Appearing in the sky for eleven minutes, a mysterious object has a significant impact on those who sight it in this offbeat drama from Jerzy Skolimowski. Best known as the director of 'Deep End', 'The Shout' and more recently 'Essential Killing', Skolimowski is a filmmaker who excels with unconventional narratives, a description that describes this film in spades. The movie consists of the same eleven minutes played out (a cataclysmic concluding event aside) from all different angles. The film has at least a dozen main characters and as the narrative constantly jumps around, never following one character for more than five minutes at a time, it becomes a tad hard to follow. It is also a movie in which it is difficult to become attached to any of the characters since none of them are fleshed out in depth, give or take a jealous husband and a hotdog vendor with a mysterious checkered past. Fortunately, the symbolism alone is sufficiently interesting; we never see what exactly the object in the sky is, nor do we need to as it represents fate. The film also opens innovatively, with footage from a smartphone camera, from a laptop camera and CCTV security camera all thrown our way before Skolimowski gives us 2.35:1 aspect ratio conventional film footage - for some reason that no doubt links to the mysterious sky object. With so much left deliberately unclear, this is a tricky film to recommend. It is thought-provoking though, if perhaps not as satisfying as earlier Skolimowski efforts such as 'King, Queen, Knave' and 'The Lightship' with Robert Duvall.
16 Reviews
Worth the time
justin-w-nadolski20 November 2018
Not as good as the director's reputation would suggest
euroGary13 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Polish/Irish co-production 'Eleven Minutes' follows several characters over the course of eleven minutes in their lives - and straight away we run slap-bang into the film's main problem. Most eleven-minute segments of people's lives are mundane and dull, and so, for some of the characters, is the case here: the woman walking her dog; the couple watching pornography in an illicitly-occupied hotel room. But by contrast, other characters pack an awful lot into their allotted time: the teenager who gets ignored by his mother, robs a pawnshop and finds a dead body inside; or the motorcycle courier who escapes from his lover's husband, gets involved in a police chase, trips out and then goes to meet his father - all this in just eleven minutes? Really?
Also not helping is director Jerzy Skolimowski's decision to intercut between the characters, which gives an impression of more time passing in the story than is actually the case. Exclusively following one character to the end of his/her story, then another, then another, might have given a greater feeling of urgency. And the way the different characters' stories come together at the end is either skillfully done, or utterly contrived, depending on what mood the viewer is in at the time!
Skolimowski's career goes back to the sixties. To say this film sees him coasting on his reputation would be cruel, but I can't help wondering if the London Film Festival luminary who introduced it would have been quite so gushing had the director been a first-timer.
Also not helping is director Jerzy Skolimowski's decision to intercut between the characters, which gives an impression of more time passing in the story than is actually the case. Exclusively following one character to the end of his/her story, then another, then another, might have given a greater feeling of urgency. And the way the different characters' stories come together at the end is either skillfully done, or utterly contrived, depending on what mood the viewer is in at the time!
Skolimowski's career goes back to the sixties. To say this film sees him coasting on his reputation would be cruel, but I can't help wondering if the London Film Festival luminary who introduced it would have been quite so gushing had the director been a first-timer.
Stick with it
parkview204229 August 2020
Great ending but a bit long to get there
lucymar-5298528 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
We didn't liked to be waiting for the whole 130 minutes to the movie to make sense, it was a bit too much confusing but probably just our own anxiety for waiting the whole movie to make sense, but the end makes it all worth it.
Seems like some plot holes was deliberated in the movie so I'm okay with that. I didn't catch if the girl with the dog died too so I'm a bit confused as why we saw her story too.
Maybe too short backstory to get a lot of context in the characters but it was enough to make us feel sympathy for several of them.
The photography was awesome and the scenography beautiful.
Seems like some plot holes was deliberated in the movie so I'm okay with that. I didn't catch if the girl with the dog died too so I'm a bit confused as why we saw her story too.
Maybe too short backstory to get a lot of context in the characters but it was enough to make us feel sympathy for several of them.
The photography was awesome and the scenography beautiful.
It should have been a great night at the movies
Red-1255 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Polish film 11 minut was shown in the U.S. with the translated title 11 Minutes (2015). Jerzy Skolimowski was the writer and director.
This should have been a perfect film evening. 11 Minutes was the opening film of Rochester's Polish Film Festival. Jerzy Skolimowski is one of the greatest writers and directors in Polish film history. 11 Minutes was shown in the superb Dryden Theatre at The George Eastman Museum. The Deputy Consul of the Polish consulate in NYC traveled to Rochester for the event, and gave a welcoming speech using impeccable English. The Director of Programming at the George Eastman Museum gave a learned introduction. The only problem is that 11 Minutes is a truly bad film.
In theory, at least, the film portrays 11 minutes in Warsaw through the eyes of countless participants.The only three characters with names are the sleazy film director Richard Martin (Richard Dormer), the beautiful aspiring actor Anna Hellman (Paulina Chapko), and the dog owned by "Girl with a Dog" (Bufo, played by Bufo.) Incidentally, Bufo did a fine job in his role.) All the other characters had names like, "Husband of Courier's Lover."
This film may have worked for some people, but it didn't work for me. Scenes popped up on the screen and disappeared. What happened to the drug courier? Why had Anna's husband been arrested,and why did Girl with a Dog tell the hot-dog vendor that she was surprised to see him out of jail? Why do the nuns want mayonnaise in addition to mustard on their hot-dogs?
If you are looking for a way to spend 81 unpleasant minutes, this is the movie for you. If you want an excellent 94 minutes of movies, then rent, buy, or stream Knife in the Water. (It was co-written by Jerzy Skolimowski.)
11 Minutes carries a terrible 5.8 IMDb rating. My mistake was not to trust my fellow reviewers. Live and learn.
This should have been a perfect film evening. 11 Minutes was the opening film of Rochester's Polish Film Festival. Jerzy Skolimowski is one of the greatest writers and directors in Polish film history. 11 Minutes was shown in the superb Dryden Theatre at The George Eastman Museum. The Deputy Consul of the Polish consulate in NYC traveled to Rochester for the event, and gave a welcoming speech using impeccable English. The Director of Programming at the George Eastman Museum gave a learned introduction. The only problem is that 11 Minutes is a truly bad film.
In theory, at least, the film portrays 11 minutes in Warsaw through the eyes of countless participants.The only three characters with names are the sleazy film director Richard Martin (Richard Dormer), the beautiful aspiring actor Anna Hellman (Paulina Chapko), and the dog owned by "Girl with a Dog" (Bufo, played by Bufo.) Incidentally, Bufo did a fine job in his role.) All the other characters had names like, "Husband of Courier's Lover."
This film may have worked for some people, but it didn't work for me. Scenes popped up on the screen and disappeared. What happened to the drug courier? Why had Anna's husband been arrested,and why did Girl with a Dog tell the hot-dog vendor that she was surprised to see him out of jail? Why do the nuns want mayonnaise in addition to mustard on their hot-dogs?
If you are looking for a way to spend 81 unpleasant minutes, this is the movie for you. If you want an excellent 94 minutes of movies, then rent, buy, or stream Knife in the Water. (It was co-written by Jerzy Skolimowski.)
11 Minutes carries a terrible 5.8 IMDb rating. My mistake was not to trust my fellow reviewers. Live and learn.
Beautiful and interesting
olcayozfirat28 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
An interesting movie from 2015.
It gives small sections from the lives of unrelated people that an event will affect, from the moment of the event. Since the interpersonal transitions in the movie are frequent and sudden, it is necessary to be patient while watching it. What I like the most is that a moment is shot from multiple angles and it comes to the screen at different times in the movie.
To the old man who draws, I think he's in a godlike role. Both seeing the ink dripping onto the picture in real life, and taking the child off the bus to the bus again.
What I don't understand is, did the girl with the dog survive? I didn't see you die, she.
There is no nudity in the movie, but there is a porn movie sound. There is no deep examination of the people involved in the incident. Only their current status is included. Still one of the interesting movies for me.
It gives small sections from the lives of unrelated people that an event will affect, from the moment of the event. Since the interpersonal transitions in the movie are frequent and sudden, it is necessary to be patient while watching it. What I like the most is that a moment is shot from multiple angles and it comes to the screen at different times in the movie.
To the old man who draws, I think he's in a godlike role. Both seeing the ink dripping onto the picture in real life, and taking the child off the bus to the bus again.
What I don't understand is, did the girl with the dog survive? I didn't see you die, she.
There is no nudity in the movie, but there is a porn movie sound. There is no deep examination of the people involved in the incident. Only their current status is included. Still one of the interesting movies for me.
Terrible Movie
mnicol-6557616 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Nothing happens believe me. Don't waste your time or money. No plot, no middle no ending. This movie has nothing of value. 90 minutes of randomness. Wish it were 11 Minutes long. This is one of the main reasons I stay away from the movie theater because of garbage like this. No commercial value, no artistic value just some random thoughts and scenes that make no sense, rhyme or reason. I guess this is what they like in Poland but I am sure no where else will like it. Who ever is responsible for making the picture should maybe find another job. After it was over the director was so uninterested in discussing his mess of a film with the audience he couldn't wait to catch a ride to the airport. As Jed Clampit would say... Pitiful.
Extremely pretentious garbage.
numbahunna21 June 2020
Nothing in this movie makes sense or gets explained. I gave it a second star only because for a brief scene at the end you actually care and the cinematography for that one brief scene is awesome. As for the rest of the movie? A whole lot of questions and wasted time where nothing gets explained and you wasted a chunk of your life on some pricks pretentious movie that some pretentious losers might say is art, but it's garbage. All garbage.
intercut lives join -- or don't -- in an urban disaster
maurice_yacowar10 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The film's most blatant metaphor is the dead pixel on a computer screen. One security officer tries to wipe it off, thinking it's a bird dropping. In the last image, a proliferation of thousands of screen images that turns into an abstraction as the screens multiply, the black spot persists. The painter catches it in an accidental ink stain, but the young thief recognizes it from the sky. The blot in the sky may be what the sleazy "director" points to the actress to lure her out on the balcony.
So what's a burned pixel? It's an imperfection, a flaw, the fly in the ointment, what stops us short of perfection. It's the governing principle of life, which we might otherwise conceptualize as the vagaries of destiny, fate, doom, coincidence, the quirk that prevents our harmony and peace. What renders making vulnerable.
The last screen shows a plethora of images of lives unwinding on separate screens. It's like the security officers' multiple outlook but multiplied. Thousands of people engaged in thousands of incidents, each with its own tensions, designs, solitudes, united only by what connections they have in time and space. Yet any one can suffer a turn that ties several together in a shared disaster. Fate is a burned out pixel.
As Skolimowski intercuts several story lines in the same 11 minutes we have no idea how these lives will intersect, if at all. As it happens, the director flogging a fake script to seduce an actress sets the dominoes falling. Ironically, the self-styled director ends up making the film's spectacular disaster climax. A jealous husband helps, but so do the two hotel security officers whose attempt to save the husband kills the wife.
There is no logic in our lives, just the interweaving of chance and mischance. Having seen the ending one craves to see the whole film afresh to look for the auguries of coincidence and doom.
In all the stories here, there is no joy. The closest we get to innocence and unalloyed pleasure is the nuns enjoying the hot dogs and the vendor's knowledge. But even there, the vendor has a sordid past expressed by a young woman. And nuns in habits are not living purity when they partake of a street hot dog, even apart from "the sin of gluttony." Otherwise each little drama involves sin and transgression. Still, the punishment is disproportionate to the sins.
So what's a burned pixel? It's an imperfection, a flaw, the fly in the ointment, what stops us short of perfection. It's the governing principle of life, which we might otherwise conceptualize as the vagaries of destiny, fate, doom, coincidence, the quirk that prevents our harmony and peace. What renders making vulnerable.
The last screen shows a plethora of images of lives unwinding on separate screens. It's like the security officers' multiple outlook but multiplied. Thousands of people engaged in thousands of incidents, each with its own tensions, designs, solitudes, united only by what connections they have in time and space. Yet any one can suffer a turn that ties several together in a shared disaster. Fate is a burned out pixel.
As Skolimowski intercuts several story lines in the same 11 minutes we have no idea how these lives will intersect, if at all. As it happens, the director flogging a fake script to seduce an actress sets the dominoes falling. Ironically, the self-styled director ends up making the film's spectacular disaster climax. A jealous husband helps, but so do the two hotel security officers whose attempt to save the husband kills the wife.
There is no logic in our lives, just the interweaving of chance and mischance. Having seen the ending one craves to see the whole film afresh to look for the auguries of coincidence and doom.
In all the stories here, there is no joy. The closest we get to innocence and unalloyed pleasure is the nuns enjoying the hot dogs and the vendor's knowledge. But even there, the vendor has a sordid past expressed by a young woman. And nuns in habits are not living purity when they partake of a street hot dog, even apart from "the sin of gluttony." Otherwise each little drama involves sin and transgression. Still, the punishment is disproportionate to the sins.
11-7=4. AND 4 IS WHAT THIS IS WORTH
MadamWarden26 August 2020
Not original
bgar-8093218 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This is the type of movie where they take a bunch of seemingly unconnected people and bring them together at the end, in this case for a big accident. It's been done before and it's been done better. Half the story lines they tell you stuff that is irrelevant to the story. That's fine if they actually bring it all together at the end. They don't. It's simply information that the director either forgot about or they cut scenes that would have made it all make sense. I mean the end for a movie like this is the most important part and they didn't stick the landing at all. Also it's a very short film which is possibly why it failed to make me care about any of the characters but I never did and that's a big flaw.
Extremely well done study of how lives intersect.
yossarian10023 August 2016
Unfortunately, this is the type of movie that draws out all those filmmakers who want to weigh in on what the director did wrong. I'm not a filmmaker, so I just sat back and enjoyed this director's efforts.
All the characters were interesting, and I particularly liked the director's decision to cut back and forth between the various players as the narrative moved forward. That choice requires a little more effort on our part, but it's well worth the effort.
All in all, I had a great time, even if I did get most of my anxiety buttons pushed, but that's what happens when a film builds suspense slowly and relentlessly.
If you're the type of person who enjoys most kinds of movies, then you'll enjoy the unusual approach they took with this one, and it has my most hearty recommendation.
All the characters were interesting, and I particularly liked the director's decision to cut back and forth between the various players as the narrative moved forward. That choice requires a little more effort on our part, but it's well worth the effort.
All in all, I had a great time, even if I did get most of my anxiety buttons pushed, but that's what happens when a film builds suspense slowly and relentlessly.
If you're the type of person who enjoys most kinds of movies, then you'll enjoy the unusual approach they took with this one, and it has my most hearty recommendation.
Was fixated
gce230830 April 2021
Well, I loved it. I was fascinated from the start and enjoyed every single minute. Cannot understand all the low ratings. I just want to be entertained, I don't want to (or need to!) critique every aspect of the film making. Last scenes are BRILLIANT!!!
Always a challenge...
DukeEman30 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Skolimowski challenges us once again, as he did in his earlier films, WALKOVER (1965) and BARRIER (1966). It was a pleasure to see him revert to those similar abstract styles, but with more of an edge that puts today's young filmmakers to shame.
What works to the directors advantage is the cinema technology of today that enables him to tell his visual story at no big cost. How he can push those boundaries to great effect, utilizing the creative use of sound, the hypnotic cinematography, the brilliant music, and performances that were well restrained.
The highlight is the non-linear story line, that jumps from various stories, at different times, eventually connecting them together for a stunning finale. And the meaning of it all? Leave that up to your own interpretation, and that is the pure enjoyment of it all.
What works to the directors advantage is the cinema technology of today that enables him to tell his visual story at no big cost. How he can push those boundaries to great effect, utilizing the creative use of sound, the hypnotic cinematography, the brilliant music, and performances that were well restrained.
The highlight is the non-linear story line, that jumps from various stories, at different times, eventually connecting them together for a stunning finale. And the meaning of it all? Leave that up to your own interpretation, and that is the pure enjoyment of it all.
Great plot twists and play on temporal shifts
alastairkemp29 July 2023
It's a great film, building tension throughout to the final minutes leaving one guessing as to the final outcome, which I couldn't guess.
I was left thinking after surely the ending should have been obvious, until as one interprets dreams, or as Freud hints at in his book the Interpretation of Dreams, that is one remembers one's dreams upon waking and thus I only decided it should have been obvious after, and so realised instead that this suggested the film was in fact that well-crafted and I only wanted to have thought it that obvious, but in fact I didn't. And so, it means that, I can go back to the idea that I was indeed left guessing... Thus a good emotional feeling based on a film full of tension and twists as well as what seem to be temporal shifts based on well-crafted edits and cuts from scene to scene up to the final moments.
If one has read Henri' Lefebvre, what he calls a Leibniz's House perspective.
What he meant was that to get the sense of a thing, such as a house, one has to look at it from many perspectives, form multiple person's perspectives and over time too. This film kind of moves towards demonstrating the concept better than most.
I was left thinking after surely the ending should have been obvious, until as one interprets dreams, or as Freud hints at in his book the Interpretation of Dreams, that is one remembers one's dreams upon waking and thus I only decided it should have been obvious after, and so realised instead that this suggested the film was in fact that well-crafted and I only wanted to have thought it that obvious, but in fact I didn't. And so, it means that, I can go back to the idea that I was indeed left guessing... Thus a good emotional feeling based on a film full of tension and twists as well as what seem to be temporal shifts based on well-crafted edits and cuts from scene to scene up to the final moments.
If one has read Henri' Lefebvre, what he calls a Leibniz's House perspective.
What he meant was that to get the sense of a thing, such as a house, one has to look at it from many perspectives, form multiple person's perspectives and over time too. This film kind of moves towards demonstrating the concept better than most.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
