User reviews

I have remarked that most American film critics are voting a lot of European films too low. I think the reason why is that they have difficulties to understand them because they know too little of the European history. I think that this film is an example of it. You have to have a very deep insight in the history of Greece and the Balkan to understand this film. Beside the beautiful cinematography, there is more to look for an understanding. It's a pity that a lot of Americans are knowing so little of history, because so there critics are missing a lot!

There is something in the pictures of this film that is indescribable. The camera is always lost in a deep fog , Keitel performance raptures the viewer and captivates by the poetic power of the pictures and dialogues. The movement of the camera subjugates, always moving , very slowly , it literally seems to float in the air , in the fog , around the actors . This slow , quiet presence of the camera delivers a lyrical feeling of peace and calm , even during the war .

A unique experience in cinema . 9/10

This beautiful film is a picturesque adventure of a man , Keitel , always serene , in quest for a lost film, his life has not any sense but to find this film . The film is about the peace of mind expressed by the greatness. With superb violin music , pictures that fascinates , an odyssey of beauty through Europe . The film becomes a epic and is stamped with a sentiment of mystery , of past , memories , some scenes remind a sort of religious strangeness .

Somebody once said that DW Griffith is to blame for having a wide open horizon, full of possibilities, and settling for melodrama as the blueprint of the movie-going experience.

However, once in a long while, a film comes along that breaks the mold and shows us once again what can be done. Glimpses only, hints at untapped potential. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one such example. Fellini's "Satyricon" is another. "Solaris" by Tarkovsky. And so is "Ulysses' Gaze". There are more.

I like to be challenged, even as I enjoy some standard Hollywood fare. I like to be shaken up with the promise of a nudge towards enlightenment. I love to feel awakened from my everyday, sleepwalking mode.

Granted, "Ulysses' Gaze" is NOT for everyone. But to dismiss this film as "another one of those art films", to call it bloated, is an exercise in laziness. And to condemn Angelopoulos of arrogance, well, how about considering the terms confidence and conviction instead? I do not pretend to understand "Ulysses' Gaze", the film is so riddled with ambiguities and leaps back and forth into the realm of the subconscious and the surreal. I just allow myself to go with the flow, and regard a world that is so outside of the grid that it is like watching a transmission from another planet, with real people I identify, sharing genuine affection in small gestures. And even though the English dialogue is lacking at times, there is not a single one of those "Hallmark moments" that seems to pervade in contemporary Hollywood fare.

As for the prolonged landscape scenes, they show parts of the world (Albania, Bulgaria) that are as unknown to me as the bottom of the ocean. If just for this alone, I am hypnotized.

To make the effort, to absorb "Ulysses' Gaze", is a small step towards understanding the ruthless, constant plight of the people of that small corner of the world that is the Balkans. Just one small corner. Imagine.

I have to say that "Ulysses' Gaze" is an incredible film, one of a few by which XX century's great cinema should (and will) eventually be regarded.

With "Ulysses' Gaze", Theo Angelopoulos proves that he is one of the most influential figures in contemporary cinema. This film explores the idea of how people must go through their personal Odyssey to reach their destination with an unbelievable poetic quality. By exploring the idea of this journey, Angelopoulos shows how much he is influenced by the poems of Nobel prize-winning Greek poet George Seferis. The atmosphere of the film is admittedly extraordinary, aided by the terrific cinematography of Giorgos Arvanitis, Angelopoulos' collaborator since "Reconstruction" (1972).

But the incredibly dense philosophical context of the film does not stop there, as Angelopoulos depicts the tumultuous history of twentieth-century Balkans with extreme precision and artistry.

Harvey Keitel gave the best performance of his career, even managing to speak a few sentences in Greek without sounding too awkward. Maia Morgenstern (as symbols for Penelope, Nausikaa, Circe and Calypso in her multiple roles) and Erland Josephson are also quite good, while Thanassis Vengos gives a tragi-comic note to the film, with his performance as the taxi driver.

The fact that I am Greek (and therefore I am familiar with the political situation and able to identify with events better) admittedly played a major part in my interpretation of "Ulysses' Gaze" and non-Balkan viewers may find it difficult to identify with the film. However, the idea of the journey is universal and it is a pity that Angelopoulos is often dismissed by most Greeks as being too "difficult".

