CBS Films | Release Date: November 16, 2018
7.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 96 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
67
Mixed:
25
Negative:
4
Watch Now
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
GreatMartinDec 7, 2018
After the first 10 minutes I was ready to walk out of “At Eternity’s Gate” and I was waiting for Allen to say that we should leave but he didn’t. Talk about walking—if they cut all the scenes showing van Gogh walking, especially those of justAfter the first 10 minutes I was ready to walk out of “At Eternity’s Gate” and I was waiting for Allen to say that we should leave but he didn’t. Talk about walking—if they cut all the scenes showing van Gogh walking, especially those of just from lower shins down, in silence, well except for excruciating music on the soundtrack, this would have been considered a short. Sixty-two years ago (1956) there was a ‘Hollywood’ version called “Lust For Life” starring Kirk Douglas as Vincent van Gogh for which he won a Golden Globe for Best Actor and Anthony Quinn as Paul Gauguin who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The movie was based on a story by Irving Stone and written by Norman Corwin and this movie is written by Jean Claude Carrierre, Louise Kugelberg and Julian Schnabel, the latter also directing with it being his version, based on fact, letters, speculation and fiction.
The major plus of both films is showing the authentic paintings of Vincent van Gogh and, to a certain degree, his road to insanity. Did van Gogh kill himself by shooting himself in the stomach as Stone says or did 2 kids shoot and kill him?
The scenes between Douglas and Quinn are electric while the scenes in “At Eternity’s Gate” between Rupert Friend, as Theo, Vincent’s brother, especially one in a hospital, are moving and those between Oscar Isaac, as Gauguin, showing the respect he had for van Gogh, enlightening. Vladimir Consigny as a young doctor shows compassion for the man who sits before him after cutting his ear off while Mads Mikkelsen as a priest who is no match for van Gogh’s interpretation of the bible. The women’s roles are secondary and neither add or take away from the film.
William Dafoe, as van Gogh, in his 60s, playing the latter in his 30s, shows more in his face of the pain of life that the artist probably did.
Sadly the performances of Dafoe and Friend, with the paintings of van Gogh, are not enough to make the picture worthwhile while the offbeat piano tinkering of music by Tatiana Lisovskaya, the endless walking scenes, the handheld camera shots and the lack of drama make this more of a ‘skip it’ than a ‘must see’.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
YeetusMcGeetusDec 6, 2018
Apart from Willem Da Foe, this movie was one that I found unbearable. I fell asleep twice in the theater. I much preferred Loving Vincent, and I would recommend that movie instead if you really like Van Gogh.
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
3
ozbearFeb 15, 2019
I went on Friday (Sydney time) to see this movie. I enjoy seeing historically based movies, even if they are not 100% factually accurate as such (i.e. the age of the real Van Gough was much younger than portrayed by the actor). I only stayedI went on Friday (Sydney time) to see this movie. I enjoy seeing historically based movies, even if they are not 100% factually accurate as such (i.e. the age of the real Van Gough was much younger than portrayed by the actor). I only stayed for about 30 to 40 minutes because I found the camera work very disturbing. It appeared to be held by hand and had a very jilted, moving all other the place impact. I started to feel as if I was at sea or something like motion sickness so had to leave. Hope nobody else experiences this, but it wasn't worth staying to see the end. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews