The Eyes of Van Gogh

History tells us that Van Gogh, like many artists, was a very intense and troubled personality. Barnett takes us into the heart and mind of the man in a way that causes us to empathize afresh with his feelings and struggles. Barnett the film-maker deliberately refrains from any cutting from one camera to another, enhancing the viewer's being drawn into the world as viewed from Van Gogh's perspective. The score is also effective in painting an aural picture of what is going on inside the artist's mind. In this film we see Van Gogh, not just as a troubled soul, but as a sensitive and caring person who never quite found the way to break free of the demons from his past that haunted him up to the end of his life. Barnett's portrayal of Van Gogh is both believable and engaging. Despite the film's length of almost two hours, it holds the viewer's attention and moves the heart.

Biographical films are problematic - especially the ones about artists. Not just painters. Any artist. Generally, I find them simplistic, sentimental or sleazy - on occasion all three at the same time. Often, the casting is silly. That is not the case here.

What's most important to me in a film is the acting and the writing. I agree with the other reviewers for the most part. Both are excellent in The Eyes of Van Gogh - most especially that of Mr. Barnett as Vincent, who is riveting and amazingly well cast. He also wrote the film script.

I was disappointed by the actor who played Theo - not that I've liked others who have played van Gogh's brother. But here - in the writing - he had an opportunity to show the torment Theo also must have experienced and could not manage it. I believe he died of brain fever shortly after Vincent died. Even though that is not part of this portion of van Gogh's life in the film, we should have sensed that coming. The actors playing the other roles were just fine - including many of the small ensemble.

This was obviously a labor of love for Alexander Barnett and I salute him.

This movie will stir your soul. Barnett draws us in, leaving us emotionally drained, as he brings to life Vincent's struggles and what must have been his tortured state of mind during those dark years. We are immersed into Vincent's mind.

Also noteworthy, Roy Thinnes'performance as Dr. Peyron.

I thought the sets and costuming were too drab but that did not deter from the, at times, riveting performances on screen.

All in all, this is a noteworthy work. Hope to see more of Barnett on film. He comes across as well on film as he does on stage.

Would love to see some of his earlier work come alive on the screen.

Some movies are entertaining. Others are an experience. Alexander Barnett's Van Gogh biopic definitely falls into the latter category. Far from "guilty pleasure" fare, "The Eyes of Van Gogh" is a skillful and passionate portrayal of a talented yet tortured artist. This movie will educate you about the world of this struggling genius, even as it compels you to feel compassion for Van Gogh in his sad state. Competition, debt, insanity, rejection--all of these themes swirl Vincent's reality much like the colors in his paintings...you'll be relieved to view reality for yourself again at the end. But if you let it, the movie may remind you of all you have to be grateful for, and even challenge you to look at your own life through slightly different eyes.

The viewer who has not encountered Mr. Barnett's work before may at first feel some disorientation, even shock, at the style and emotional intensity of this award-winning movie. The realization may grow, moving into it minute by minute, that what Barnett has done in his own artistic venue is in many ways comparable to what Vincent did in his -- transforming the artist's own clear perception of reality and life (in this case, Vincent's) into forms strikingly different from any seen in that venue before. This is not the kind of commercialized, mundanely Hollywood-slick film making that we are used to, which I find so often boring, in the end. I'd say to those who would be disappointed by that: look elsewhere.

Having had the pleasure of seeing some of Barnett's early work in NY on stage -- Miller and Shakespeare at their best, in my book -- I did not require a period of readjustment of expectation and perception. (At age 33, he did the best King Lear I have ever seen.) What challenged me, in a very positive way, was the complexity and nuance of compressing Vincent's life story, spirit, and values into the remarkably short format of a 111-minute run time. Having known Vincent's story as of decades ago, but not having read the letters of Vincent and Theo, I found it difficult to approach this work with a pristine eye or ear. Would the naive viewer quite understand the context of this or that event (say, the Borinage time), etc? And would the unavoidable constraints of a low budget production detract from the essential experience and value of the work? Impossible for me to know, and anyway, I'm no film critic.

I can say that I have it on good authority that the script remains true to the van Gogh letters, and the portrayal certainly remains uniquely true to Vincent's spirit and work. As film making (his first feature work), it uses the full palette, visually and emotionally. My advice: do not view it casually. That would be a waste.

Nota Bene: Roy Thinnes is so very Peyron. (I really enjoyed his role in X Files, too.) All said and done -- 9 stars. It will sadden me if we don't see more of Barnett on film, as it does that we don't have some earlier work on film.