Gareth Crook
It's the kind of film that art house film students dream of. In fact visually it looks very much like an art house film students dream! There's text all over the screen, bits of narration and a truly bizarre story. It's pretty original, it's funny (I think intentionally) and it's nuts. Totally nuts!! Sadly a bit too nuts, good but not great. It sometimes feels like a silent film, with words appearing to help the narrative... but with sound. Some of it struggles and needs some patience, but by enlarge it's fantastic, in every sense of the word. The screen pulses and throbs with energy, it's beautifully crafted. Stories intermingle, twist, plots within plots, within dreams. My one criticism is it's too long, not by a lot, but it would benefit from losing a good 20 minutes. A minor quibble.
GeoData
This film is not entertainment. It is so strange, I find it psychotic. Nothing in it, or the multitude of sub-stories strung together from beginning to end, have meaning. No characters are likable, comprehensive or sane.I purchased this film based upon reviews as a "masterpiece". They lied.
vintagebrummie
I was completely blown away by all of it. From the dazzling aesthetics, to how bizarre it was, and strangely of all, to just how hilarious it was. "The Forbidden Room" is simply a groundbreaking piece of work that unfortunately a lot of people will lose patience with - perhaps due to its two hour + running time, its non-linear narrative or maybe people wont find its sense of humour funny.Nonetheless, I found myself entranced by the whole thing. Part silent film, full surreal film, it's definitely made me want to check out Guy Maddin's previous work, and this could just be the best comedy film of the decade so far - putting it above my favourites: "The Lobster", "Submarine" & "Moonrise Kingdom".All in all, if you like art-house or unconventional films and have a bit of patience, I'm sure you'll love this one.
JvH48
Saw this at the IMAGINE film festival 2015 in Amsterdam. Walked out after one hour, nearly half of the 130 minutes running time. I did not understand a thing about what it was all about from the outset, but I allowed it some slack due to the overly positive introductory talk by the festival's artistic director. He told us about the abundance of references to films from the silent period (I don't think I care). The format is blatantly weird in taking trouble to look like a film from the silent period, with seemingly missing pieces and imperfect material, though we know that this film is recently made, as such leading to the conclusion that these imperfections are added as a gimmick and defeating any useful purpose. It may resonate with film professionals, however, but what do I know.There is no edible story (actually five stories I've heard or read somewhere, craft-fully intertwined). I could not derive anything in common that could have served as a binding theme. It may be so that the binding element(s) were to be revealed later on, but I did not wait until the final revelation, and left. Anyway, other festival visitors who sat it out until the very end, did not make much of it either, as it scored a lowly 36th (out of 45) place for the audience award with average score 6.78 (out of 10).
AD