One of the most beautiful, poetic films ever made. The opening scenes are pure, unbeatable art. Rather than the unwinding of the complex narrative itself, it is the visual power of the images that Angelopoulos offers us that make this work so disturbing and beautiful. You have to watch the film as a series of paintings, poems, installations and performances rather than a conventional movie. The acting is superb, especially Harvey Keitel's performance, one of the best that this great actor has ever delivered. Especially memorable is the scene in which an old woman is taken for a ride to her hometown in Macedonia by Keitel. The woman left Macedonia before the advent of Communism and is now returning to her country for the first time in decades. Since her absence, her place has been transformed in a nightmarish communist city, filled with gray, impersonal, concrete buildings. We see the woman helpless and bewildered in an environment that she no longer recognizes, while Keitel goes away. A powerful metaphor of the fast and tremendous transformations suffered by the Balkans during the 20th century.

This is above all a lesson in history. A poignant monument to the memory and fate of Europe.

Justly famous for being one of the last remaining directors still doing extraordinary cinema, in this film Angelopoulos celebrates the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, while, at the same time, looking with touching sensitivity into the lives of people molded by recent (and less recent) History. Some of the scenes related to History have already become classic, but, personally, I was more impressed by the description of the way this History affected individuals and families. Although the media has covered so amply the tragic events in the Balkans and (to a lesser extent) the external aspects of people's life, very little has been said about more human aspects which, after all, will keep affecting them for many, many years to come. In my opinion, this film offers the most complete, convincing and respectful take on the affected people's emotions, memories and relations among the (few) films, documentaries and books touching on the theme.

The scale is epic both geographically and chronologically and since Angelopoulos manages to move easily between dream and reality (one of the biggest problems facing cinema directors), the personal stories are nicely interwoven with History. Angelopoulos' characteristic long takes, in this instance serve more than giving the film a poetic atmosphere. It is necessary for his goal of looking carefully on individuals' lives and describe their joys and sorrows.

In terms of execution, there were some flaws (especially in technicalities of directing of actors) but, frankly, I don't mind that, if the alternative is perfectly executed films but lacking interesting ideas.

I have to confess that my introduction to Mr. A's works was not completely successful. He is a very talented film maker -this one is given. His shots are breathtaking, the music score takes you out of this world and the subject of the movie is quite respectable. What would you expect from the movie which title is "Ulysses' Gaze"? You would expect Ulysses embarking in the exhausting journey in search of his roots, himself, his one true love forgotten but still living deeply inside his soul which he "has to gaze into if he tries to find it" (according Plato). In this movie the roots are represented by the first cinematic footage ever filmed in Greece and Ulysses - Greek director "A" who had left his home country 35 years ago and now he is back and he HAS to find the footage. Why? Frankly, I am not sure but to find it he is ready to travel by car, by train, by boat, and by foot through the Balkan countries torn by war. In his quest, he also visits and relives his past as a young boy in the country he was born, later left but never was able to forget. He meets a lot of women who fell in love with him from the first sight but he seems to be forever captured by one true love because every woman he meets has the same face (they all are played by the same actress, Maia Morgenstern). I like the movies like this - meaningful, personal, beautiful, the movies that have a lot to say but never rush. This movie has some problems though and one problem is called Harvey Keitel. I love Harvey, I think he is a great actor - brave, intense, ironic, clever, tough but vulnerable. Sadly, for all 173 minutes of "Ulysses Gaze", he looked like he was just about to say, "I am Mr. Wolfe. I solve problems but what am I doing here? How did I let myself take the role that I am so uncomfortable with?" Another problem may be in the unbearable self-importance of what Theo Angelopoulos had to say to the world. Or how he said it. There was one scene in the movie that could've been moving, warm, and beautiful - the people dance in the room, celebrate New Year and the dance continues on as the years pass by. It could've been moving but Angelopoulos chose to make it strangely cold and remote. Why? I don't know. There was one scene in the movie at the 2.5 hours mark that almost made me forget all the negatives - the orchestra on the snow in Sarajevo playing melody so marvelous that it could've easily been written by Orpheus whose music used to hypnotize every living creature on Earth.

I don't regret seeing this movie and I will see more Angelopoulos' films in the future but I could've done something better with 173 minutes of my life.

Before seeing this film for the first time, I was already familiar with the brilliant CD of the music. I had some idea through the music of what the film portrayed, but was somewhat put off by the three hours devoted to a movie about the Balkans. I just wasn't ready for a drama about this violent and troubling history although I had adored the wonderful film "Before the Rain." Now after viewing the compelling and stunning "Ulysses' Gaze" I can highly recommend both the music and the film. The music and the movie are exquisite partners. The cinematography is truly breathtaking. I was taken with the intense yearning and empathy of Harvey Keitel as the Ulysses of the quest, but especially struck by Maia Morgenstern as the female focus of the film. She is brilliant. And the great Erland Josephson is wonderful to watch. Although the movie is quite long, its richness and unusual perspectives are impressive, thought-provoking, and profound. I think that by the end, as is the main character, the viewer can be wholly changed by this experience.

You might think that in making a film about Greek cinema or at least about a fellow film-maker Angelopolous would have made his greatest masterpiece but "Ulysses' Gaze" may be his most lugubrious film. Perhaps working mostly in English didn't help or the one-note performance of Harvey Keitel as the exiled film-maker returning to his homeland in search of 3 reels of lost film by the Manakia Brothers was to blame.

The structure is just as complex as anything by Angelopolous as Keitel moves back and forth in time but he also makes for an uneasy observer of Balkan history and the conflict in Sarajevo and ultimately the material feels less profound than I'm sure the director intended; there's only so much old ground he can cover. It isn't a bad film; I don't think Angelopolous could make a bad film if he tried and visually it is very impressive. Rather it is simply a great disappointment from a man who can justifiably lay claim to being one of the ten greatest directors in all of cinema.

I have never seen a film which promised so much. I can imagine that ten viewings from now, I will have only begun to understand all that is buried in this dense, complex, contemplative masterpiece.

This isn't a quick-thrill film, but the rewards it offers to its viewers are immense. If nothing else, it demonstrates what a true master of cinema can produce. Few directors have reached this height, perhaps Dryer, Welles, and Kirasawa. If you love the art of cinema, with all of the complexities its varied language can offer, see this film.

It could be possible to start by writing a review of Harvey. I could't have guessed that the lead actor could give such a bad performance in such a long and important masterpiece. He really gave a very bad performance with his dull eyes and soullessness. When I saw the rave reviews for the lead role, I prepared myself to write firstly review for the film. Unfortunately, I distanced myself from the movie from time to time because of the lead role but Angelopoulos created such an impressive atmosphere that I could easily get back into the movie.

You shall be watching a long and sad journey to the Balkan geography where ethnic divisions and bloody conflicts took place with the collapse of Yugoslavia and the journey of a director who is looking for an old production of art and risking his life for this in this period full of very controversial and bad stories. If you are knowledgeable about Balkan history, you will notice many metaphors. Especially the message that the myth of socialism collapsed by carrying the statue of Lenin along the Danube River and the absence of any subtext about Stalin was like a farewell to this myth by the valuable director Theo who I think believes in this myth. I felt sad in many scenes and questioned the realities of humanity again and again. For the sake of this film, research the Balkans and ask yourself over and over again why and for what purpose everything is happening.

''Let's drink to the world that never changes, despite all the hopes that have disappeared and all the dreams we have had.''

Interesting allegory on Balkan syndrome and very good directing in artistic way, but this is about it. Everything else is a failure. Composition that mostly comprehends directors impression on Balkan phenomena and its reasons and consequences. Role of the film that has been recorded and hidden is probably the formula for Balkan happiness that can't be found. Beginning of the world civilization, beginning of all great wars and conflicts and world in small - these are the Balkans. But no trace, no reason no recipe, no solution. This is good. Very well represented - artistic as the film suppose to be and by all means I do support Theo by that. But ... I don't believe that you can make a film that is going to be slight idea of an expressionist understood only by himself. The film should be artistic way to show the reality to the spectator, an art lover. I have lived most of my life on Balkans, where I was born, among that many years in Greece, but still I cannot follow all the impressions of the director placed in the film. I believe that impressions are for the audience - as a spectator but also as a film maker. All in all, great actor as Harvey Keitel could be used in much better way. The same for the never ending resources on Balkan ideas. 5 out of 10 for Theo.

Theo Angelopoulos can take his place in the line with other great artists, as Bergman, Tarkovskii, etc. The piece is long, but not boring at all, though it's not an easy viewing. Viewer has to posess at least rudimentary knowledge about European, and, in particular, Balkan history. TA transform a personal story into a parable of Odissei's journey, a neverending search for one's soul. The shots are beautiful, even with somehow faded film.

