ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

chaos-rampant This was a big thing when it came out, fellow Greek readers will attest to that. It was aggressively promoted as both 'expensive' and 'prestigious', it seems a rare thing for Greek cinema. The story went that the filmmaker had to mortgage his own house to finance his vision, proof of bold artistic merit. The movie played theatrically for what seemed like endless months - to make back its partly government-subsidized budget the rumor goes, since little interest materialized abroad. Schools planned 'educational' trips to the cinema, probably for the same reason.How small it seems now. You can see loftier production values on TV, and probably much better acting and a less grating parade of profundities.What really offends though is the spirit behind the work. It's not that it is dull and completely without insight about its own craft. It is both these things, but that's a simple incompetence. I mean, here is a film about a man of extraordinary vision who wanted to paint with light, and the 'inspirational' film about him is wholly ordinary, as lush and spiritual as perfume. What poor use of Aris Stavrou, who once liked to puzzle (next to Nikos Nikolaidis) about texture and light.It's that Smaragdis hoped to capture a bit of Greek soul (not necessarily historical 'truth') and journey with it abroad, a noble aim. Capture us as we dream ourselves to be, feisty and passionate Zorbas, made pensive by centuries of hardship - a bit like Kusturica did for the neighboring Yugoslavs.The film is set in those centuries of foreign rule, Italian and Ottoman elsewhere. There was no Rennaisance allowed in those times, it would be good to note, no lofty national art as they could develop in the salons of Western Europe. Our painting was religious. Our theater was song and dance, from Thrace to Crete. The collective soul had to pour that way, which is why they still persist and resonate so strongly in these parts - as elsewhere in the former empire.You will know it's all phony by watching the scene of proud Cretans dancing after a skirmish with the Italians. You'd think, if there was a bit of ancient Greek song rising from the earth, it would be in that scene. If you are ever in the region, go to a Cretan wedding or folk fest, in fact anywhere in rural Greece during times of celebration. Then watch the posturing in the film. Dismal.If you want to know a bit about these things, to see actual Balkan spirit, seek out a man called Sergei Parajanov. He was Armenian who made films under Soviet rule, but it is the same soul he captured.

thinkMovies The screenplay is at times good, the sets and costumes passable, the story is good and nearer to the truth than most biopics -it even attempts to wove social and philosophical themes into the life of a gifted artist and his relationship with the man who admired him but could not become him.But, the photography is standard fare -as if it were made for television. The cinematographer fails miserably to grasp the opportunity afforded by telling the life of a painter in authoring with light and shadow and colors. It seems they did nothing but use textbook light and print what was in the camera without any of the care that makes Spielberg's cinematographers worth applauding.The direction is honest but it falls into the trap of directing actors in what to do and how to do it, instead of allowing them to breathe their own life into the film, for themselves. The actors, most of the time are the slaves of the cinematographer as puppets in ever-changing dramatic photographs.Nick Ashdon portrayed the main character as well as he was allowed by a limp and insecure director -unfortunately watching Nick Ashdon as El Greco was an exercise in trying to remember that I was not watching Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love.Juan Diego Botto as Niño de Guevara must have, in rehearsals, given director Smaragdis an expression from a certain camera angle that the director liked a lot, so he must have asked Botto to keep repeating it throughout the movie.There are some really bizarre moments of editing that make you wonder whether the director was interfering in the editor's work without the skill to do so, or whether the editor sneaked-in a few cuts that the director missed before the release. Then again they might have both been trying to make a dramatic statement but the efforts bore no fruit.This film is a genuinely honest effort by a genuine Greek director and crew to make a labor of love in telling the story and the soul of a great man. I urge you to watch it with this in mind. Because otherwise you will watch a film where the director, despite his passion, just didn't have what it takes.

Cédric Magnien Well, I guess I never saw such a pathetic movie. The actors are absolutely ridiculous, acting at a tragi-comic level which would be hilarious if it would be volunteer. The directing is absolutely show-off, with a pointless use of multiple huge movements of camera, but without defined subjects, which creates a deep impression of emptiness in any single shot of this movie. To make a Hollywood-like movie doesn't consist only in moving the camera in big panoramic shots showing lots of expensive (though sometimes quite "cheap looking") costumes.There's no use of the image's depth, no correct framing, it is just a piece of work trying to achieve the aesthetic of the American productions, but without the knowledge of cinema necessary to achieve such a production.But the worst is still to come: the dialogues, the characters and of course, because they have to act it, the actors.The guy who plays Titiano is doing quite well... except that he has for the most 3 lines to say. And there's nothing presenting the influence he had on El Greco, whereas he could have lift the movie by his good acting. That's all. All the rest is pathetic.The dialogues are like coming from a Monthy Python 3rd degree film (where do they find such a tragically bad writer, by the way? Did this guy ever saw "real" movies? Is he watching only Greek serials?), and anyway the actors would certainly not have been able to put good dialogues into live action (at least considering the low performance they achieved all the movie long...).But the most disappointing part is the characters: the evolution of the relations between the two main characters (El Greco and De Guevara), which could have been interesting, is treated without any nuances (El Greco super white shiny hero and De Guevara super bad black dark guy... the Light on one side and the Shadow on the other... even George Lucas was more subtle in Star Wars when he created the characters of Darth Vador and Luke Skywalker!!! although they were pretty poor characters...;-)Stays the striking line: "Can light overcome darkness?" Thanksfully, El Greco is dead and will never discover how strong becomes darkness when cinema comes to the hands of such illiterate "artists". Light in this movie? Maybe the light of lovely Crete at the beginning (when it is not cheap computer generated images), and through a window at some point, but that's all. Everything else consists in deep darkness!I didn't even mention the hilarious (thus tragic, since they are aiming at being serious!) acting of Dimitra Matsouka and Lakis Lazopoulos, who should better stay on TV...as the director, the dialogs writer and the script-writer.TV is a cheap entertainment, cinema is an art. Some people should understand it before waisting money.El Greco getting an Oscar? Guys, let's be serious: Nyfes was a real movie and didn't get any. Politikh Kouzina was an interesting period movie, and didn't win anything. How could El Greco be even just nominated. It would be insulting the cinema community! Hollywood might produces awful and stupid movies, but at least most of the time they hire guys who know a bit what is cinema!If "Plan 9 from outer-space" wasn't so unreachable, El Greco could certainly compete for the worst movie ever (at least for the "Worst Serious Expensive Movie Ever").

sallyheard I found the film annoying and typically absent of a dialogue worthy of an adult mind. El Greco's paintings have been a source of intellectual debate both on political and artistic merit for all who have been inspired by them. This film strips the artist of any personality worthy of interest let alone 'greatness'. As a film I found it a flamboyant show of theatrical characterisations intent on visually seducing the audience, instead of intellectually rousing them. It has been a long time since I burst out laughing at a scene intended to make me weep, and for this I feel strangely ashamed. Contradictions run rife throughout the film ending with a grand finale close to comical. I hasten to add that the leading actors did the best they could and there were two memorable scenes for me - but I came away feeling that a particular style of theatre had been taken to the screen - with a script gasping for help!