The Forbidden Room

I admire the film making and the art direction for The Forbidden Room, but while it initially dazzles, it quickly becomes rather tedious. There is no real payoff for the effort it takes to sit through it, and it does take some effort. The most entertaining part for me is the opening titles. The only movie I can compare it to is Stalker, and it isn't a fair comparison. While both share the washed-out, sepia tone Lynch-like visual style, Stalker has a discernible plot beyond just its style. I'd love to intellectualize the film and say it has deeper meaning, but outside of the art direction and distressed film look, after sitting through it I've decided there is just no "there" there.

Maybe I was in exactly the right mood for this, but I loved it.

It's not a "normal" film in any sense, as the weird cinematography, disjointed narrative and varied acting will testify, but even if one doesn't understand the "lost films" origin and the intent behind it, I think it works as an experience.

It's great that there are people out there making stuff like this alongside all the blockbusters. Very much worth a look.

I realize that a lot of people are going to be put off by the abstract, artistic nature of this film. But what it lacks in cohesion, it more than makes up for in style - similar to poetry, this film is very expressive and doesn't follow any particular norms for film making. It's very visually striking, and for me this was a large part of the enjoyment. Although it has references to films from the silent film era, this film doesn't necessarily keep to a specific style. At times it is sensual and erotic, at other times it's violent and shocking. I believe the intent was to adhere to a certain randomness in both the events portrayed, as well as the tone and visual style; this makes the film follow a seemingly arbitrary path. To me it was visually beautiful and compelling, and I never lost interest. I was impressed by how ambitious it was, with a huge variety of scenes, actors, events. Obviously, the film is very nonlinear and I think the best way to enjoy it is with the expectation of a visual and thematic journey, a series of emotional and artistic events strung loosely together to form a dreamlike storyline.

A not quite silent, sort of Lynchian film, only kind of works. If you're looking for a normal movie movie, this is going to be a frustrating 2 hours of your life. If you don't mind the occasional experimental fare, then step right up. I suppose explaining the "plot" would be futile as the movie kind of drifts ala Slacker or Waking Life through quasi Freudian situations. Although there does seem to be repeated nesting structures.... i.e. a story within a story within a story.... before pulling back to move onto the next story. This almost seems like the kind of thing that would be playing on a loop in a modern art museum's gift shop TV. I would strongly avoid watching this on acid, but then again maybe that IS the way to watch it.

This film, like all those of Guy Maddin, has married the weirdness of David Lynch with the love of film and quirkiness of Wes Anderson, all wrapped up in a unique visual style like no other. It's absolutely gorgeous, a true adventure in filmmaking and film watching filled with dreams- within-dreams and stories-within-stories. It is like a love letter to the history of movies that blends silent films, noir, action, myth, comedy, musicals, and even instructional films into an absurd, self-referential ball.

But before you go running out to see it, you should know that it has zero interest in entertaining you. Seriously. It's dense, confusing and difficult to follow, and a tedious slog. There's no plot, if by plot you mean something that will emotionally resonate with you and keep you engaged with following the story or characters. Viewers should be the kind of masochist film geeks who enjoy subjecting themselves to such pain and then feel enlightened for doing so.