This is by far the worst film I have ever seen. Its slow, undeveloped plot and general storyline carry on a horrible progression of insignificant and confusing scenes. Its acting is none the better; but worst of all is the script. The actors ramble on with pointless monologues and unrealistic dialogues. All in all, this movie SUCKS!!!
share[deleted]
thanks for vocalizing your opinion - obviously you have yet to see the crow 2 : city of angels...now that is a film that is very bad...aguirre is great but its not for everyone...
shareJust another idiot who loves a film but prefers to argue for arguments sake!
shareI can see why some people hate this movie, and I can also see why others praise it. I personally prefer movies that are at least partly plot-driven and give a lot of depth to the characters, versus something of a more artistic and subjective nature. Aguirre is the latter, and while I appreciate the obvious passion and hardship that went into its filming, plus the wonderful photography and extraordinary images, I can't say that I really enjoyed it very much overall.
For some reason, the brief scene when they push the horse off the raft, then it simply stands on the shore watching them drift away, had a huge psychological impact on me. I don't know why, and the rest of the movie didn't seem to affect me at all. But I would never say it was bad; I think the people who say it sucks really mean that it isn't the kind of movie they like...they're just not bright enough to realize it.
http://moviesonthemind.blogspot.com/
I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. Did I enjoy this movie? hmmm not particularly. Is it the worst film ever? No. The bad audio sync/dubbed audio issues (i'm not going into which language it was originally shot in, quite honestly I don't care) and the rather apparent low budget (some of the props look like they were made for a school play) subtract significant viewing pleasure from this movie. However, the heart of darkness plot, the scenary and the manic atmosphere are worth a look. Klaus Kinski once again has a presence and a stare it is hard to look away from. And the short run time (90 minutes) means it doesn't overstay it's welcome. I would give it a 5/10
sharewell.. some how i must agree that it did some weird impression on me too. The angle of camera, the way actors were shown and their dialogs looked unnatural in most cases. It looked like it was one of the first attempts to do the movie for the big screen of the director. Though costumes were quite impressive.
And the fact that it was filmed 35 years ago should be important when judging about this film quality. Today requirements for the movies are much higher and can not be used for those that were made 35 years ago.
it's not worst, but i didn't want to spend my time on it.
[deleted]
Take into account that it was filmed 35 years ago when standards were less than today? Are you mad? You write as if Aguirre were from the early days of cinema. The 70s were one of the most important decades in world cinema. I defy anyone to compare current cinema to that golden period. Even the studio blockbusters of the era are classics.
And by the way, Aguirre is a masterpiece and not a poorly crafted attempt by a first time director!
The President of the Immortals had ended his sport with Tess
I've got to agree with the first post. I like to think of myself as intelligent and when I saw this movie I thought it sucked (or rather, a film which was not to my liking since our wording is being monitored by mister literal and any stronger statement of opinion somehow makes us idiots). I understand it's insights (just so there can be no resorting to personal remarks about myself) however, through the whole movie I found myself mocking it. I even compared it unfavorably to Manos. Imagine how surprised I was when I saw how good of a score it recieved. So I guess my question for you is this:
What the hell?
What the hell indeed...
You compared it unfavourably to Manos? I find that statement offensive to the human race. I have a watery ditch in my back garden that the cats pee in if you don't think tap water deserves it's reputation.
What insights did you take from this movie? Just so I might be able to resort to personal remarks when you can't answer.
But seriously though... What the hell? How?
Deserves it's reputation? Uh, let me just re-enact a little scene here:
THUNK! (guy gets hit by a spear) "Ugh...I thought that it would hurt more than this." Slowly falls to the ground and SCENE! MY GOD THAT WAS BRILLIANT! "Let's bring that crazy flute player in for another appearance, maybe get the "La,La,La,La" guy another scene, put in some hour long shots of people sitting around, and we've got a movie!"
And like it's so hard to understand that the whole movie was a commentary on the darkside of mankind and the insidious nature of ambition. Any person who took a highschool english class and had to read "Heart of Darkness" could discern that.
Never mind the acting of Klaus Kinski or the sometimes breathtaking and sometimes startlingly disturbing visuals. I guess this movie sucks because you didn't see that the ending was oneiric and seem to have watched it literally.
shareThis is amazing.
The people who think this film sucks, are very stupid. Just look at them on this thread. Now that's amazing.
Last Films seen:
The 400 Blows(1959)- 10/10
Sunset Boulevard(1950)- 10/10
You are what is wrong with IMDB No one is allowed to voice their " OPINION" without some "EXPERT" like you proclaiming that they are "IDIOTS" if they don't agree with you. Who made you the ultimate authority? If idiot is the kind of language you use express yourself, let's all be thankful you are not using your high intelligence level as a film maker.
shareFunny you call him a crazy flute player.
The man was in fact a retarded beggar Herzog picked of the streets (he says so in the audio commentary).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
"I like to think of myself as intelligent" ROFL!
shareThis isn't the worst movie ever made. (Although I watched it with my g/f, and about 30 minutes into it I asked, "How long did you say this is?") The most entertaining part about the movie was the camp quality of it. I understand that it is historically significant, so I won't tear it down completely, but this thing was a mess. You really have to have nerve to make a movie like this. Imagine: Take a camera and crew out in the jungle and make things up as you go along. Sure it's beautiful, but that has little to do with Herzog. Sure there is some decent acting. There is a semblance of a plot. All elements are just so-so.
What is so great about this movie? All I can think of to make sense of the raves this thing gets is that it's a cult piece that appeals to a very narrow part of the population. Like Hidalgo or something like that. There must be some intangible reason so many people like it, because on the face this movie pretty much sucks. I couldn't give it one star on Netflix because I can't say I hate anything that I care nothing about. The movie is about as coherent as this post I am typing.
1) How exactly was it camp?
2) The movie wasn't made up as it was in production, parts of the dialogue were and one scene was included into the plot because of one of the rafts was destroyed. This does not detract from the film, rather it adds a greater strength to the feeling of the untamed nature of the new world.
3) The beauty of the movie has a lot to do with Herzog and the cinematography of Thomas Mauch. If not for Herzog's vision and Mauch's ability to capture it, the movie may well have been comprised of vapid scenery shots. Take the shot of the river rapids or the opening images between the two mountain peaks, in the hands of a lesser craftsman the resounding brilliance of these images would not have been realised.
4) Kinski's acting is unquestionably excellent in this movie, not merely 'decent'.
5) Whilst the narrative is not as clear as a Hollywood popcorn flick and the dialogue comparitively sparse, it works extremely well in both conveying the central points of the film, and in creating the characters' disintegrating grasp on reality and their starvation hallucinations.
6) Whilst this movie isn't as accessible as mainstream cinema, the reasons that people like this movie are not intangible. Why exactly - as you yourself concede - do you think that this movie is historically significant?
And I do declare that good times shall be had by all
1.) How is it camp? Let me first define camp: Camp is an aesthetic in which something has appeal because of its bad taste or ironic value. (Not the best definition, but thanks Wikipedia.) It is campy for several reasons. I'll provide a few examples. First is the acting. Some of it is restrained, but many of Kinski's lines are delivered with head back and eyes rolling. He comes across as if he's mocking himself. Second is the dialog. Outside of general conversation, almost every line reads like a manifesto. It's so over the top that it's almost funny. Thirdly, let's talk blocking and production. There are at least a few times where the actors say whatever their lines are and then just stare at the camera.
2.) So the rough production "adds a greater strength to the feeling of the untamed nature of the new world"? I disagree. It seems you are romanticizing imperfection here. Herzog may have had a rough draft of the plot and most of the dialog written down, but this thing watches like an amateur student production (especially at the end).
3.) I agree that there were some fine shots in this movie. The opening shot was nice. Not spectacular, but nice. I haven't seen the negatives so I can't say what shots weren't used, but I really don't see anything wonderful about Mauch's work. There were few shots that were strictly "here's a pretty scene so look at it" shots. The rapid shot was fine, if somewhat heavy-handed. As in, "Here's a shot of the rapids. I'm going to show it to you until you see it break down into abstraction." I don't see what "vision" you're talking about either. The movie takes place in a jungle and on a river. You shoot where you are. What vision is there in that?
4.) Kinski is a fine actor, but I don't see what was challenging about this movie. He was angry with Herzog. I would be too if I had to act in this movie. And his performance wasn't "unquestionably excellent" because I'm questioning it.
5.) You're right when you say the narrative isn't Hollywood. (Is that an inherently bad thing? Is it necessarily a good thing?) While it's possible to have a coherent movie without a coherent narrative, the less narrative you have the less likely it is your movie will be coherent. What story is he telling? How much explanation is required to impart his theme to the average viewer? If your basic message requires commentary than perhaps you should stick to experimental subjects. I'm not saying the basic theme is completely lost on me. I'm just saying that, beyond the "we're in a jungle where anarchy rules" message, what is Herzog trying to say? Is this an allegory of the decline of Western civilization or some other such lofty message? I hope not. Perhaps my feet are just planted too firmly on planet Earth.
6.) I can try to appreciate this movie's historical significance by imagining what a challenge it would have been to pull off such a production. I once shot a short video with small cast in a parking lot that was difficult and time consuming. I can only imagine what it would be like shooting a larger production in a rain forest on 35mm and available light. I realize this movie predates Apocalypse Now. The similarities there are undeniable. I am also able to appreciate that things we now take for granted have not always been so. Using a bit of imagination and taking my eyes slightly out of focus I can try to see how things were way back then.
1) Sorry, that won’t do. Aguirre is neither in bad taste nor does it have ironic value of the sort you definition refers. I’ll come to Kinski’s acting later. In regards to your suggestion that every line reads like a manifesto I’d have to disagree, but I think I know what you’re hinting at and I’d agree. The dialogue (or more accurately monologues, if we are referring to the same thing) certainly doesn't help to develop a narrative by traditional methods. The monologues of Gaspar de Carvajal, I would argue are effective in both showing his pious mentality and disdain for the locale. The monologue of Aguirre is a tour de force in both writing and performance (not performed by Kinski incidentally, but by another voice actor). If you have specific criticism of either please relay them in your response. More importantly what are you comparing Aguirre to in filmic terms? I ask this because Aguirre has never seemed to me to be an attempt to make dialogue driven cinema. Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey has minimal dialogue but the absence of dialogue does not detract from the ability to confer a point. As for your last point I do not remember thinking that any of actors stared at the camera without meaning to do so.
2) I referred to the specific scene where the raft gets caught in a cyclone, which does add a greater strength to the feeling of the untamed nature of the new world. I’m fairly certain that a director of Herzog’s stature wouldn’t upon completing the film, decide to include random bloopers during the edit. As for you last point, not to insult you but I find that laughable. I’ve seen a fair few films, but no moments spring to mind that combine the technical and the expressive in such a way to create such a scene that straddles the oneiric and the disturbingly real so perfectly.
3) The vision I refer to, is in the choice of shots and what their use achieves, not a mere committal of landscape and nature to celluloid. The vision of the opening shot would be the powerlessness that man has against such a strong and unforgiving part of nature (when they shot this, they could have included Machu Picchu, but would this have achieved the same effect? No, it would have given an entirely different message to that which Herzog was trying to give about the natural world and man’s place in it). This is especially important when you consider the stature of the men involved, and their respective fates at the hands of nature and of the natives (who are the anthropomorphism of nature in the movie).
4) You’ll have to forgive me for using the rhetoric “unquestionably” in my reply to you. However the point remains that Kinski’s acting is high and above in this movie. In part due to Herzog’s direction of him. Kinski wanted to play Aguirre as a raving madman, but the eventual result was a far more disturbing portrayal, which created in my opinion an extremely more loyal and effective image of delusion and ambition. Which I think is unmatched to this day.
5) I neither said it was a bad or good thing. But the style of a movie does not determine it’s aesthetic worth. Your questions seem to suggest that it is a bad thing, if this is the case I would reply that the simplicity of a Broadway show over an often less clear off-Broadway production does not add to it’s artistic value. Is Herzog aiming this movie at the average viewer? No, New German Cinema from the Oberhausen Manifesto onwards placed artistic achievement over commercial success. As a comparison, the fact that classical music is less accessible and less popular than 50 Cent does not mean that 50 Cent is a greater musical mind than Mozart or Beethoven. Similarly the fact that Herzog has made less money in his career, worked on smaller budgets and made less accessible films than Michael Bay for example does not mean that Michael Bay is a better filmmaker, I feel confident enough in my opinions of both directors to say that only an idiot would think such. I didn’t feel that any message about the decline of western civilisation was present in the movie. The expedition could have been comprised of Chinese soldiers (though this would have had no historical basis for the setting, obviously).
6) The movie is historically significant as a work of art for both its own achievements as a film and it’s influence on other films. I’ll agree that the film is obviously less polished than other films you may be comparing it to, however this doesn’t detract from it’s aesthetic value. The same could be said of the works of D.W. Griffith and Eisenstein, which compared to Herzog's Aguirre are even less polished to modern eyes. Again as a comparison, that the language of Geoffrey Chaucer or Dante Alighieri could now be considered archaic, does not detract from the aesthetic value of the literature they produced.
I cut down my post as much as I could. But I couldn't avoid making it overlong. Feel free to reply in like.
And I do declare that good times shall be had by all
Rjs87 = board hog
God is Dead.
Nietzsche
"Rjs87 = board hog"
No, but I can be a troll if the mood takes me.
My post wasn't a great amount longer than the post I was replying to. Either way, I have no problem laughing at your worthless opinion or the internet assembled philosophy you mention in your profile.
"The implication of Nihilism being that adherents of this philosophy reject all positive values and believe in nothing." I'm glad you manage to miss the self-contradiction in this statement.
"A vile and repulsive nihilist who chooses to destroy values and belief systems in the world." And how exactly are you doing this you jumped up pre-teen? I doubt you'd be able to understand values or belief systems, let alone destroy them.
Oh, and *beep* you.
"Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos!"
Rjs87
I didn't know you were supposed to accept my beliefs. It seems rather you 'do' care about what I say though. Hahahahahah.
God is Dead.
Nietzsche
I care about what you said because you made a comment towards me.
I don't accept your 'beliefs', nor do you in all likelyhood because you couldn't fully understand the implications of them if you tried. In all likelyhood what you accept is a moral framework (or lack thereof) laid out by the wikipedia article on nihilism.
Though you're probably just a troll who does to relieve the tension between masturbating to dog porn and crying yourself to sleep.
Moron.
Tip no:1
Probably it would be better to use the word "probably" rather than "in all likelihood", although that probably wouldn't achieve your goal of using more words and syllables than you probably need to.
Tip no:2
You probably shouldn't use the phrase "in all likelihood", twice within a 2 line paragraph.
Tip no:3
It's probably best to use the actual spelling of "likelihood" rather than your own interpretation.
Tip no: 4
You probably shouldn't accuse a complete stranger of masturbating to dog porn unless it's something you have implicit, practical experience of.
Oh, sorry, strike my last comment, I seem to have underestimated you.
Funny thing is, he has a Nietzsche quote in his signature, yet Nietzsche was against nihilism.
shareUgh, enough arguing. Some people like myself are into Art house films. Some people aren't. If you aren't, please don't watch another Herzog film, not because of your intelligence, but because of your taste. That way we won't have to argue on these things.
[deleted]
He isn't even worth it. Don't waste your time.
"I've been living off toxic waste for years, and I'm fine! Just ask my other heads!"
[deleted]
Don't worry, their understanding of the words is as poor as their understanding of the film.
These aren't my galoshes!
[deleted]