There are many self references to the director's other films, great modern greek poets, balkan history, and ancient greek thought and literature. The more you know the more you get out. I had some knowledge of some of these areas but the film moved me to read three modern greek poets and a book about the other films of this director. I have to be satisfied with the book because I can't seem to find the videos.

The long poetic shots, the surrealism, and Keitel's address at the end will remain with me forever. One of the greatest pieces of art.

Nevertheless of an historic fall of a political dream this travel into the historic memory is a poetry from the first photogram to the last one... Harvey Keitel confirm his big appeal while playing characters with great personality and deep feeling.

An acquaintance today bemoaned the lack of historical knowledge that Americans have in their own history and government. To expect them to have a knowledge of European history, particularly Greek and Balkan history would be ludicrous. That knowledge of history would serve you well as you try to understand the work of Theodoros Angelopoulos. a director on a par with Fellini, and Kurosawa, and Bergman.

Angelopoulos likes the long, slow shots that give you time to reflect on what you are seeing. Those that are impatient have difficulty with this, but those who appreciate great cinema will luxuriate in the process.

Winning two awards at Cannes, Angelopoulos was disappointed he did not win the Golden Palm. 1996 was a great year for film, and he did very well with this one despite that.

I first saw this movie when it was aired on a local public television station at midnight. I was exhausted but the movie was so intriguing that I could not fall asleep. Director Angelopolous' use of a single camera per scene are very innovative. Excellent work, too, by Harvey Keitel.

I certainly do respect this film. It has some stunning images, an interesting concept, and great locations. But while the film might be exploring the history of the Balkans in a fascinating way, the execution is often times incredibly dull. Harvey Keitel is badly miscast as well, and seems awkward in delivering some of his lines and monologues. For me, this film is sort of the cinematic equivalent of the emperor's new clothes. I don't think this film is nearly as profound or beautiful or subtle as two other films that cover similar ground, Underground and Before the Rain. I would recommend those two masterpieces long before this one.

Greek filmmaker A travels back to his native country to show his most recent film after 35 years in America. However the religious groups protest and he is forced to abandon his plans. However he then decides to begin a search for the first pieces of film ever shot in Greece that remain unprocessed. His quest takes him across changing countries, bounders and war torn cities.

Personal films always run the risk of being too personal and losing the audience. Ulysses' Gaze runs that line very close and crosses it at times. The basic plot sees A travel across many borders and meeting many people. However the meaning of the film seems to be more about one man's obsession damaging the rest of his life and film as a means of recording history. This makes it a bit more difficult but the theme of obsession is well shown and it's A's quest that gripped me for the most part.

The direction is great – beautiful scenery, wonderful mesmeric tracking shots and long takes make for a great visual experience. However working in several languages takes it's toll and much of the english narration is weak and clumsy. That said he still paints some great pictures and the themes are mostly well developed. The scene where dialogue is played out in a misty screen for 4 minutes is great – while the huge Lenin statue is mesmerising.

However the english is weak and other flaws creep in. The use of the same woman to play several characters is an art movie cliché and just annoyed me as it seemed to serve no purpose. Keitel is not very good. He looks distracted at times – like the fact that he doesn't understand the language affected his ability to relate to those speaking it. His english dialogue is clumsily written but he does well for many key scenes.

Overall this didn't deserve to beat Underground as it is too long, has scenes that don't work and dialogue that is clumsy rather than poetic. However it still has masterful themes and visuals that make it worth watching despite the running time.

This is truly an enchanting film about self-exploration, by the great auteur Angelopoulos.

The movie is poetic, melancholic and lyrical (as expected from Angelopoulos), full of superb cinematography. The scenes at the start, the Lenin statue in the boat, the Sarajevo scenes (orchestra and mist scenes), the old lady left alone in the town square, the family celebrating the new year...are works of pure art themselves.

Can't believe it lost to Underground.

I am not giving it 10/10 because of the not up-to-par acting of Keitel and Karaindrou always regurgitating the same piece of melodramatic music again and again throughout Angelopoulos' films.

The second part of the Borders Trilogy, in which an exiled film maker in search of the lost reels of a significant historical film meets a women. As expected this is highly philosophical, slow and visually amazing movie.