Broken Sky (2006)

Expected more

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This movie is a work of art on several levels. But art is intended to stir some emotion and it should be fairly obvious that what stirs one person's emotions will often leave another person searching for the exits. I'm pretty sure that in order to be stirred by this movie, the minimum requirements would be that you are gay and that you have an attention span longer than that usually available to the proverbial gnat ... the latter requisite might prove an insurmountable hurdle for many younger viewers who tend to prefer reality shows, MTV and mirrors.I know I would be unable to sit through over two hours of nothing but a small number of women interacting intimately no matter how beautiful they might be or how passionate. I very much doubt most heterosexual men, and maybe a majority of women, would be able to genuinely enjoy this film. That doesn't reflect negatively on the artistic merit of the film or the intellect of those reduced to fidgeting in their seats. "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," at least the second part, is not always the signature line for cretins. No one should tell us what art we must like or that what we enjoy isn't really art.While I lack the technical vocabulary to gush very meaningfully about the photography, I considered the use of varied backgrounds, light & shadow, focus, color and movement in this film to be amazing. Either the time & effort that went into the photography were monumental or the director and photographers are extraordinarily talented ... probably both.But the acting was the real art. Over two hours with virtually no dialogue sounds like a recipe for disaster, but quite quickly you realize that words would just get in the way and dilute the emotional impact. Every movement, every bit of body language and every facial expression spoke far more eloquently than words would ever manage. At times I was reminded of a ballet, where music and movement, not spoken words, can express emotions so elegantly.And at one point I definitely thought of opera, not least because Renee Fleming was singing an aria from Dvorak to accompany a beautifully photographed scene that might have gone well in Carmen or even Madama Butterfly.I've seen a lot of gay-themed films that had no shortage of pretty much standard Hollywood one-size-fits-all emotion, passion, sex and intimacy copied from the hetero romantic mold and played out as you would expect ... heavily reliant on dialogue and histrionics... but in this movie every nuanced hesitation, misgiving, conflict, indecision, fear, self-doubt and most importantly the driving force of love faultlessly and consistently performed by these actors registered in my gut. Their chemistry, amongst themselves and with the viewer, was amazing.For some people this movie will evoke goose bumps, tears and smiles. For others, not so much, but then the same thing can be said about most works of art.My first viewing was on my computer monitor, but I've ordered the DVD so I can see this (several more times) on a somewhat larger platform ... although I suspect it might lose some of the intimacy and passion if shown on a much larger theater screen.

This is gay soft porn film. At least 90% of it is sex between the same two guys. As for dialog--what's dialog? As for story? It's so boring that I don't know what the story is, or even IF there is a story, nor do I care. Big Time Loser! (Oh yes, there are English subtitles for the script that doesn't exist.)I've just been notified that the essential qualification for a movie review is ten lines of text. The guys who run IMDb reviews must be the same guys who wrote the script for this movie and are trying to make up for lost lost opportunity.How many lines of text does it take to warn people not to waste their time and money?

This could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.

My biggest problem with this film was the way the in which the subtitles were used. In most films they're awful, mostly shown at the bottom of the screen where there is invariable someone's head blocking your view of the text. In this case, the narrative is delivered in Spanish, which is understandable, but the subtitles were displayed on the screen in a very faint yellow font, usually on a white background, making them nearly impossible to read in the minimal amount of time they were sorta visible . Other than that I really liked the film, so I'm hoping perhaps someone associated with the production reads this and maybe incorporates some sensibilities into the placement of text and font colors/and type faces used in future productions, with the intention of promoting communication - which is what movies should be about anyway. It only played for 8 days in West Hollywood, so I didn't have an opportunity to see it more than once. Perhaps it will be released on DVD, which will give me a second opportunity to see it.