John Brooks
This film receives such good reviews now because it is the movie-going, pseudo-intellectual clique that rates and comments it. This film gets all its power from status and fame: written originally by Kafka, directed and interpreted by Orson Welles, starring every oddball's beloved (and admittedly great actor) Anthony Perkins. If this doesn't smell like pseudo-intellectual cinematic elitism, nothing ever will.This film, as all which lack any heart or girth at the core, focuses on acting (Perkins fantastic, rest very good too), strong cinematography, and atmosphere. And yet, not everything that glitters is gold. This is a case of shape rather than depth, form over content, exterior vs inside, artifice better than true quality. This here is the narrative of the film rather than the film itself: a film should have a great point and a great conclusion, but should also have...well, a great film ! This here is just plain boring because once one has appreciated the eerie atmosphere of empty, humanless landscapes, the absurd in the works, the strange characters etc... there isn't anything left to digest but lengthy, lengthy intervals of futile dialog, never an ounce of symbolism or worthwhile depth, just a ton of the self-indulgent, steady-paced same old exchanges. The so-called tension is never really there, and the tagline "the logic of a nightmare" just never incarnates in the film. The introductory little cartoon sets the tone for a masterpiece with a wealth of symbolism and deep literary purpose, and the first 40 minutes are very good and intriguing; but how quickly the film loses itself in a weak effort to further its plot and in stead dwells in a little puddle of self-absorbed irrelevance only ultra-specific fans could find to their liking. There's no universal appeal whatsoever - this film is like a severe case of the 'fish in a bowl', never lifting its head up for awareness; just totally absorbed into its technical little project, and even in its absurdity certainly could've used some clarity. The point, the narrative of the film are good; not the film.
gavin6942
An unassuming office worker (Anthony Perkins) is arrested and stands trial, but he is never made aware of his charges.Orson Welles is generally considered one of the greats of the film world. And his commanding voice is hard to argue with! Combine with that one of the greatest books in classic literature, Kafka's "Trial", and you have a match made in heaven. We also get Anthony Perkins in possibly his finest performance, though he will always be known as Norman Bates.Someone wrote that what makes this adaptation great is that Welles treated the material as if he wrote it himself. He internalized it and then brought it back out in film form. If that is true, I do not know, but it makes sense... because this is a novel which is not easily turned to linear storytelling.
liam_prendergast
Its hard to compose a hard hitting film when so much media is out there challenging and criticising contemporary power structures. Orson Welles' film communicates the feeling of ambiguous persecution which is the product of state surveillance. He doesn't understand the reason for his trial because there is no viable reason other than the legality of it. If what we do is simply governed by laws and legal code then human moral code becomes useless; human moral code has broken down and K sees that the other accused citizens have become 'nothing more than dogs' to the system. In the same way that we are today obedient to authority and lack the ability to liberate ourselves from structures of control K conforms to the will of the authority due to a vague threat of violence."No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, article 12.You as a citizen of the western media empire are likely the victim of authority and systems of control. Systems that worm their way into your psyche and cause you to self regulate and become demoralised. The victims of a surveillance aesthetic mentality, many subsist under fear of the chimera of surveillance organisations and corporate-government control.Don't believe me, look a little deeper down the rabbit hole: https://wikileaks.org/"You may object that it is not a trial at all; you are quite right, for it is only a trial if I recognise it as such. But for the moment I do recognise it, on grounds of compassion, as it were. One can't regard it except with compassion, if one is to regard it at all. I do not say that your procedure is contemptible, but I should like to present that epithet to you for your private consumption." (The Trial, Kafka)
Armand
more than an adaptation , it is translation of Kafka novel in the words of Welles. the result is just impressive. the cruelty, the gray ash air, the ambiguities and terror are present in an unique embroidery. it is Kafka and, in same measure, it is only Welles. and it is not product of a selection of most significant parts but but reflection of the state of feelings. the cast is superb and the images are great. the tension is the rule who transforms all. it is the essence of novel and the work not only by a remarkable director but by a rigorous reader. so, it is strange to write a review who can suggest but not present the key of this special adaptation, trip in heart of Franz Kafka universe, warning and demonstration of basic roots of usual evil.
AD
