Cremaster Cycle do not behave in a recognizable way. They interact with one another in a manner that goes beyond ritualism into the realm of necessity. They're partaking in processes, not performing rituals. As The Loughton Candidate in "Cremaster 4" tap-dances his way into a womb-like tunnel inside the earth under the Isle of Man, or as a character known as 'Goodyear' incubates in a dirigible while eating grapes and excreting them through her shoe in "Cremaster 1," one realizes that these human-like figures are more like insects in their behavior. The Cremaster Cycle establishes a world in which human beings and objects behave without will, like the cells in our body or the neurons in our brain.

"Cremaster 3," three hours long, is the last film in the five-part Cremaster Cycle, and serves as a culmination -- Barney explained that he wished for the Cycle to end in the middle, as though overlooking the other two films in the series as a skyscraper might. Incidentally, one of the two primary locations used in "Cremaster 3" is The Chrysler Building, which is given a sinister, demonic presence here (as in "The Caveman's Valentine" -- what is it about the Chrysler Building?) as it becomes a vessel for all sorts of grisly goings-on. A protracted demolition derby sequence set in the Chrysler building lobby depicts a gang of five late '60s model Chryslers pummeling a vintage Chrysler, intercut by scenes of the renovation of the building's exterior -- drawing a parallel between violence and progress. The curious achievement of this sequence is that it's brutally violent and eventually hard to stomach, yet its violence is amongst vehicles, not living beings.

"Cremaster 3" is beautifully scored by Jonathan Bepler, with some arresting interactions between the music and the images. An intermission occurs at the halfway point, before which the narrative builds to a near-climax of overwhelming power (another such climax closes the film), another surprising accomplishment given Cremaster's completely alien course of events. And Barney's idea of parody is to dehumorize slapstick comedy by making it eerie, in a bar scene (redolent of Kubrick's 'The Shining') featuring the underused and distinctive-looking Terry Gillespie.

I saw this on purpose at the Detroit Institute of Art many years ago because the themes of Freemasonry made me curious. However, I could not readily explain to another soul how fascinating this movie was to me or why. It is visually captivating and I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I don't pretend to understand what I saw, I just know that I was blown away. Quite interesting and intriguing.

I badly want to see the other entries in the Cycle.

The Cremaster Cycle 9/10 The Cremaster Cycle is a series of five films shot over eight years. Although they can be seen individually, the best experience is seeing them all together (like Wagner's Ring Cycle) - and also researching as much as you can beforehand. To give you an idea of the magnitude, it has been suggested that their fulfilment confirms creator Matthew Barney as the most important American artist of his generation (New York Times Magazine).

The Cremaster films are works of art in the sense that the critical faculties you use whilst watching them are ones you might more normally use in, say, the Tate Modern, than in an art house cinema. They are entirely made up of symbols, have only the slimmest of linear plots, and experiencing them leaves you with a sense of awe, of more questions and inspirations than closed-book answers. The imagery is at once grotesque, beautiful, challenging, puzzling and stupendous. Any review can only hope to touch on the significance of such an event, but a few clues might be of interest, so for what it's worth ...

Starting with the title. The 'Cremaster' is a muscle that acts to retract the testes. This keeps the testes warm and protected from injury. (If you keep this in mind as you view the piece it will be easier to find other clues and make sense of the myriad allusions to anatomical development, sexual differentiation, and the period of embryonic sexual development - including the period when the outcome is still unknown. The films, which can be viewed in any order (though chronologically is probably better than numerically) range from Cremaster 1 (most 'ascended' or undifferentiated state) to Cremaster 5 (most 'descended'). The official Cremaster website contains helpful synopses.)

Cremaster 3 is the longest (3hrs) and most complex of the Cycle. It charts the construction of the Chrysler Building and looks at the forces of spiritual transcendence (which can in itself be taken as a metaphor). It quotes Lombardi: "Character is an integration of habits of conduct superimposed on temperament ... Character is will exercised on disposition, thought, emotion and action." We have a mythological prologue, then an Apprentice who scales the Chrysler Building by means of one of the lift shafts and takes part in a Masonic ritual. Before winning his Masonic instruments he must become the master of lust and his own ego. This penultimate stage is set in a section called 'The Order' comprising Five Degrees of Initiation.

The Guggenheim Museum (which houses a parallel exhibition) describes the Cremaster Cycle as "a self-enclosed aesthetic system consisting of five feature-length films that explore processes of creation." As film, the Cremaster Cycle is one to experience in the cinema if you have the opportunity to do so, or to experience and re-experience at leisure on DVD (the boxed set is promised for late 2004 and will be a gem for lovers of art-cinema fusion).

My friend told me about this film a few days before we went to see it. I had seen the trailer and I thought I was in for a good art film, but what I saw was something so amazing, beautiful and sad at the same time. Everything in the movie was connected to something. Everything was a symbol. It reminded me of Lynch's Mulholland Drive but on a much more intense and artistic level. It was completely awesome. The story is not one i can explain, and I don't believe many people can. If you like watching films, then re-hashing them for weeks to come, then this is for you. Some scenes were quite disturbing and not for the squeamish type (ie: decomposing racehorses). All in all it was wonderful.

Not sure what to say about this movie, other than the fact that it's without a doubt the weirdest damn thing I've ever seen in my life. I truly believe that being forced by my father to watch this movie as a child severely impacted my emotional development. The part with Agnostic Front is pretty tight, though.

These are definitely not random images strung together. I cannot yet say if they are allegory, or purely symbolic, but there is a definite theme.

From the Derby Cars to the Masons to the artists in the Guggenheim, there is a story of the struggle to create, and the violence of creation. If you look closely, you will notice that most of the action is a very detailed representation of building and creating art. All of the agents/actors are very physically involved in making something.

Definitely recommended.

I watched C3 in attempts to push my boundaries on answering the question "what is art?". Why make movies? IMHO, it's an attempt at telling a story or communicating an idea or feeling. If the communication, however, is so obtuse that the idea, feeling or story isn't told, then the attempt has been a failure.

That's my take on C3. Visually and musically I can appreciate the effort but this is another case of "the emperor has no clothes." Even after listening to Matthew's (the director) commentary I only get an understanding of what things are - the "why" is still missing. He never clearly communicates either through film or even through commentary why he felt compelled to make this.

Because of that, I rate this one as another artsy, pretentious flick that really has no purpose or meaning. Looks good visually but, like cheetos, full of empty calories.

This film is painfully boring! It's also way too long. It was so bad that I started staring at the walls and ceiling of the theater rather than look at the screen. Not one moment of each inexplicable sequence really resonated with me in the slightest. I think at least eight or more people left the theater before it was finished.

There is no plot at all. That in itself doesn't bother me, I don't think that a film necessarily has to have a narrative structure. However, the way in which this was done just didn't work for me. I've seen a lot of comparisons to David Lynch in people's comments. I personally don't see it. I love most of Lynch's films.

It seemed like the sort of film that an autistic person would make, cold and lifeless with no discernible emotion. The film treats inanimate objects and people almost as if they were the same. There is very little humanity or empathy to be found anywhere. Not to mention that there's no dialog.

I just couldn't relate to it at all.