nweissman
I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.
Egtrun
I usually like innovative, original and even strange films. When I read some comments on the Internet I thought this movie might be that (innovative, original and strange). Well, yeah it is but, I now think those things are not always enough to make a good movie. I was warned about the lack of color and dialogs (the characters only made cavemen noises and eventually said single words), but I'll have to admit with a lot of shame that I need words in a movie, it was so boring. The "funny" parts are not that funny neither. Maybe if you like the silent films from the beginning of the 20th century you'll enjoy this one, if not (like me) I'd recommend to stay away from this.I understand the comparison with Juenet and Caro. I'm almost sure that the music at the beginning is also in "City of Lost Children" (may be wrong), the use of water reminded it to me too. And several similarities with Delicatessen can be found. But it doesn't mean that if you liked those two films you'll like Tuvalu, believe me.It's not all bad, the photograph is really good, a very nice work of art. The story is also very creative, another good point. But as a whole, it didn't work for me. Interesting experiment however.If you are the kind of person who is in search of "different" movies, I must say this may, but also may not be the one that you're looking for.
merridon
You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.
al104
Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.
AD
