This film hurt my eyes a little

I assume this is a common complaint, but there was just way too much smoke in the film. You know it's bad when there are several instances in which the the camera is literally right in the middle of a plume of thick black (or, as with just about everything in the film, it was a tint of brown) smoke. There is also a ton of diffusion used. It was difficult to make anything out. I remember in Roger Ebert's review that he complained about how over-the-top the shooting at the gang rape was. I'm guessing that he wouldn't have brought that up if it were possible for the audience to see what was going on. Because we feel like we need to use glass cleaner or get new spectacles, we feel like the characters should be like that too. I've never been a fan of the whole blurry photography (which thankfully has died out in recent years). With the smoke added to the blurriness, it just felt dirty. Don't get me wrong, there were some breathtaking shots, which reminded me a little of a Jean-Francois Millet, along with some gorgeous landscapes. If the film were cleaned up a little (or a lot), I'm sure it would have done considerably better. However, the images started to make me feel uncomfortable (in a way, I felt a little sickened), thus making this film hard to watch.



"Your dumb" My dumb what?
Nobody doesn't not like double negatives.