Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Kirpianuscus a satire. a bitter portrait of a too old reality. a parable. or only a story by Bunuel. like each of his films, a challenge. or more than one of challenges. because it represents more than a social critic. the motif - it is the story of contemporary realities more than one of the "60's. the isolation. the captivity, the need to return to old formulas for become, again, part of normal are traits of a film with virtue of warning. and this could be the cause for it remains, long time after you see, present in memory. as a dark picture of a world defined by fear and instinct.

tomgillespie2002 'L'enfer c'est les autres' (Hell is other people), wrote the French existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, in his play, 'No Exit' (sometimes referred to - and has been performed - as 'In Camera'), that surmised the narrative of three deceased individuals locked in a room, one that they eventually realise they will be spending eternity together in. Luis Bunuel used this simple meta-narrative concept of people trapped, to create one of his finest satires, and his first explicitly surrealist film since L'Age D'Or (1930). After Bunuel's previous film, Viridiana (1961), was condemned by the Vatican and banned in his native country of Spain (and where it was made), he moved back to Mexico where he had been making films throughout the 1940's and 50's, and produced a scabrous attack on General Francisco Franco's Spanish fascist dictatorship, and the institutions, and bourgeois facets of the country that were founded on the destruction of the poor and the proletariat, during the civil war that ended in 1939.Whilst the film works as political allegory, on a base narrative level, it functions as an irrational comedy; or farce. The guests arrive for a lavish dinner, but as they arrive, the maids leave, and progressively all the hired help leave them. Once dinner is complete, the guests congregate in the living room, but they all begin to realise that they are unable to leave the room at all. When this is discovered we observe that they attempt to go, but are either distracted or simply stop or break down at the boundary of the room. This continues through days, possibly months - the characters concept of time completely obliterated. The group falls into decay, primitive urges overwhelm them, and as this representation of Western Civilisation breaks down, the group become brutally savage, turning on the host of the dinner, demanding sacrifice. The group slaughter the lambs that were originally to be used in a dinner prank.At first the guests seem to simply ignore what is happening to them, and continue with inane chat. Exterior to the "party", the grounds are surrounded, but not even the police are able to enter, given the same mysterious barrier that prevents entry. It's almost a perfect parable, illustrating the ignorance of the Spanish bourgeoisie, as they strip the rights and dignity of the proletariat (here the maids leave on their arrival), whilst divorcing their minds from the violence and corruption of a dictatorship. But with this, it also shows how even the "civilised" sections of society, once they are stripped of their social status, their inherited manners of "education", and their ability to use wealth, the fall into absolute decay, probably falling apart greater than the lower classes, with their lessened moral outlook, and an almost infantile inability to deal with regular obstacles.Winner of the 1962 Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival, this was to begin what become (rather belatedly for the 62 year old) his most productive, celebrated and interesting period of his career, based in Paris, beginning with Belle de Jour (1967) and ending with That Obscure Object of Desire (1977). This is the period that he developed and expanded his own style, and his unique vision on film. The Exterminating Angel has also given inspiration for others. It is a clear influence on Jean-Luc Godard's wonderfully bleak and satiric depiction of the bourgeoisie and the end of Western Civilisation, Week End (1967). The idea was also utilised in one sketch from Monty Python's Meaning of Life (1983), that saw the guests leaving as ghosts. This is by far, one of his greatest achievements, beautifully realised, with comic touches, and moments of surrealism that both bemuse and amuse.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

John Carney So I've entered into an agreement with my friend Jose who is originally from Spain and now lives in Paris. We're going to pick movies for each other to watch and review. The idea is to get us both out of our normal viewing routines and expose us to something different. The Exterminating Angel was Jose's first pick for me.I'll start off by saying most of Jose's choices in movies are a darker than mine. Jose said that Luis Bunuel is one of his favorite directors and that this was one of his more accessible films. I purposely did not read any reviews of the movie before watching it so that I could develop my own opinions. I read some other reviews afterward to see what other viewers thought.Overall, the movie felt like a combination of a long Twilight Zone episode combined with a surrealistic art house film. The director was clearly making a commentary on the upper class of Mexico at the time the movie was made, including much of the inane interaction that typically happens at social events. The repetitive dialog in some of the scenes showed a lack of interest by some of the characters in each other.Despite being part of the elite of Mexico's society, the group of antagonists was clearly dependent upon their servants. Once the servants disappeared, the veneer of civility began to quickly fade. Bunuel did have a couple of instances where a scene repeated itself, but I frankly did not understand why.The device of having the party guests trapped in the room was never explained, and I think I preferred it that way. As the days began to pass, the feeling of hopelessness became palpable. It was also interesting that those outside of the house were not able to get in as well. One possible interpretation is that they became trapped by their own social conformity. More than a few characters commented on why the others had not left the party, yet none of them attempted to do so. Bunuel may have been saying that this type of social conformity will eventually lead to a societal breakdown. Or perhaps he was saying something different. I don't know for sure.I was a bit surprised that the guests eventually did get out of the room and the house, albeit with some casualties. However, the last scene in the Church with which Bunuel concluded the film was clearly a jab at the Catholic Church. The scene of the goats running into the Church was a bit humorous.Overall, the movie was interesting but it did seem a bit dated to me. However, since I know very little about Spanish or Mexican cinema of the early 60's, I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered avant-garde at the time it was released.

felixoteiza Reading these reviews I notice that people keep making the mistake of judging a film by the intentions of its creator. So, if Buñuel says that TEA doesn't have a meaning we got to believe him so. That's wrong. We have to understand that what distinguishes an artist from the rest of us is his/her capacity to bring to the open in a orderly, harmonic fashion what lies hidden in his/her--or in the collective--subconscious mind, many times without even being aware of its meaning. For that reason his/her opinion on the finished artwork is just as good as ours. Now, in what most of us agree is that there's a metaphor here somewhere; and knowing about Buñuel's rather poor opinion of the upper crust it's just too tempting to jump into the "useless-without-the-workers-loafers" wagon. But I find that just too easy; as that is something we would see anyway in any of his movies, even if the subject was an extraterrestrial invasion. The anti-bourgeoisie angle was something to be expected of him, which doesn't mean it has to be the central, or unique, topic of this film.What I think Buñuel's dealing with here, more than anything else, is mental traps; or rather mind prisons. Mental prisons in which people fall, for reasons that may have their origin in circumstances, traditions or in simple mindsets. Now, if you think I'm talking theory, let me mention this most famous ex.: Einstein was able to discover the Theory of Relativity mostly because of his faith in Mathematics, as he thought that everything in the physical world comes codified in numbers and so each one of its mysteries could be likely solved by putting numbers in it; i.e. by putting it into mathematical form--in equations & formulas. That seems logical and sensible. But then to his surprise, came the Quantum Mechanics revolution--which has given us computers, Internet, DVDs, etc--but which states that the physical world is much weirder than what he ever thought & that many things in it happen randomly, by mere probability. Einstein never accepted that--God doesn't play with die, was his famous reply. He never accepted the laws of physics that have given us much of what's part of our daily lives, including Ipods, Tweeters and cell phones. For him, his own image of the world was more important than all what was happening around him. He had fallen in a mental prison, just like the characters in TEA. These people have all come to believe they can't get out of that room simply because that idea has gotten stuck in their heads, is part now of their mental reality, which is confirmed to them every time one tries, unsuccessfully, to do so--or rather the room embodies the idea, mindset in question in the metaphor).I know this explanation won't satisfy those who look for the anti-bourgeoisie angle, but I think I can fill up that hole. These people have lost their freedom of movements because of the mental trap they have fallen into, I said. Now this can only be conceived if they are otherwise able to move freely--or the thing won't fly. And the leisure class is the only one that fills such a condition. They are the only people who may get out of bed, or not, next morning simply because they are not forced to earn a living. With any other social class--middle, lower--this plot wouldn't work. In that case people would have simply broken out of the room because if they are not at their desks, production lines, kitchens, early next morning they'll be disciplined or fired. So this plot is only possible with people who does have usually the freedom of doing whatever they wish next morning and the upper crust is the only one capable of doing that. Buñuel may have been all anti-elite you want but he was above an artist and for him was foremost to put the right characters into the right plot--not that he didn't enjoy throwing more than a few jabs to the gold laden in this one anyway.Besides that, most of what we see here is filling: bits of personal experiences, of dreams, of social meetings. For all I said, I don't think the house workers' flight means the loafers' dependence on them. Anyway, as a leftist, Buñuel preferred to paint workers in a more proactive way, I imagine, and in his world they deal with reality, with practical things, so at the time of the metaphors they must be out of the picture.Good cinematography; the B/W is perfect here for the mood and the atmosphere. I love how Buñuel can make his actors say the most unlikely, absurd, things without flinching. And see how self-conscious these slackers are, compared to the European bourgeois in Discreet Charm (far more relaxed & désinvolte) because of their perennial Third World complex, always striving not to bee seen as "Indians with bows & arrows" (that, Buñuel never got it: that his Mexican actors were doing a good job, but impersonating their own upper crust, not the European, as he wished).