At Eternity's Gate

Some impressive, but often too melodramatic imagery. It offers insight in a subject I was not really aware of. The cinematography and editing are obnoxiously arty, "like painting an impressionist canvas!" I can already hear the director yelling in the DP's ears.... a bit too much. OK film for gentle Sunday afternoon relaxation.

The constant melodramatic mono/dialogue either comes off as pretentious ("Maybe God made me a painter for people who aren't born yet") or just aimless and tiring (see Vincent and the priest)-and same goes for the fidgety and cold aesthetic (trying to mirror the character I suppose but it was still hard to like). Neither are able to make up for the lack of a plot, and I think in the end they both just distract from what could've been (it occasionally was) an engaging and unique character study.

I read a lot of the letters between Vincent and Theo, and this movie (Dafoe!) depicts the content of those letters really well: that he was a lost man, disconnected, insufferable, loving, craving, actually inducing a manic state of mind to feel alive, whatever the cost, because it was the only thing he had left. A lot of people live such a kind of life and most disappear into madness, namelessness and an early death. Somehow Van Gogh managed to keep his hand steady and settled his name.

There are a few beautifully composed shots, but an equal number where the cinematography seems as improvised as the plonking piano score, and Willem Dafoe's performance is all that gives substance to a role leeched of meaning by bafflingly poor writing and a curiously empty story. Underwhelming entirely.

Van Gogh un ressam olduğu dönemi anlatan film, çekim tekniği olarak çok başarısız. Öyküsü sağlamda olsa, yönetmenlik olarak facia. Willem Dafoe'nun Van Gogh u yaşadığı film, sallanan kamerasıyla mideyi bulandırıyor. Yarım anlatılan biyografi. Gauguin olarak ilişkisini anlatan film, yetersiz. Öykü olarak filmin sonu kötü bitiyor, fakat yine çekim tekniği olarak facia. Van Gogh bu filmi seyretse, Julian Schnabel i fırça ile tarlalarda kovalardı

okay movie

Dafoe's performance alone makes it worthwhile, but it's also quite beautifully made, especially in the visual realm. Almost more like a dramatic installation than a film, but no less fascinating for that.

Interesting, almost impressionistic take on Van Gogh's life and 'career' is a film of powerful moments mixed with meandering digressions which are occasionally frustrating; if you can go with it as a pensive, entrancing portrait of artistic drives and inspiration, it's certainly a unique and challenging take on the biopic, anchored by a seemingly effortless and masterful turn by Dafoe in the lead role. Likely to be a film which will improve upon rewatching.

Gorgeous and innovative and dreamlike but often very slow.

Putting us in the state of mind of Van Gogh - Willem Dafoe in a memorable and touching performance - makes for an incredibly immersive and cinematic experience, even if said mental state is given little context or narrative foundation. I can't blame some viewers for finding Schnabel's visual approach a tad obnoxious; I however thought it befitted the character and story perfectly and just went with it.

Malick-style camera use works quite beautifully to reflect van gogh's supposed state of mind. cinematographically it honors the artist without being cartoonish and that is a big achievement.

Great biopic, likely because it's less about his life and more about his ideas. A passionately felt and artistically made film that digs deeper into the man than Loving Vincent, this is filled with heartful and involved conversations and musings about art, all the while connecting van Gogh's miseries to his craft. If you are an artist of any sort, you may want to check this out.

Beautiful movie, splendidly acted by Defoe. Isaac is not much worse.

I liked it, but moreso because I see that it's a good movie, rather than having actually enjoyed it very much. The style is fascinating, and the cinematography is really something else, especially for a biopic. A great way to get up close and into the head of this elusive character. However, I can't say that I saw the point of the numerous bifocal shots. The audio editing was at times so jarring that it made me cringe. Credit has to be given to Dafoe, who is absolutely amazing as Van Gogh.

Good on acting bad on everything else. Poor screenplay and editing, terrible scenario.

Dafoe is great here, as expected. The camera work is odd, especially during dialogue driven scenes (although the POV shots are interesting), but the nature shots are pretty great. It’s a bit slow, but still paced well enough to hold your attention. I appreciated “Loving Vincent” more, but the story here is a lot better.

The directing doesn't add up to something cohesive, bad dialogue. Dafoe good, Van Gogh paintings are good even when seen second hand through a lens, film manages to convey what Van Gogh sees in things adequately even if messily.

Schnabel's turn at depicting the life of van Gogh shows little interest in understanding the period, focusing exclusively on conveying the artist's inner state. Much of the writing is poor if not anachronistic, and the filmmaker seems to have no interest in female characters: what few appear have almost no dialogue. Unlike Pialat (whose film is vastly superior), Schnabel can actually show some painting, but even that is unpersuasive and uninteresting. Van Gogh cinema yet again misses the mark.

I love Schnabel's cinematography style, especially the use of hand-held camera work that seems to spontaneously adjust on the fly. I'm in favor of more period pieces using hand-held camera work in general. An unsteady camera seems to me to have a transportive quality that aids greatly in the sense of immersion into a time and place drastically different from our own.

Although Dafoe is twice older then Gogh, it is surprising how they look similar at least what we know from paintings. And even that bio have relative stories it came from historical facts what Vincent was writing in his letters. And all around it is good assumption of what we could understand about this painter, all the colors, acting and words reassemble how we feel about him. So good work from director to actors...

Do I think this is a well made and incredibly acted movie? Absolutely. Did I liked it? No. I hated that it was all hand held camera, the shakiness annoyed me a lot, and I felt its length

Schnabel brings an arsenal of trickeries to spice up another biopic. Most of them landed for me and changed what could have been a snooze fest into a very interesting piece of art.

It's alright, but not as revelatory as it probably aims to be, and everything after Pialat's Van Gogh pales in comparison.

6+

while all the reenactments of classic van gogh paintings made me smile and all the typical nature scenes with just the right colour palette were a joy to watch, at eternity's gate is a mess full of bad dialogue, weak script, bad casting as a severe over use of tilt shift lenses and close ups.

More a gesture of the mad, holy, and ecstatic than necessarily a needed biopic or drama, it centers its actions around the intensity of Dafoe's anguished face staring at the sublime - a perfect, idealized vision of a great artist if there ever was one.

Like the underrated Final Portrait it tells the story of an artist from his own point of view. It seems obvious but many films about painters does the exact opposite. Dafoe is perfect.