Review of Cremaster 3

Cremaster 3 (2002)
10/10
So let's state the obvious first...
7 June 2003
Okay, probably 99% of the public will hate this film. Period. The pace is slow, there is no plot, and there is no dialogue. The music is discordant and the story...well, it's virtually non-existent. And it goes on for three hours. So I'm telling you right now, if you're looking for a conventional film, then please, don't waste your time watching this film and don't waste your time writing an idiotic review that, essentially, rehashes this disclaimer in a less-than-profound manner.

For those who like art films and/or are a bit open-minded regarding film, I suggest seeing this. You may come out not liking it, but I'm hoping you can come out appreciating it. The "Cremaster Cycle" (1-5) is less likely to please crowds, as much as it will influence future artists and filmmakers, who may try and infuse some of these ideas into their work down the road. However, I would say that this has happened once already with Tarsem Singh's "The Cell" (2000), as his appreciation for modern art is pretty obvious with the sectioned cattle scene (a la Damien Hirst).

I heavily enjoyed this film, but I can see why many would dislike it. However, it is an undeniably gorgeous film. If you're lucky enough, watch the "Cremaster" series in numerical order. Much of the imagery links together in this manner, which is all the more interesting, considering "Cremaster 3" and "Cremaster 4" are eight years apart. I will be curious to see what Matthew Barney does in the future.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed