This film doesn't follow the Hollywood structure. It's not a biography like you might expect, and the plot isn't defined. Instead, this is an attempt to get inside Van Gogh's head, and a brilliant one at that. Imagine being the world's greatest artist, with zero validation and constant ridicule by the establishment around you. That's the torturous state of being this film encapsulates and does it with purpose. At times, the cinema language gets more experimental than necessarily to accomplish its goal, but I commend the director for pushing the boundaries of standard filmmaking and letting us inhabit Van Gogh's mind for this brief period. I genuinely felt a loss for this escape from my own mind when Van Gogh passed. I recommend anyone involved with artistic or creative thinking to watch this film.
210 Reviews
Don't know why its underrated ........
diponsarker21 February 2019
Loved the raw hand held camera work . The director shows the scene in such a that u can really enter into vincent's mind and can see his vision . Obviously the acting of Willem Dafoe was tremendous and he took the character to another level .
Van Gogh through the eyes of Julian Schnabel
PotassiumMan21 November 2018
Vincent Van Gogh's last days in the south of France are depicted in this heartfelt drama by Julian Schnabel. Willem Dafoe gives a powerful performance as the destitute, troubled painter who was not understood by those in his own time. As Van Gogh seeks to express his extraordinary eye for nature and portraits, those around him are either put off, wary or sometimes intrigued. His brother is his only real comfort.
A deliberately paced film with a mournful soundtrack, this will leave you in a contemplative state. It does not tell you everything about Van Gogh or when his self-isolation began but it does seek to offer insight into his profoundly troubled mental state. His demons are quite evident throughout the film- everything from his intolerant response to the curiosity of schoolchildren to his difficulty explaining his world to whatever doctor is examining him, Van Gogh is exemplified in Dafoe's anguished face. Schnabel, himself a painter, brings his own perspective in piecing this film together, especially in showing how Van Gogh paints and goes about his craft.
The film is not without drawbacks. Oscar Isaac is miscast as Paul Gauguin, the French painter whom Van Gogh couldn't bear losing company with. And Mads Mikkelsen gets minimal screen time in a very thoughtful performance as an inquisitive priest who recognizes Van Gogh's uniqueness. But this film is Schnabel's interpretation of Van Gogh and Dafoe's exemplary portrayal of him and in that regard it works quite well. Recommended.
A deliberately paced film with a mournful soundtrack, this will leave you in a contemplative state. It does not tell you everything about Van Gogh or when his self-isolation began but it does seek to offer insight into his profoundly troubled mental state. His demons are quite evident throughout the film- everything from his intolerant response to the curiosity of schoolchildren to his difficulty explaining his world to whatever doctor is examining him, Van Gogh is exemplified in Dafoe's anguished face. Schnabel, himself a painter, brings his own perspective in piecing this film together, especially in showing how Van Gogh paints and goes about his craft.
The film is not without drawbacks. Oscar Isaac is miscast as Paul Gauguin, the French painter whom Van Gogh couldn't bear losing company with. And Mads Mikkelsen gets minimal screen time in a very thoughtful performance as an inquisitive priest who recognizes Van Gogh's uniqueness. But this film is Schnabel's interpretation of Van Gogh and Dafoe's exemplary portrayal of him and in that regard it works quite well. Recommended.
A creative and beautifully artistic film
gandalf_theWise1410 August 2019
At Eternity's Gate is perhaps one of the most artistic films that I've seen. It somehow manages to give the sense that it took Van Gogh's painting style and put it in film form, and it was quite effective.
I'll just start by saying At Eternity's Gate is not a movie that will work for everyone. The directing style used is not very common. There are plenty of shaky cameras, as well as many uses of first person point of view and weird dialogue loops. There are many sequences of no dialogue at all, where you are simply watching Van Gogh walking in a field or just painting. There are also lengthy sequences of only dialogue, some for 5 minutes at a time. Some people may find this film boring or even just annoying to try to watch. I, however, really appreciated the artistic directing style and approach to this film. It is also a beautifully shot movie. When Van Gogh is walking through nature, the shots, albeit sometimes a little shaky to fit the style, really capture the beauty of his surroundings in a way that can be breathtaking at times.
As for the plot of this movie, there really isn't one. You should instead think of it as a collection of scenes put together, roughly in order, that illustrate various key experiences near the end of painter Vincent Van Gogh's life. This will make the film a bit less confusing. Sitting there trying to connect everything you see under one plot would be very difficult, so it's better to just watch it scene by scene as you move through Van Gogh's life and try to get a sense of his motivations and state of mind. I found this to be a very interesting decision, but it added to the creativity of the film and made it feel more like a piece of art, so I understood and even appreciated this odd strategy.
The main thing this film tries to do is show the mental state of Van Gogh and almost try to get inside his head. This made for some very odd sequences in the film, but also made for a very unique and interesting movie. It might not work well 100% of the time, but for the most part, I was fascinated with the way they attempted to convey Van Gogh's mental instability.
Willem Dafoe in the lead role gives an outstanding performance (not that it's unexpected for that to happen). He portrays both the crazy and likable sides of Van Gogh to perfection, and really captures the incredible passion he had for art and painting. Oscar Isaac also gives a great performance as Gauguin, the other artist who's a little crazy (albeit much less so than Van Gogh). The rest of the cast holds there own as well, and the characters are all interesting to learn about.
The music in this film is also a bit strange at times, but seems to fit very well with the style and subject matter of the movie, and even is able to enhance the beauty of Van Gogh's surroundings when he is walking through nature.
At Eternity's Gate is a film that may not be for everyone, but it's creativity and great performances make it worth watching if you can manage watching the unique directing style.
