Watch Klimt For Free

Very well executed

Good concept, poorly executed.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Sometimes I think that the most outlandishly "artistic" directors like Raoul Ruiz are the luckiest of all. True, their films are often slammed by the mainstream critics and rarely make a lot of money, but no matter what they do they will be praised in certain quarters -- so long as they remain obtuse and vague at the same time.I knew nothing about this artist Klimt going in to the film, and I know nothing going out of it. Even fact checking here on IMDb I find that much of the information they did present was invented, so basically the film has no informational value about the artist. This isn't a huge problem in and of itself for me because I don't watch a movie to find out facts. But without the facts, it's impossible for anybody in the audience to know what the heck the movie is supposed to be saying.The film it reminded me of was Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", and I'm curious that one of the titles listed here on IMDb includes mention of Schnitzler. Apparently that's to clue us in to the idea that it's a dream, but Ruiz is no Kubrick and "Eyes Wide Shut" was decidedly tepid Kubrick anyway. The dream device could be a way to use film in an impressionistic way, but in this film there's nothing to get an impression of because the film is totally unhinged. There are tons of just awful sequences that are supposed to be shocking, like when Klimt's mother and sister start raving, but they look completely ridiculous.The worst thing about the movie is the script, which is full of ridiculously obtuse dialog about allegory and portraiture, doubles, etc. I think the audience is just supposed to sit there and think, "ok, there are some complex ideas here, so this must be a good movie." But as bad as the script is, the director could have saved it if he wasn't just spending the whole movie trying to imitate Kubrick, Lynch, and Greenaway. And one man who appears in every single scene in the film, the star Malkovich, could certainly have done something to save it but reveals his poor instincts instead. Malkovich does absolutely nothing except mumble and shuffle around in the movie, playing the character as so detached from life that his sexual exploits seem contrived even though they're the focus of the film far more than his artistic impulses. Even if you had a great script, Malkovich would have sunk the film with his monotone performance. As for the actresses who play his lovers, the less said definitely the better.It's one of those movies that 2% of the people who see it will run around for the rest of their lives saying that they were the only ones smart enough to "get" it. But everybody got it. It was a crap movie with awful performances and no real purpose. Like the artist's "double" in the movie, the film is a fake -- it holds forth promises to tell us about art but in the end it comes off as cheap exploitation, a modern pass-de-Metzger. Eminently miss-able.

I decided to rent this movie because there was a label on its cover - "WINNER. Moscow International Film Festival. Best Film" (distributed by KOCH Lorber Films, KLF-DV-3151). Technically it's not a lie - it's just misleading. The "Klimt" movie was a winner in a much smaller competition - "Russian Film Clubs Federation Award for Foreign Films" (there are a lot more prizes at this festival - Golden St.George, Silver St.George and so on). No more awards for this movie, and it reflects its light caliber.I didn't like this movie, and I have to say I admire Klimt paintings. I don't think that Klimt was so stiff and also sleepy. There is much more life in one simple photograph from the artist Wiki page, than in this whole movie. All these endless camera rotations around subjects! And too much too loud music... And actually an absence of scenario...They tried to sell this movie to public - nudes, decadent atmosphere, this misleading label. The ratings show that they failed... I give it 5 for some visual enjoyment I had... and some women hats there were really-really amazing!

The best film I have ever seen, or not seen as it may be. This film was so astounding that I actually dozed off, occasionally awaking, looking at the screen and realising that nothing had actually happened since I last watched. As an avid film watcher and art lover, I had expected this film to be revealing, telling the audience about the wonders and misdemeanours of Klimt the artist and the man. Actually, it told me nothing. The acting was bland, stilted and lacking in emotion, bar JM, who portrayed his usual oddball self. The best thing about the film were the costumes.My mum thought she had gone senile, I thought I was trapped in a bad art house film nightmare. I was.Modigliani the film is much better.

one of the worst, if not the worst movie I have seen in a long long time- what a waste of time- absolutely and completely moronic, dull, listless, pointless, stupid-film contains characters who appear/disappear for no reason, and even worse, where you have no idea who they are, or why they are there- film also uses the "imaginary person" technique, where Klimt talks to someone only he can see- why? what is this about, what is this for-my question is, how does stuff like this even get made- doesn't anyone in the process bother to read the script?- things this bad are actually very obvious to anyone in the production process- I mean if you read a bad script, you know it!-this movie is so BAD, and so full of nonsense I can't imagine how it got made, which is the funny part because when you look at the "Making of Klimt" in the 'extras' section of the DVD, you see all these egg-head types sitting around discussing the "vision" thing- talk about the blink leading the blind and stupid- AVOID this movie -