Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "The Flat" is a 13-minute movie by Czech animation legend Jan Svankmajer from back when he was in his early 30s. It is in black-and-white and features two actors in the cast. The lead actor Ivan Kraus has never been in another movie, while Juraj Herz became one of the Czech Republic's most renowned directors in the decades after this short film. He was also a very prolific actor. Svankmajer and Herz are in their 80s now.I personally found this a somewhat unusual approach by Svankmajer. It is as wild as his other films, but it is not as often the case that there is a clear human protagonist. And also lots of music is included here. In terms of the action, it was as difficult to understand what was going on as in everything else Svankmajer made. I was not impressed and found this a forgettable effort. Not recommended.

RResende this was my first contact with Svankmajer. And what a strong impression i got! He is 'labeled' with the surrealist movement, and is frequently attached to the other surrealist names in cinema. In this film alone, i don't check any of what might be called surrealism, except for some aesthetic choices, and some physics of the world within i will explain. That is because surrealism had always to do with seeking to deliver through art states of consciousness which are beyond self-awareness. Dreams, for instance. Things which we can't control, which are not material, we can't touch, which happen in undefined time (in shape and duration). None of that is here. This has, of course, a veiled political speech between the lines. We have a character which is told where to go, he follows arrows which lead to wherever someone wants. He is given everything, but he can't taste anything. He is taken to doors, but he is not allowed to open them. He is given food, but than he has a dog to eat it. This takes place entirely inside an apartment. Of course this is (or could be) the direct metaphor to the Soviet Union, the iron curtain, all those elements which motivated many filmmakers and artists to create art that could express desperation and in satisfaction without alerting censors. That's not surrealist (believing now in some of the ideologies used than might be surrealistic, this is not). But this is, instead, a fantastic experiment. I don't know much about Czech animation, or Czech cinema, but i'm willing to explore it. I saw a short, a while ago, 'Prílepek', it was a very good experience from someone who learned a lot from this Czech reference. So i'm sensing a continuity that i care about exploring, so i'll be looking for more of these works.What we have here (and that is more close we can get to the surrealism mood here) is a world which defines its own rules. I mean physical rules. It's a world were the material behaviour of materials and objects is not the same as in our real world. It is possible for a man to place an arm across a wall, or a wood bed to completely disintegrate as if it was eaten up. That is what takes us to another dimension, and the frantic pace and editing also. The stop-motion is remarkable, and the technical level really very high here.My opinion: 4/5 don't miss it.

lordofthefries-1 I would tend to disagree with the previous statement that this movie was just an exercise in creativity without a real point. I found it to be deeply symbolic of the pressure Eastern Europe was under to follow rules in a world that did not follow the rules itself. The struggle of Joseph (his name is revealed when he writes it at the end) is both comic and easy to sympathize with, and in that it reminded me faintly of Charlie Chaplin's films. While it is extremely enjoyable to view superficially, delving just a little deeper is incredibly rewarding.Joseph keeps on expecting for the room in which he finds himself trapped to give him some small bit of normalcy, and it keeps betraying him. His hopefulness is almost pitiful, but he's all the more likable for not giving up. When his hand gets stuck in the wall, he digs it out. He does not succeed at escape, however, because he is too preoccupied with following a set of rules that do nothing to help him in his plight. He can't eat his meal because, unlike the dog that comes out of the wardrobe, he is too civilized to do what needs to be done, and he quietly accepts the axe from the man with the chicken (...that sounds utterly ridiculous out of context, doesn't it?) and waits until he is left alone once more before attacking the door rather than following the man out before he can shut the door. What he finds behind the door, however, is a wall covered with the names of people who have been in the same room and faced the same problems--this is not a single man's struggle, but one faced by a multitude, which again ties back to it being about Eastern Europe rather than a single, arbitrary person.

tedg There's something about art and artists. Sometimes the effect of the art isn't a conversation between the viewer and the artist, instead between the artist and the viewer. And often neither party knows it.Its particularly apparent when the artist is damaged in some way and he or she create art that conveys that damage. This is common, I think because when there is a human trying to reach us, we allow an inadequate vehicle. I think the effect is so common and so well understood that weak artists, artists who cannot create powerful work, feign this dynamic.Here we have an odd little student film, almost a student film. It conveys a world that doesn't work -- not comically but frustratingly as if it were deliberately teasing us. Whatever is behind this flat is evil.Watch closely and you will see that the film is rather incompetent. But we don't notice, because as with Tim Burton we see the strange dude who made it. And we imagine what type of man he would have to be, and under what conditions he lives.(I could have chosen a dozen filmmakers as examples and you would have equally known what I meant.) Either way, this is uninteresting.Contrast this to "The Cube" of about the same time, the one by Jim Henson, also a puppeteer making the bridge to film-making. It is based on much the same notions. Yet Henson's little project is a marvel of competence, several competences.What we have here instead is just a glass through which we see a sad man.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.