I'll just start by saying At Eternity's Gate is not a movie that will work for everyone. The directing style used is not very common. There are plenty of shaky cameras, as well as many uses of first person point of view and weird dialogue loops. There are many sequences of no dialogue at all, where you are simply watching Van Gogh walking in a field or just painting. There are also lengthy sequences of only dialogue, some for 5 minutes at a time. Some people may find this film boring or even just annoying to try to watch. I, however, really appreciated the artistic directing style and approach to this film. It is also a beautifully shot movie. When Van Gogh is walking through nature, the shots, albeit sometimes a little shaky to fit the style, really capture the beauty of his surroundings in a way that can be breathtaking at times.
As for the plot of this movie, there really isn't one. You should instead think of it as a collection of scenes put together, roughly in order, that illustrate various key experiences near the end of painter Vincent Van Gogh's life. This will make the film a bit less confusing. Sitting there trying to connect everything you see under one plot would be very difficult, so it's better to just watch it scene by scene as you move through Van Gogh's life and try to get a sense of his motivations and state of mind. I found this to be a very interesting decision, but it added to the creativity of the film and made it feel more like a piece of art, so I understood and even appreciated this odd strategy.
The main thing this film tries to do is show the mental state of Van Gogh and almost try to get inside his head. This made for some very odd sequences in the film, but also made for a very unique and interesting movie. It might not work well 100% of the time, but for the most part, I was fascinated with the way they attempted to convey Van Gogh's mental instability.
Willem Dafoe in the lead role gives an outstanding performance (not that it's unexpected for that to happen). He portrays both the crazy and likable sides of Van Gogh to perfection, and really captures the incredible passion he had for art and painting. Oscar Isaac also gives a great performance as Gauguin, the other artist who's a little crazy (albeit much less so than Van Gogh). The rest of the cast holds there own as well, and the characters are all interesting to learn about.
The music in this film is also a bit strange at times, but seems to fit very well with the style and subject matter of the movie, and even is able to enhance the beauty of Van Gogh's surroundings when he is walking through nature.
At Eternity's Gate is a film that may not be for everyone, but it's creativity and great performances make it worth watching if you can manage watching the unique directing style.
So much missed potential
j_chenier6 December 2018
Although offering an interesting perspective of seeing life from through Van Gogh's eyes, this film suffers from slow pacing and a disjointed narrative that never really gains any momentum. The acting was solid from Willem Dafoe in the lead role as well as from the supporting cast, but I don't see this film appealing to most casual film audiences. If you are however, interested in the story of this beloved artist, I'd recommend 2017's innovative (and much better) Loving Vincent.
the problem with being a genius is that you're so far ahead of everyone that people consider you crazy
lee_eisenberg19 February 2019
Vincent van Gogh is widely recognized as one of the grand masters of impressionism. That is, he's now recognized thusly. During his lifetime, he only managed to sell one painting. Maybe it was that he was too far ahead of his time that people just couldn't appreciate his genius. It wasn't until almost 50 years after his death that people really started taking notice of his work.
Julian Schnabel's "At Eternity's Gate" looks at the last few years of van Gogh's life, including the notorious incident with his ear. Willem Dafoe (in an Academy Award-nominated role) puts his all into the role of the painter, who appears at the end of his emotional rope. It's not the greatest movie ever, but the strength of the performances makes up for any shortcoming.
Julian Schnabel's "At Eternity's Gate" looks at the last few years of van Gogh's life, including the notorious incident with his ear. Willem Dafoe (in an Academy Award-nominated role) puts his all into the role of the painter, who appears at the end of his emotional rope. It's not the greatest movie ever, but the strength of the performances makes up for any shortcoming.
Through Van Gogh's art and mind
TheLittleSongbird16 December 2019
Biopics don't always have great reputations, but to me despite many playing loose with the facts and quite a lot not exploring their subjects enough or being too conventional many have a lot to recommend on their own merits as films. Vincent van Gogh's paintings are a thing of beauty and van Gogh was a very fascinating man and one of history's most influential artists. Willem Dafoe has also been great, fantastic even, in other things. So there were plenty of reasons as to why 'At Eternity's Gate' had big potential to be great.
'At Eternity's Gate', when finally watching it, is a bit of a tricky one for me. Some may find it easier to rate and review, whether love or hate, but the film left me pondering over it for a long time. A big part of me really admired 'At Eternity's Gate' and found a big amount to like and even love about it. Part of me was also a little disappointed, felt that it could have been better and its shortcomings could have been easily avoided. That it was not your usual or conventional biopic was interesting in itself and was appreciated, makes it stand out.
Will start with the good. A lot of criticism has been directed towards the photography and music. Personally did not have anywhere near as big a problem. Although some of the editing is dizzying and a bit unfocused, the photography is striking and captures the beauty of art and nature beautifully. Also matching van Gogh's increasing and rapidly deteriating mental state ideally. The landscapes are the very meaning of picturesque. Didn't have an issue with the music score, subtlety was not an issue in placement at times but it did strike an emotional chord and matched the film's mournful tone.
Some of the writing is thoughtful and poignant 'At Eternity's Gate' is not an easy or happy watch narratively, but as van Gogh's life or at his later years were as long away from happy as one can get that was not a problem at all. Found the story to be generally very affecting and the latter parts especially moving and avoids being too speculative. The acting is near-uniformly great, while Rupert Friend, Mads Mikkelsen and Emmanuelle Seigner give very nuanced performances with their expressions and eyes speaking volumes and louder than their still strong line delivery the film belongs to Dafoe. Who is just captivating, and the intensity and pathos he brings to van Gogh is truly powerful in a tear-jerking way.
The one exception is Oscar Isaac, whose caricaturish scenery chewing fails utterly to be in keeping with the tone of the film, the smirking quite annoying. Can understand completely where people are coming from regarding the pace, am not somebody that thinks that if something is paced deliberately/slowly it's immediately bad but count me in as another person that found 'At Eternity's Gate' too slow and attention does wander in the more wordless scenes.
Part of the problem in this regard, a big problem, is that there are too many scenes that go on for too long for reasons not really obvious. The writing does tend to be too waffling and can be a little self-indulgent, with a missed opportunity to delve in deeper. Was not crazy about the editing at times too.
