PlatinumRead
Just so...so bad
SpunkySelfTwitter
It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
rooprect
This movie is surreal. Literally, it has a lot of surrealistic scenes to mess with your mind, but also the whole presentation is surreal because there are so many bizarre angles. At its heart, it's a sober portrayal of depression and humanity's discontent (so you'd think it would be slow & heavy). But mostly it's humorous, at times as silly as the movie "Airplane!". It also features historical references, but you can't help feeling that the writer is being deliberately playful, distorting facts right before our eyes with a wink and a smile. In all, I think it's an entertaining experience, especially if you don't take it too seriously.It definitely has the qualities of a period piece romp, like maybe "Casanova" (2005), "Molière" (2007) or one of my faves, "Impromptu" (1991) about Chopin. But "When Neitzsche Wept" has a more subtle tone which prevents me from saying it's intended to be a comedy like the others I mentioned. Also, don't expect a biopic because it's not really about any particular man so much as it's about everyman's internal struggle between passion (freedom) and logic (duty).This film takes a somewhat light-hearted approach to a very dark subject, and I think that's what makes it unusual and clever. It's entertaining and digestible, but also there are a few powerful monologues delivered by Neitzsche (Armand Assante) that I had to rewind and hear again because they seemed to appear out of nowhere. Then suddenly we're back to a crazy scene of a redhead woman in diapers jumping around a crib. Don't worry, it all makes sense; it's just... surreal!
tsj333-1
The first 20 minutes of this film are torture! I don't mean to disrespect anyone, however, the actress playing Lou Salome was awful. Perhaps that's why we saw so little of this character, I have a feeling scenes with her were cut dramatically (no pun intended). Also, the Dr's secretary suffered from a severe case of hamming it up. While the ideas & dialogues were interesting, and some of the acting was very good, it took much too long to get where it was going. Scenes are disjointed & there is a huge portion where we don't see the main character but there is no real explanation for this. The cinematography was not "brilliant" as someone here has suggested. The accents were more fake than a bad weave. To be honest, I have seen TV movies that were better than this, some of them starring Armand Assante. Go rent one of those!
jl1-4
The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.
jack-964
My comments on this movie have been deleted twice, which i find pretty offending, since i am making an effort to judge this movie for other people. Please be tolerant of other people's opinion. Obviously writing in the spirit of Nietzsches works is not understood, so ill change my comment completely.I think this is a really bad movie for several reasons.Subject: one should be very careful in making a movie about a philosopher that is even today not understood by the masses and amongst peers brings out passionate discussions. One thing philosophers do agree on is that Nietzsche was a great thinker. So making a movie about his life, which obviously includes his 'ideas' is a thing one should be extremely careful with, or preferably, don't do at all. Wisdom starts with knowing what you don't know. One might think this is not a review of the movie itself, but the movie is not about an imaginary character, it is about the life of someone who actually lived and had/has great influence on the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow. If someone tells a story about a tomato, i can express my thoughts about the story itself, but also about the chosen subject, the tomato. There is a responsibility for producers when they make a movie about actual facts. Specially in a case like this and this responsibility was not taken.Screenplay: One of the first things i noticed were the ridiculous accents. Why? It distracts from what it should be about; Nietzsche and the truths he found. It doesn't help putting things in a right geographical perspective or time! Come on, make it proper English or better yet; German! Even Mel Gibson got that part right... letting his characters speak some gibberish Aramaic in the Passion.Secondly, it is well over-acted.3d, Assante is not an actor to depict Nietzsche. Bad casting.4th, facts are way off.And so on. Its a waste of celluloid.
