Goya's Ghosts (2006) - Biography, Drama, History

Hohum Score



Painter Francisco Goya faces a scandal involving his muse, who is labeled a heretic by a monk.

IMDB: 6.9
Director: Milos Forman
Stars: Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman
Length: 113 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 16 out of 108 found boring (14.81%)

One-line Reviews (45)

They could have avoided any confusion by simply calling it "enhanced interrogation.

GG really can't say anything terribly interesting because by the time it get to other more promising ideas, it's said a lot of tiresome, boilerplate things about art, that can't be recanted.

He lived through surreal time, and the time got a fascinating treatment in his works and in the work of the great modern film director, Milos Forman.

Director Milos Forman has completely botched this disjointed mess of a story, "Goya's Ghosts".

With an exciting vision of a religious cult and an interesting movie in general, that toward its very end would bring us tumbling down to earth with a bigger thump than a moment answering to The Question.

It just got too confusing to me then.

In the end this lands somewhere between thrilling, sensationalist, and awkward.

The director has made an effort to make a portrait of Spain at the time and it is worth watching.

Keeping the comparison with the "The Painted Veil", the reason "Goya's Ghosts" does not work effectively as the former movie is the following: "The Painted Veil" works in what you expect, you know vaguely what the movie could offer (so you can decide in advance if the movie is worth watching or not), the literary dialogue is fine and the movie it is a success in it.

Maybe history tells us of another story of the Man, but as a human being and with is talent and intellect, these were very dangerous and confusing times, even for Goya.

And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?

But as usual, Forman's intense imagination ran away with him (as it so blatantly did in Amadeus.

Absorbing portrait of a time in history .

The first hour of this film I enjoyed very much , the story was very engaging and the ensemble of actors blended in well together despite their varied geographical origins.

(Amadeus, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) A lot of the critics panned this film, but I actually quite enjoyed it.

So, the movie gets confusing then.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen .

the choice of music is fascinating and very fitting, and the cinematography is just perfect, and the scenario and storyline is seamless and exciting as much as it dramatic.

The film is simply too disjointed, the characters mostly dull and the plot far too linear for this to be ranked amongst Forman's masterpieces.

I found the movie to be very entertaining with a few wonderful comedic reliefs, a well-paced, intriguing plot, and some great acting of the main characters.

The film catches so much and underscores history of those crazy times, with revolution, pamphlets, dialectics, ideals, everything in confusion.

An enjoyable movie, if a bit muddled.

In addition to that, the movie is more than 2 hours long when the story worth less than 90 minutes, the rest is just for filling the movie with emptiness and that makes the movie more boring that it should be.

All the characters on screen are fascinating to watch, and as per usual of a Milos Forman film, they are the driving force of the narrative.

then the second half of this movie is hard to follow.

(It's worth watching once).

Although some of the dramatization is slightly contrived, the film is compelling and moving and its vision lingers as Goya's art.

Jarvire Bardam stars as Father Vincent, a rat who may or may not stay a rat by film's end, but I might have left the DVD on the shelf in resentment of this man's role in 2007's most dreadful movie, the pseudo-intellectual empty-head mess, No Country For Old Men.

The inability of the film to craft one strong and engaging storyline resulted in the audience at the showing I attended laughing at moments that certainly were not intended to be humorous and the death of main characters barely stung.

Stellan Skarsgaard who I do like gave a very average performance, like the other actors giving a boring performance.

Forman's first film in 7 years is an absorbing, powerful and stylish (if rather drab-looking) melodrama against a backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition.

If you enjoy historical based movies and superb acting I highly recommend it.

Then, the experience is absolutely enjoyable.

As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions.

Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama.

Instead of building on a great setup, the second half of the movie drops the storyline, rolls forward 15 years and focuses on an uninteresting story involving the artist, girl and priest's lives after the French invade Spain.

Yes, this movie is in a way dull and unsettled.

Direction, camera-work, and music are all distracting and confusing.

It builds up a compelling drama.

Overall, a boring and plain film lacking intent or artistic endeavour, it is like Goya himself - nondescript and a little on the plain side.

The main problem for the movie is the story, it is simply and predictable.

This film is just another waste of time.

Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor.

Also interesting is the unusual casting of Randy Quaid, who has turned up in some unexpected roles in a couple of quality indie movies lately.

The story could also be a little bit slower.