Overall, was very conflicted over what rating to give 'At Eternity's Gate' and had to think hard about what to write about in the review, but although for me its shortcomings were quite big the numerous good things were so fantastic it was difficult to be too hard on it. 6.5-7/10
'At Eternity's Gate', when finally watching it, is a bit of a tricky one for me. Some may find it easier to rate and review, whether love or hate, but the film left me pondering over it for a long time. A big part of me really admired 'At Eternity's Gate' and found a big amount to like and even love about it. Part of me was also a little disappointed, felt that it could have been better and its shortcomings could have been easily avoided. That it was not your usual or conventional biopic was interesting in itself and was appreciated, makes it stand out.
Will start with the good. A lot of criticism has been directed towards the photography and music. Personally did not have anywhere near as big a problem. Although some of the editing is dizzying and a bit unfocused, the photography is striking and captures the beauty of art and nature beautifully. Also matching van Gogh's increasing and rapidly deteriating mental state ideally. The landscapes are the very meaning of picturesque. Didn't have an issue with the music score, subtlety was not an issue in placement at times but it did strike an emotional chord and matched the film's mournful tone.
Some of the writing is thoughtful and poignant 'At Eternity's Gate' is not an easy or happy watch narratively, but as van Gogh's life or at his later years were as long away from happy as one can get that was not a problem at all. Found the story to be generally very affecting and the latter parts especially moving and avoids being too speculative. The acting is near-uniformly great, while Rupert Friend, Mads Mikkelsen and Emmanuelle Seigner give very nuanced performances with their expressions and eyes speaking volumes and louder than their still strong line delivery the film belongs to Dafoe. Who is just captivating, and the intensity and pathos he brings to van Gogh is truly powerful in a tear-jerking way.
The one exception is Oscar Isaac, whose caricaturish scenery chewing fails utterly to be in keeping with the tone of the film, the smirking quite annoying. Can understand completely where people are coming from regarding the pace, am not somebody that thinks that if something is paced deliberately/slowly it's immediately bad but count me in as another person that found 'At Eternity's Gate' too slow and attention does wander in the more wordless scenes.
Part of the problem in this regard, a big problem, is that there are too many scenes that go on for too long for reasons not really obvious. The writing does tend to be too waffling and can be a little self-indulgent, with a missed opportunity to delve in deeper. Was not crazy about the editing at times too.
Overall, was very conflicted over what rating to give 'At Eternity's Gate' and had to think hard about what to write about in the review, but although for me its shortcomings were quite big the numerous good things were so fantastic it was difficult to be too hard on it. 6.5-7/10
Don't think of At Eternity's Gate as a movie movie
markgluckstern10 December 2018
Rather think of it as a painted film, with one artist (Schnabel) trying to convey what it is to be another (Van Gogh). At Eternity's Gate is an immersion into the world of Van Gogh. Art conveys something about the world and the human condition words can never express. After watching the movie I came to realize other ways of trying to understand Van Gogh and his art fall short of this immersion. If you were to take an audio tour of a Van Gogh exhibit you would not finish the tour with the same feeling or understanding as you might get from watching the movie. Everything about the movie is spare, whittled down to an essential nub. The dialogue doesn't matter. What does matter are the long, silent scenes of Van Gogh in Nature and at home, and the times where he speaks directly to the audience, informing it of what it is to be Van Gogh. The occasionally jumpy camera shots and the overlapping dialogue may not have been completely necessary (and obviously a major turn-off for various other viewers), but they do help to establish what it may have been like to be Van Gogh. Madness? Sure, if that label works for you. Clearly, Van Gogh was different. Mad or not, he had his difficulties fitting in to society, any society. The last 20 minutes or so are the most painterly. After absorbing an hour of background material, all the film and Van Gogh have told you allows you to understand his world. When he talks about light, the screen is flooded with light, but even when the screen turns to gloom, you see the world as Van Gogh did. The walls are painted as they were in the background of a Van Gogh painting. And you the viewer? You sit back and drink it all in.
Van Gogh deserved a little more
alvesmarceloalves-737513 February 2019
Nietzsche once said that there are men who are born posthumous. Contemporary of the German philosopher, although it is not known if at any time he had read it, the Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh perhaps had the same feeling. One of the most interesting moments of "At the Eternity's Gate" is the conversation of a Van Gogh (Willem Defoe) hospitalized in the sanatorium and the priest lived by Madds Mikkelsen. Amid reflections on the roles of God and Jesus Christ, Van Gogh says he may have been born at the wrong time and will eventually paint pictures for individuals to come.
In fact, today the Dutchman who had a life surrounded by medical problems, got mutilated and only knew the misery that was not absolute thanks to the help of brother Theo (Rupert Friend), would only be more strongly recognized after his death. Today, he is a painter celebrated for his technique and the vigorous, exaggerated and intense manner with which he painted his paintings.
Much of what we see in "At the Eternity's Gate" is Van Gogh's quest for an almost divine element for his painting. "I paint the sunlight," he says. In fact, the brightness of southern France is what helps him leverage his technique. Julian Schnabel's film is very involved in this quest for luminosity. There are many ways and places from which Van Gogh looks at the sky to seek the perfect light and paint in a way never before seen.
And the more he plunges into that light, Van Gogh's curiously falls into the darkness of his own confused and restless mind. Neither brother nor friend Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) can get him out of this state, which turns out to be natural.
The period in which Gauguin, in fact, goes to Arles generates another of the good scenes of the film, which is precisely the debate between the two about painting what one sees in the way one wants to see, like Van Gogh, and to paint creatively from the which is in the head, which is what defends Gauguin. Obviously there is no conclusion. It's just interesting points of view.
Unfortunately, "At the Eternity's Gate" is repeated too much in the painting cycle, Van Gogh's madness and does not reveal new layers or reflections on the painter. In the same way, it does not bring new interpretations about its mysterious death, something better worked in the excellent animation "Loving Vincent".
Defoe's participation in the lead role even justifies his Oscar nomination. The actor convinces in the role of a Van Gogh who is at no time in his place and who lives desperately to paint, his only talent, the one that was granted him by God.
But if "At the Eternity's Gate" gives us some beautiful scenes by the light of the sun, it leaves to be desired with its narrative based on a conventional cinebiography and in those insights of always of geniuses. Suffering, pleasure, falling, redemption, death .... Van Gogh deserved more than just that.
In fact, today the Dutchman who had a life surrounded by medical problems, got mutilated and only knew the misery that was not absolute thanks to the help of brother Theo (Rupert Friend), would only be more strongly recognized after his death. Today, he is a painter celebrated for his technique and the vigorous, exaggerated and intense manner with which he painted his paintings.
Much of what we see in "At the Eternity's Gate" is Van Gogh's quest for an almost divine element for his painting. "I paint the sunlight," he says. In fact, the brightness of southern France is what helps him leverage his technique. Julian Schnabel's film is very involved in this quest for luminosity. There are many ways and places from which Van Gogh looks at the sky to seek the perfect light and paint in a way never before seen.
And the more he plunges into that light, Van Gogh's curiously falls into the darkness of his own confused and restless mind. Neither brother nor friend Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) can get him out of this state, which turns out to be natural.
The period in which Gauguin, in fact, goes to Arles generates another of the good scenes of the film, which is precisely the debate between the two about painting what one sees in the way one wants to see, like Van Gogh, and to paint creatively from the which is in the head, which is what defends Gauguin. Obviously there is no conclusion. It's just interesting points of view.
Unfortunately, "At the Eternity's Gate" is repeated too much in the painting cycle, Van Gogh's madness and does not reveal new layers or reflections on the painter. In the same way, it does not bring new interpretations about its mysterious death, something better worked in the excellent animation "Loving Vincent".
Defoe's participation in the lead role even justifies his Oscar nomination. The actor convinces in the role of a Van Gogh who is at no time in his place and who lives desperately to paint, his only talent, the one that was granted him by God.
But if "At the Eternity's Gate" gives us some beautiful scenes by the light of the sun, it leaves to be desired with its narrative based on a conventional cinebiography and in those insights of always of geniuses. Suffering, pleasure, falling, redemption, death .... Van Gogh deserved more than just that.
A must see
FrenchEddieFelson20 February 2019
The last years of Vincent van Gogh with his extreme sensitivity and mental instability. It's perfectly filmed with a colorful and adequate staging. And Willem Dafoe plays brilliantly!
whatever makes this movie good makes it bad.
bashandy-074855 February 2019
Uncomfortable to see, long silent scenes,no public locations,poor dialogues, all that was very smart and artistic way to show Vincent's life and how he was detached.but these ways among the whole movie,make it boring as it lacks the essential of any movie; a plot! Schnabel was on a great way to make a unique "Van Gogh" movie but he failed.he didn't present his artistic view of (Van Gogh) life in a way that make me interact or enjoy it till the end.
Uncomfortable to watch but that's what made it great (like the artist himself)
thomas129827 November 2018
This film tackles the story of an artist creating masterpieces for later generations but not for his own. All the techniques that bothered other reviewers--the handheld camera, loud piano soundtrack, looped dialog--all emphasized a life of loneliness and ridicule that made the audience experience those emotions.
Clearly the story lacked a typical plot, not so much because it wasn't there as much as that Van Gogh's story is so well known and portrayed. I sensed that my companions may have been wishing they had chosen a different movie but for me this film further added to the tapestry of Van Gogh's unique story. Plus the film addresses the two biggest points of contention about him ... his ear and his death ... and suggests that Van Gogh's character traits have turned those into unsolvable mysteries.
Clearly the story lacked a typical plot, not so much because it wasn't there as much as that Van Gogh's story is so well known and portrayed. I sensed that my companions may have been wishing they had chosen a different movie but for me this film further added to the tapestry of Van Gogh's unique story. Plus the film addresses the two biggest points of contention about him ... his ear and his death ... and suggests that Van Gogh's character traits have turned those into unsolvable mysteries.
"The main draw is absolutely the performances"
watchitwombat31 January 2019
"Today I learned that there are times when even people who enjoy 'art' films (what sometimes used to be called 'indie') can find them too much and At Eternity's Gate is unfortunately a perfect example. While it's a very worthwhile story and a pretty straightforward biopic on paper, it seems to have been made by someone who drank a bottle of absinthe and wants to fight people while vomiting.
It's not often I would absolutely say that a film was poorly directed, but this one is - at times maddeningly so. The film feels like it was made by a pretentious first year art school film student and the direction seemingly makes every attempt to get in the way of the brilliant costumes, locations, direction and acting. In attempting to make a very arty film about a master painter Vincent Van Gogh, director Julian Schnabel has really treated his audience in the same way Van Gogh's contemporary common people treated him - few understood his work. Unlike Van Gogh, I see little prospect of a posthumous celebration of art that was misunderstood in its time.
The techniques used to illustrate Vincent's growing mania and unique worldview constantly get in the way of the story, the acting and really, any real enjoyment of the film. The cinematography is especially frustrating, VERY handheld, picking angles that don't help the storytelling or characters and constantly distracting the audience's immersion in the story. Editing is brutal and the music and sound FX editing feel like the film is not actually finished.
Which is a pity, as there's a very worthwhile, quite well written story here, and there are moments of brilliance. The main draw is absolutely the performances - they're all top notch. Willem Dafoe is really brilliant here, inhabiting the role completely as Vincent van Gogh, while Rupert Friend is strong as Vincent's brother Theo Van Gogh, Oscar Isaac brings his brooding intensity as Vincent's good friend (and fellow artist) Paul Gauguin & Mads Mikkelsen is seen in an all to brief role as a man of the cloth. They are easily the best part of the film, it's a real pity that so much of the filmmaking gets in the way of their performances.
In some ways, it feels like a filmed stage play, or a film made by a theatre director who's only ever seen moving images at a modern art museum - in no way does this portrait of Vincent's late life in any way get close to really celebrating the great artist in a way that provokes emotion, wonder and opens him up to new audiences and fans. There's a great story here, but it's not in this film."
It's not often I would absolutely say that a film was poorly directed, but this one is - at times maddeningly so. The film feels like it was made by a pretentious first year art school film student and the direction seemingly makes every attempt to get in the way of the brilliant costumes, locations, direction and acting. In attempting to make a very arty film about a master painter Vincent Van Gogh, director Julian Schnabel has really treated his audience in the same way Van Gogh's contemporary common people treated him - few understood his work. Unlike Van Gogh, I see little prospect of a posthumous celebration of art that was misunderstood in its time.
The techniques used to illustrate Vincent's growing mania and unique worldview constantly get in the way of the story, the acting and really, any real enjoyment of the film. The cinematography is especially frustrating, VERY handheld, picking angles that don't help the storytelling or characters and constantly distracting the audience's immersion in the story. Editing is brutal and the music and sound FX editing feel like the film is not actually finished.
Which is a pity, as there's a very worthwhile, quite well written story here, and there are moments of brilliance. The main draw is absolutely the performances - they're all top notch. Willem Dafoe is really brilliant here, inhabiting the role completely as Vincent van Gogh, while Rupert Friend is strong as Vincent's brother Theo Van Gogh, Oscar Isaac brings his brooding intensity as Vincent's good friend (and fellow artist) Paul Gauguin & Mads Mikkelsen is seen in an all to brief role as a man of the cloth. They are easily the best part of the film, it's a real pity that so much of the filmmaking gets in the way of their performances.
In some ways, it feels like a filmed stage play, or a film made by a theatre director who's only ever seen moving images at a modern art museum - in no way does this portrait of Vincent's late life in any way get close to really celebrating the great artist in a way that provokes emotion, wonder and opens him up to new audiences and fans. There's a great story here, but it's not in this film."
- Ben
Existential Themes, and a Riveting Cast
Tail_End_Charlie8 November 2018
This film succeeds in various ways: Dafoe delivers a marvelous portrayal of van Gogh, and Rupert Friend offers a dignified performance as Theo, his brother. The production design, costuming, and lush landscapes are all outstanding. As someone who has seen most of the films directed by Schnabel, I find him an insightful, astute director, yet I wish he would have introduced more nuance into certain scenes.
The invigorating piano score suffers from an overblown volume at various times. At the pre-release screening, more than a handful of people walked out of the film, midway. I think they were overwhelmed by a dizzy combination of loud music and jumpy, blurred camera techniques. As for me, the approach worked, adding a visceral punch.
Some of the dialogue was culled from Vincent's letters to his brother, and Dafoe rendered the text with a vulnerable immediacy. Several roles were aptly cast, but could have benefited from additional screen time: Isaac (as Gauguin), Almaric (Dr. Gachet), and Seigner (Madame Ginoux).
The invigorating piano score suffers from an overblown volume at various times. At the pre-release screening, more than a handful of people walked out of the film, midway. I think they were overwhelmed by a dizzy combination of loud music and jumpy, blurred camera techniques. As for me, the approach worked, adding a visceral punch.
Some of the dialogue was culled from Vincent's letters to his brother, and Dafoe rendered the text with a vulnerable immediacy. Several roles were aptly cast, but could have benefited from additional screen time: Isaac (as Gauguin), Almaric (Dr. Gachet), and Seigner (Madame Ginoux).
Severely marred by amateurish camera work
skepticskeptical13 October 2019
I wanted to like this film, but for the entire first half I was constantly distracted by the dots produced by reflections off camera lenses. When I take a photo with those red or yellow or blue dots (because the sun is too direct), I write it off as an error and thank myself for having shot lots of other images from different angles. I have no idea how a professional cameraman could have allowed this to happen over and over again. Near the end, there was a huge line in the middle of the frame for entire scenes. Perhaps this was intended to convey van Gogh´s bleary and confused perspective of his surroundings, but in the first half of the film, the images were *of* van Gogh, and so the same explanation cannot be given.
Aside from the shoddy (and often shaky) camerawork, I found the pace to be entirely too slow, even soporific, and gratuitously so. I do think that Willem Dafoe did a decent job, and he was a good choice, appearance wise, for the role, but overall I found this effort mediocre, as evidenced by the fact that I had to take several breaks to get through it. Of course, I felt the same way about Basquiat, so maybe I just do not share the aesthetic vision and values of Julian Schnabel? At least this ¨biopic by a fellow artist¨ does not present the subject as entirely pathetic. Distance probably helps to temper jealousy.
Aside from the shoddy (and often shaky) camerawork, I found the pace to be entirely too slow, even soporific, and gratuitously so. I do think that Willem Dafoe did a decent job, and he was a good choice, appearance wise, for the role, but overall I found this effort mediocre, as evidenced by the fact that I had to take several breaks to get through it. Of course, I felt the same way about Basquiat, so maybe I just do not share the aesthetic vision and values of Julian Schnabel? At least this ¨biopic by a fellow artist¨ does not present the subject as entirely pathetic. Distance probably helps to temper jealousy.
Visually Stunning, but the Dialog?
bopperbopper7 November 2018
The visuals were stunning...this movie gives a glimpse of Van Gogh from his point of view, which the other many movies on Van Gogh have not done. Read any critic's review and they will describe it.
However, I have some issues: 1) The hand held camera is used to show his troubled mind...but it was so shaky at points I had to close my eyes
2) Dafoe's dialogue is in Contemporary American English. The producer said that it was conceivable that Van Gogh spoke English. But the movie did not give Van Gogh a dutch accent nor did he speak in 1880's English.
3) The dialog seemed like it was from a text book...actually more like a sophomore college essay about Van Gogh. The dialog was based on letters by Van Gogh...but it was distracting because it did not sound of the period or the time.
4) this movie dragged onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
However, I have some issues: 1) The hand held camera is used to show his troubled mind...but it was so shaky at points I had to close my eyes
2) Dafoe's dialogue is in Contemporary American English. The producer said that it was conceivable that Van Gogh spoke English. But the movie did not give Van Gogh a dutch accent nor did he speak in 1880's English.
3) The dialog seemed like it was from a text book...actually more like a sophomore college essay about Van Gogh. The dialog was based on letters by Van Gogh...but it was distracting because it did not sound of the period or the time.
4) this movie dragged onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Still searching
TheDragonTrader14 April 2021
Vincent Van Gogh was a tortured soul that was, paradoxically, obsessed with beauty and wonder. Julian Schnabel (director) tries to give us a glimpse into the mind of the painter with this film and he delivers. This movie is not a biopic. It is more of an homage, an attempt to make us look at the world the way Vincent did.
With a dynamic camera, often hand-held, we wander around with Van Gogh (Willem Dafoe) trying to find interesting and striking images of nature, villages, people... The camera is always searching; different lenses, different angels, different distances... It finds new and inventive ways of filming. For example the split diopter is used, not to bring two objects into focus, but to blur par of the screen; and since Vincent had an eye condition, we are truly put in the artists shoes. Such a shame the movie at times loses itself in its eager to find yet another camera angle.
Sometimes a voice-over paints another image on top of what is shown. The score paints an atmosphere of ecstasy with a darker undertone. And Willem Dafoe paints an A+ performance, but he does it so well other actors sometimes disappear into his shadow.
Yet, this movie is an experience worth exploring. However it's tempo occasionally falters and instead of one long smooth stroke over the canvas, it sometimes feels more like a rough patchwork of different stories. It's sometimes messy, sometimes incredibly beautiful. Quite like Van Gogh.
This movie is not for everyone. Those who shiver when encountering vague, artsy-fartsy movies that call themselves art, better turn elsewhere. But those who can appreciate this way of filming and especially those who love Van Gogh's work, will adore this dreamlike exploration of Vincent's mind.
With a dynamic camera, often hand-held, we wander around with Van Gogh (Willem Dafoe) trying to find interesting and striking images of nature, villages, people... The camera is always searching; different lenses, different angels, different distances... It finds new and inventive ways of filming. For example the split diopter is used, not to bring two objects into focus, but to blur par of the screen; and since Vincent had an eye condition, we are truly put in the artists shoes. Such a shame the movie at times loses itself in its eager to find yet another camera angle.
Sometimes a voice-over paints another image on top of what is shown. The score paints an atmosphere of ecstasy with a darker undertone. And Willem Dafoe paints an A+ performance, but he does it so well other actors sometimes disappear into his shadow.
Yet, this movie is an experience worth exploring. However it's tempo occasionally falters and instead of one long smooth stroke over the canvas, it sometimes feels more like a rough patchwork of different stories. It's sometimes messy, sometimes incredibly beautiful. Quite like Van Gogh.
This movie is not for everyone. Those who shiver when encountering vague, artsy-fartsy movies that call themselves art, better turn elsewhere. But those who can appreciate this way of filming and especially those who love Van Gogh's work, will adore this dreamlike exploration of Vincent's mind.
Masterful.
iamichor12 November 2019
At Eternity's Gate is an amazing piece of art. I will admit that in order to fully appreciate its artistic offerings one would most definitely need very minor prior knowledge to who Vincent Van Gogh was. What his ideologies were, and the major events of his life, as well as his relationship with his brother. The way lines are repeated multiple times in a way that sounds like an echo chamber to show the audience the way Vincent is perceiving conversation on a delay, rationally speaking. One critique I see a lot is of the very long scenes of Vincent running around in wilderness looking for something to paint, and the overbearing music that surrounds those scenes. I disagree with these critiques but I do understand them. I feel it was necessary to have this music in order for the audience to understand the pure child-like joy Vincent felt while looking for something to paint, and while experiencing nature. I highly recommend this film for any Vincent Van Gogh fans. It is just shy of a perfect movie in my opinion, but I can see why someone would very much disagree with that.
Interesting film
aleksanderk-953507 April 2021
At eternity's gate was a very interesting film for me. Willem Dafoe gave a great performance as the painter. With many well acted scenes, really bringing Van Gogh to life on the big screen. The plot was a bit weak in the film. I feel like they used the beautiful cinematography in the film. To make up for the shallow plot in the film. Overall I recommend checking this film out.
See the World Through Van Gogh's Eyes
linen-723945 December 2018
If this movie is playing in your area, don't miss it. Beautiful, poignant, historically accurate, its dialogue is lifted directly from Van Gogh's correspondence with his contemporaries. Vincent, Theo, and Gauguin come alive as do the people in his portraiture. Willem Dafoe's performance as Vincent is jaw dropping. Dafoe's gaunt presentation as Van Gogh's self portrait after slicing off his ear, fur cap on his head, against that saffron yellow wall, radiates an intensity and humanity so often missing biopics of artists. Think you know yellow? Think again. Once you've seen this film, you'll think of Van Gogh with a tenderness usually reserved for your child. See it now if you can.
Beautiful scenery but...
avasikhye28 December 2018
The movie is visually stunning however the dialogue and plot are confusing and jumbled. It is not entirely historically accurate either and bites off much more than it can chew in terms of storytelling. Additionally, the camerawork is purposefully shaky for the entirety of the movie but does not add much to the actual plot. If you get motion sickness, beware.
Poem
Muhamed_Battiekh20 August 2019
AGghHgGGHh
will-40-62506724 February 2019
Ok ok ok, I RECOGNIZE that this was intended to be more of an art film (no pun intended) than a biopic-and I respect that- but MY GOD THIS IS VINCENT VAN GOGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The madman! The genius! The tortured soul! Where was the drama?? Where was the emotion?? Yes it was in Willem Dafoe's superlative acting but that's hardly enough on its own, it has to be EARNED!
There was ZZZZZERO character development. The narrative structure and pacing was Garbâge. Van Gogh's story is Endlessely deep, and rich and this movie barely scratches the surface! Of His character, of the Other characters, or of his relationships to them! All we get is a bunch of disjointed, ponderous aphorisms.
The score was also one of my biggest complaints. I suppose they were going for a sort of minimalist approach, but it was just so inappropriate. There was no melody; no emotion when it was needed. Like if it was me I would have had strings and an entire orchestra but even then you don't need all that to make a powerful, moving soundtrack. Just look at Clint Mansell (his piano pieces I mean).
Most of the rest of the issues I had with the film have to do with a lot of Schnabel's creative decisions. Like I understand that he was trying to give us an insight into Van Gogh mind but there are ways of doing that without completely alienating us. I mean come on, the overlapping dialogue just sounded awful. And man there was some bad editing- some really careless cuts. Not to mention the shaky camera work (which I don't even seem to mind as much as everybody else) or the characters' lack of accents (probably the laziest part of the whole movie). There were really just so many-too many-things that took me out of the film. And worst of all, I never felt ANY connection to the characters..
I know, I know I know it's an art film and not a biopic but SURELY we still need to feel SOME connection to the characters, don't we?? These are still stories, not.. music videos..
All in all I think this was a huge missed opportunity. Both as a biopic or an art film. I'd much sooner rewatch Loving Vincent.
There was ZZZZZERO character development. The narrative structure and pacing was Garbâge. Van Gogh's story is Endlessely deep, and rich and this movie barely scratches the surface! Of His character, of the Other characters, or of his relationships to them! All we get is a bunch of disjointed, ponderous aphorisms.
The score was also one of my biggest complaints. I suppose they were going for a sort of minimalist approach, but it was just so inappropriate. There was no melody; no emotion when it was needed. Like if it was me I would have had strings and an entire orchestra but even then you don't need all that to make a powerful, moving soundtrack. Just look at Clint Mansell (his piano pieces I mean).
Most of the rest of the issues I had with the film have to do with a lot of Schnabel's creative decisions. Like I understand that he was trying to give us an insight into Van Gogh mind but there are ways of doing that without completely alienating us. I mean come on, the overlapping dialogue just sounded awful. And man there was some bad editing- some really careless cuts. Not to mention the shaky camera work (which I don't even seem to mind as much as everybody else) or the characters' lack of accents (probably the laziest part of the whole movie). There were really just so many-too many-things that took me out of the film. And worst of all, I never felt ANY connection to the characters..
I know, I know I know it's an art film and not a biopic but SURELY we still need to feel SOME connection to the characters, don't we?? These are still stories, not.. music videos..
All in all I think this was a huge missed opportunity. Both as a biopic or an art film. I'd much sooner rewatch Loving Vincent.
Excellent lead performance but can try the patience of the viewer
RMurray8478 January 2021
AT ETERNITY'S GATE is by no stretch meant to be a pure biography of Van Gogh. I think you need to already be familiar with some of the outlines of his story and it would help to be an appreciator of his work already. What we're really seeing here is director Julian Schnabel's attempt to show us the world as seen through the eyes of Van Gogh. How did he see things and what inspired him. What drove him to madness? What frustrated him in his relations with people? How did he slip into madness (if, indeed, he did)?
Hence, there are a lot of shots of scenery seen through Van Gogh's eyes. I don't know if star Willem Dafoe had a go-pro strapped to his head, or what...but we see walking feet, we see the ground, then the sky, then the landscape...over and over. We see him painting. We see him sitting still and contemplating the land around him. If you can give yourself over to this, it is fairly effective. Instead of wondering when something will happen, just try to experience what you're seeing and hearing. You may be drawn into seeing how Van Gogh saw beauty in the rough landscape around him and how he could NOT stop from painting it in a fever of wanting to catch it before it slipped away. At the same time, these scenes teeter on the edge of tedium.
There are more conventional scenes, to be sure. We see interactions between Van Gogh and Paul Gaughin (Oscar Isaac) and an extensive conversation between Van Gogh and a priest (the excellent Mads Mikkelsen). However, these scenes are full of characters talking about how they see art and the world around them...they speak to each other in lectures. So, the dialogue is not convincing...but it IS interesting. Again, I think it may help to already be interested in Van Gogh.
Scenes with Vincent and his brother Theo (Rupert Friend) are more poignant and personal, along with his interactions with the villagers around him. We see his awkwardness with people and yet feel his need to connect. We get a sense of his crushing poverty. (By the way, Dafoe is WAY too old to be playing this part...but his unusual face actually seems right for the role. No doubt Van Gogh would have been weary and weathered at the end of his life. Dafoe, overall, is pretty darn good here.)
It's an effective movie in many regards, but I tried hard to let myself be completely swept away by it and couldn't quite escape my impatience from time to time.
(I will say that if I were an art teacher; this would be a great film to show my college class. Study the bio of Van Gogh from a textbook, and then show this film. I've never seen a better attempt to put the viewer into the mind, or even psyche, of a great painter. It's a very noble, worthwhile effort. Very much for art lovers, or those wishing to be.)
Hence, there are a lot of shots of scenery seen through Van Gogh's eyes. I don't know if star Willem Dafoe had a go-pro strapped to his head, or what...but we see walking feet, we see the ground, then the sky, then the landscape...over and over. We see him painting. We see him sitting still and contemplating the land around him. If you can give yourself over to this, it is fairly effective. Instead of wondering when something will happen, just try to experience what you're seeing and hearing. You may be drawn into seeing how Van Gogh saw beauty in the rough landscape around him and how he could NOT stop from painting it in a fever of wanting to catch it before it slipped away. At the same time, these scenes teeter on the edge of tedium.
There are more conventional scenes, to be sure. We see interactions between Van Gogh and Paul Gaughin (Oscar Isaac) and an extensive conversation between Van Gogh and a priest (the excellent Mads Mikkelsen). However, these scenes are full of characters talking about how they see art and the world around them...they speak to each other in lectures. So, the dialogue is not convincing...but it IS interesting. Again, I think it may help to already be interested in Van Gogh.
Scenes with Vincent and his brother Theo (Rupert Friend) are more poignant and personal, along with his interactions with the villagers around him. We see his awkwardness with people and yet feel his need to connect. We get a sense of his crushing poverty. (By the way, Dafoe is WAY too old to be playing this part...but his unusual face actually seems right for the role. No doubt Van Gogh would have been weary and weathered at the end of his life. Dafoe, overall, is pretty darn good here.)
It's an effective movie in many regards, but I tried hard to let myself be completely swept away by it and couldn't quite escape my impatience from time to time.
(I will say that if I were an art teacher; this would be a great film to show my college class. Study the bio of Van Gogh from a textbook, and then show this film. I've never seen a better attempt to put the viewer into the mind, or even psyche, of a great painter. It's a very noble, worthwhile effort. Very much for art lovers, or those wishing to be.)
Julian shoots himself in the foot
lor_3 November 2018
Stealing many a technique from far better filmmakers, Julian Schnabel botches this obviously personal film about Van Gogh. It fails to deliver any insight into the artist and is surprisingly stupid in terms of its treatment of basic themes.
Schnabel begins by stealing the technique developed over 40 years ago by director Peter Watkins, best known for his "Edvard Munch" film that JS certainly has seen. It is the "You Are There" approach to presenting period material, ironically adapted from the 1950s CBS TV series of that name (CBS Films is releasing "At Eternity's Gate"). Watkins uses the conceit of a first-person camera documentary crew on the scene photographing and interviewing characters from previous centuries (before cinema had been invented), and Schnabel repeatedly uses hand-held & first-person camera that proves to be annoying and distracting from letting the viewer enter Van Gogh's 19th Century milieu.
For Vincent's immediate point-of-view we are subjected repetitively to camera mounted on (presumably) star Dafoe's chest aimed at his legs walking and the ground beneath, a technique Nic Roeg used memorably in the 1967 Hardy adaptation of "Far From the Madding Crowd". Completing a trifecta of self-defeating steals, many shots from Van Gogh's POV have the bottom half of the camera lens covered with vaseline to create a blurring effect, an artistic approach which was developed in the 1960s by the unsung masters of stylization (or over-stylization if one is not a fan of their work), the son/father team of Jean-Gabriel and Quinto Albicocco, famed for their classic adaptation of "Le Grand Meaulnes".
Another disastrous technique has several dialogue exchanges repeated on the soundtrack in mind-numbing fashion, as if our heavy-handed director was trying to underline their importance. Main themes covered in the movie revolve around Van Gogh and Gauguin's differing ideas about what drives the creative artist and how he should approach his art, but even though actors do a good job at their craft (acting), both Dafoe and Oscar Isaac, the dialog is blunt and unsubtle, like the rest of the movie.
Worse yet, Schnabel refuses to let the viewer do any independent viewing, forcing one to look at what the director wants, especially in the ill-advised shaky hand-held sections. In a film about art one should be permitted to rove arouund looking at what's in the frame independent of such artificial spoon-feeding, and even when a painting or the creation of one (by Schnabel or Dafoe's hand) is shown we are denied the chance to linger and absorb the content.
So we are left with a remote, unmoving portrait of the artist as a troubled individual, gleaning next to nothing about him or his art. Post-movie emphasis (in the end credits) on a notebook of drawings not discovered till 2016 is strictly a gimmicky anti-climax, worthy of a horror movie director rather than an artist turned director.
Schnabel begins by stealing the technique developed over 40 years ago by director Peter Watkins, best known for his "Edvard Munch" film that JS certainly has seen. It is the "You Are There" approach to presenting period material, ironically adapted from the 1950s CBS TV series of that name (CBS Films is releasing "At Eternity's Gate"). Watkins uses the conceit of a first-person camera documentary crew on the scene photographing and interviewing characters from previous centuries (before cinema had been invented), and Schnabel repeatedly uses hand-held & first-person camera that proves to be annoying and distracting from letting the viewer enter Van Gogh's 19th Century milieu.
For Vincent's immediate point-of-view we are subjected repetitively to camera mounted on (presumably) star Dafoe's chest aimed at his legs walking and the ground beneath, a technique Nic Roeg used memorably in the 1967 Hardy adaptation of "Far From the Madding Crowd". Completing a trifecta of self-defeating steals, many shots from Van Gogh's POV have the bottom half of the camera lens covered with vaseline to create a blurring effect, an artistic approach which was developed in the 1960s by the unsung masters of stylization (or over-stylization if one is not a fan of their work), the son/father team of Jean-Gabriel and Quinto Albicocco, famed for their classic adaptation of "Le Grand Meaulnes".
Another disastrous technique has several dialogue exchanges repeated on the soundtrack in mind-numbing fashion, as if our heavy-handed director was trying to underline their importance. Main themes covered in the movie revolve around Van Gogh and Gauguin's differing ideas about what drives the creative artist and how he should approach his art, but even though actors do a good job at their craft (acting), both Dafoe and Oscar Isaac, the dialog is blunt and unsubtle, like the rest of the movie.
Worse yet, Schnabel refuses to let the viewer do any independent viewing, forcing one to look at what the director wants, especially in the ill-advised shaky hand-held sections. In a film about art one should be permitted to rove arouund looking at what's in the frame independent of such artificial spoon-feeding, and even when a painting or the creation of one (by Schnabel or Dafoe's hand) is shown we are denied the chance to linger and absorb the content.
So we are left with a remote, unmoving portrait of the artist as a troubled individual, gleaning next to nothing about him or his art. Post-movie emphasis (in the end credits) on a notebook of drawings not discovered till 2016 is strictly a gimmicky anti-climax, worthy of a horror movie director rather than an artist turned director.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
