claudecat I've seen many of Guy Maddin's films, and liked most of them, but this one literally gave me a headache. John Gurdebeke's editing is way too frenetic, and, apart from a tour-de-force sequence showing a line of heads snapping to look at one object, does nothing but interfere with the actors' ability to communicate with the audience.Another thing I disliked about this film was that it seemed more brutal than Maddin's earlier works--though his films have always had dark elements, his sympathy for the characters gave the movies an overriding feeling of humanity. This one seemed more like harshness for harshness' sake.As I'm required to add more lines of text before IMDb will accept my review, I will mention that the actor playing "Guy Maddin" does manage to ape his facial expressions pretty well.

ArsLonga didn't think i wanted to watch this when it came on in the wee hours on sundance 2 nights ago; i needed some sleep. after 90 seconds, i was hooked. i was so stunned by this film that all i could think was, 'clearly a work of genius,', 'the heck with sleep,' and, 'why didn't i set the VCR?!' cinema and i go way back, way even before college in Paris and the cinematheque in the 1970s, and i rated it a 9, the only time i've ever given my own highest rating to a film here. although Mr. Maddin might not appreciate the comparison, i think his body of work shows a creative mind in league with Woody Allen, in terms of switching genres and excelling most of the time. Billy Wilder is another example that comes to mind. bold risk-takers, all. i just wish i were better to articulate my thoughts on this.bravo!

Polaris_DiB Understand that I'm getting a bit tired of people comparing every strange movie that comes along to a David Lynch film too. Unfortunately, Lynch is the norm and just about one of the most accessible strange filmmakers out there, so sometimes the comparison is needed for a starting point, like in this case.This movie is, roughly speaking, the story of a swinging hockey player who gets entrapped in a bunch of relationships, including most prominently one with a scarred daughter who wants her father's death revenged. Her father's killer? Her mother. It includes but is not limited to perverse sexuality, weird psychoses, and severed arms.It's shot in black and white and is a silent film, which creates for it a sort of removed surreality/abstractness which is, honestly, reminiscent of Eraserhead and Lynch's Lumiere and Company short.What makes it Maddin's, though, is the use of imagery from his childhood (the barbershop, the hockey players, etc.) set to a blatant sexuality which goes beyond just being blatant but enforces it: you see the sexual image, and then the words follow saying exactly what you were thinking. No more subtlety and deranged fetishes, this is straight-forward Freud and primal scene.Because of this, this film as a whole remains true to itself and never lets go of its own private Universe, one that we could never live in and yet, terribly, can relate to, figure out, and eventually even understand.Beyond that, there's not much that can be talked about this movie besides the fact that it there's no common approach to it. It has no genre (besides maybe Silent film) and is disconcerting, requiring a certain level of viewer interaction that most movies don't ask for. For fans of strange and insane cinema, it's great; for anybody looking to be entertained, this is most definitely not for you.--PolarisDiB

John Seal Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors.