Ulysses' Gaze (1995)

Dreadfully Boring

Admirable film.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

I have to confess that my introduction to Mr. A's works was not completely successful. He is a very talented film maker -this one is given. His shots are breathtaking, the music score takes you out of this world and the subject of the movie is quite respectable. What would you expect from the movie which title is "Ulysses' Gaze"? You would expect Ulysses embarking in the exhausting journey in search of his roots, himself, his one true love forgotten but still living deeply inside his soul which he "has to gaze into if he tries to find it" (according Plato). In this movie the roots are represented by the first cinematic footage ever filmed in Greece and Ulysses - Greek director "A" who had left his home country 35 years ago and now he is back and he HAS to find the footage. Why? Frankly, I am not sure but to find it he is ready to travel by car, by train, by boat, and by foot through the Balkan countries torn by war. In his quest, he also visits and relives his past as a young boy in the country he was born, later left but never was able to forget. He meets a lot of women who fell in love with him from the first sight but he seems to be forever captured by one true love because every woman he meets has the same face (they all are played by the same actress, Maia Morgenstern). I like the movies like this - meaningful, personal, beautiful, the movies that have a lot to say but never rush. This movie has some problems though and one problem is called Harvey Keitel. I love Harvey, I think he is a great actor - brave, intense, ironic, clever, tough but vulnerable. Sadly, for all 173 minutes of "Ulysses Gaze", he looked like he was just about to say, "I am Mr. Wolfe. I solve problems but what am I doing here? How did I let myself take the role that I am so uncomfortable with?" Another problem may be in the unbearable self-importance of what Theo Angelopoulos had to say to the world. Or how he said it. There was one scene in the movie that could've been moving, warm, and beautiful - the people dance in the room, celebrate New Year and the dance continues on as the years pass by. It could've been moving but Angelopoulos chose to make it strangely cold and remote. Why? I don't know. There was one scene in the movie at the 2.5 hours mark that almost made me forget all the negatives - the orchestra on the snow in Sarajevo playing melody so marvelous that it could've easily been written by Orpheus whose music used to hypnotize every living creature on Earth.I don't regret seeing this movie and I will see more Angelopoulos' films in the future but I could've done something better with 173 minutes of my life.

I found this film very surreal. I don't know the history behind the story but I was not bored. When it was over I felt slowly transported to another time and place. The scene in the fog hit me in a very unusual way.This is not the film for someone who wants a smash boom, shoot 'em up thriller. I has a steady development and not the pace of an action film. If you enjoy films that are more cognitive you might like this one.Harvey Keitel does a lot of good films. He appears to choose projects that have interesting themes.I really liked it.

#beware of the SPOILERS, they bite# Here we go again, as if I didn't have enough trying to understand Joyce's Ulysses now comes another guy and decides that more meanings can be thrown upon this myth. Honestly, what is it with Homer? This movie is long. Long? This movie is as long as a breadless day, yeah ok you can't explain a whole myth in just 100 minutes but 176 are definetly too much. What's wrong with all this people like Stroheim and Griffith and Antonioni and yeah this greek guy too?!Is it maybe that they believe themselves so worthy and marvelous that they decide wihtout any remorse they can go on and on forever? Of course, they are free to do so, but does it not ache at least a bit in their hearts. Because the movie was fine, what it wasn't that fine it was the whole amount of time I had to stand to see it finally reach something like an end. Well, anyway; Angelopoulos designs his tale calmly and with a few jewels sparkling here and there. Seeing the same actress over and over again swits fine the movie, it is like he is arriving always to the same woman, but always unable to love her. Some similarities with the book arise all around, but faintly, leaving it always open to your own judgement. There are a few really innovating ideas (like how time goes by in a same scene without cuts, and also the character assuming the personality of one of the ancient greek filmmakers), and the last 30 minutes were really interesting (despite everything), the misty scenes are truly well recorded. The final slaughter is moving, although not unexpected at all, in fact it's pretty obvious. The girl playing her sort of Calipso/Penelope/(..) was convincing, but the actor seemed to be trying to understand what on earth was going on, which is probably the whole point of his performance, and also of the movie... But STILL there's a problem with the TIME here. I know I said it before but making movies last so long is an abuse of power, for the director, that is (for the viewer it is obviously a bad echange of trust). The movie is kinda poetic, but it is not *that* beautiful to have justified all the waste of time; for exemple: the Lenin statue scene was revoltingly long, and so were many conversations, specially the ones in (where is it?that soviet city...sorry, I can't remember)...well, actually: ALL the conversations were a complete void of useless words. Nevertheless, the river scenes are truly magic, and so are the Sarajevo ones; specially the one with the mad patiens scaping from the hospital: see, I agree that one needed its actual 5 or 6 minutes, but well, one in a hundred... Is it that directors think that long=brilliant? Cut down the manifesto, Angelopoulos; the film is real good but viewers have a limit in their resistance. And nobody said that a long poem is better than a short one.

Major films and movies that I have seen have been primarily service pictures. I say service pictures because any idea being developed is immediately delivered in a reduced state right into the movie-goer's lap. It's a fast philosophy. This is unlike Ulysses' Gaze. I am still impressed by the movie because of its confidence in the viewer. I have read comments complaining about the film's overly long scenes. The scenes are an interaction between your mind and the screen. An image is produced and the director leaves the image for you to contemplate. Images shouldn't be beamed into minds as 10 second clips like Moulin Rouge. So many people explain to me their love of movies as a form of entertainment and escapism. Movies are an art form but like everything in this post-modern age, they cannot exist without the deep intellectual objective view point dividing the subjective experiences. Ulysses' Gaze does not REQUIRE patience it rewards contemplation and understanding.Story-wise the plot is just as basic as The Wizard of Oz. An individual must journey to find home and a complete soul. I found it as a superb movie with its various allusions to mythology and actual history.