I stopped the DVD after an hour when it became repetitive. Before that, it was an interesting but weird movie. It's filmed as a silent movie with the characters dressed in the robes and hair styles of the early 1900's. Nobody talks but you do have a narrator who told you what is happening and words written in white on a black background that let you know other things. It's made in black and white with grainy images and I actually had to check the date of he movie o make sure it wasn't 70 years old. It was interesting but slow for about 40 minutes, until the story stopped moving. I debated whether to stop for about another 15 minutes then fast forward for another five then finally stopped it. I don't mind movies made today in black and white(I'm a big fan of film noir), and I like movies that are different. What I don't tolerate are movies that are boring and waste my time.

It's easy to make a film that is extremely personal to a filmmaker, or has some real level of autobiography going on. And, as a result, there's a crop of personal films out there that just are not very good, because a filmmaker will confuse their factual lives and interesting cinema as one and the same when he former may not be or is too conventional or improperly melodramatic for its own good. A strong personal story or tale of a troubled or just odd childhood is good but not enough; there needs to be ideas, some imagination even, to keep things worthwhile as compelling cinema. Brand Upon the Brain, under these conditions, is one of the most compelling things this decade as far as personal film-making goes. And, if for nothing else, it's for the virtuosity of the person(s) behind the lens.I'm sure it's mostly Candadian Guy Maddin's doing how the film looks and how it moves in such a splintered way as to come about as close to how memory works (I'm sure the excruciatingly talented editor and DP helped immensely, as no other film I've ever seen has this particular grainy but subtle and coarse and light look with the subliminal cuts all the way), which makes it all the more a directorial 100 meter dash with full-speed. Even if the story or the characters flat out sucked, which thankfully they don't at all, I would still be enthralled by the quality and experimentation in everything technical about the picture: how it's meant to be silent, and probably is in layman's terms, but also features narration (the track I had was from Isabella Rossellini, who does a fabulous job as part narrator and part character absorber), sound effects, the occasional scream or song sung, and how it's meant to be in black and white but every so often one may see color slip in a few frames or few seconds. That it was meant to be screened as a silent film, with full orchestra and actual Foley artists and chorus and possible narrator, makes it all the more wild - it wavers between real primitive film-making and pure fantasy.Which is just as well: all of the emotions here are laid for bare, and so much so for Maddin that the protagonist- a 30-something house painter who returns to his island home- is named Guy Maddin, it includes people like his actual mother and father and sister (not the actual people, the actors playing them), and many anecdotes are taken from his real life or from those closest to him (I started listening to Maddin talk about how the burial of Father in the movie is based on his actual grandfather's burial, but decided to stop to not let too many spoilers come through: it's actually a lot more fun and fascinating to figure out what's totally real or just slightly twisted). This works completely because of two reasons: 1) the autobiographical bits *are* interesting and captivating enough for cinema, this torn and weird relationship between siblings and parents, and 2) because it's wrapped up in a made-up plot by co-writer George Toles about an orphanage and crazy experiments done for rewinding aging on top of the already amazing surrealism on display with the film-making.In short, it's not only allowable, it's required for Maddin's passion to spark through. If for nothing else, even if you hate the movie (which I can understand, it's a like it or not enterprise, like with a piece baroque period music in several consistent parts), it's passionate film-making and storytelling, and it brings forth a number of unknown actors into a quantity like this. And Maddin picks well, since the actors save for Rossellini or whomever on narration have to have striking faces and be able to act completely and honestly in physical form. They also submit incredibly to any of Maddin's whims (even the gaggle of would-be Lords of the Flies orphans), which include dazed/feverish sleepwalking, insatiable lusting for the same/opposite sex, brain manipulation for the "nectar", and other mad things. It's also a great structure Maddin uses (taken from Godard's Vivre sa vie mayhap) as we go along like in some book that grows weirder and darker as it goes along... but also sadder and more touching and with moments that come as delightful almost in spite of the gloom and eerie sets and lighting and smoke and so on.Brand Upon the Brain won't be for everyone, but then how could it in the 21st century? Maddin has crafted something out dreams and recollections and visions and nightmare and hallucinations and ruminations and (of course) his libido and whatever else he could out of a love for movies and a love of his family (love enough to imbue them on screen as eccentric figures out of a dark fairy tale or science fiction opera), and it's something for the film fans out there who crave something out of the past to be represented with life and urgency and twists on what's expected - and at the same time, for all self-indulgent purposes, keeping true to what is solid about the emotional filmgoing experience. A+

I had the unique opportunity to see one of the few theatrical screenings of this film featuring live musical accompaniment, a foley crew, a live narrator (whose narration was, if I recall correctly, quite different to Rosselini's narration in the TV version used here in Canada), and a male soprano. It was a tremendous experience, but even then I thought it had the feel of a latter-day Aerosmith concert- a professional show masking a lack of substance and inventiveness in the performance and execution of the songs. In short, it felt perfunctory and almost like a cover-up."Brand Upon the Brain!" is certainly not one of Maddin's better films. It works fantastically in style and features an arresting, low-budget visual sensibility, but is quite severely lacking in the sort of substance one might expect from a Maddin film. Sure, there are themes being explored here, but they've already been covered better and in more detail in his other work. The narrative itself is outrageous, bizarre, and quite entertaining. I can forgive the film's shortcomings given how fast Maddin wrote this script (five weeks; the movie was shot in one fifth that time), but I don't really think there was that much potential in the idea of the film to begin with.The film's visuals are all there is that's worth talking about here. The editing is brilliantly jarring and wonderfully enhances the film's emotional moments, the cinematography is breathtakingly beautiful given its purpose in the film, and it is very fast-paced. As far as the rest of the film goes, I'll just say this: Maddin is frequently accused of treating his subject matter too lightly although his films are never overtly comedic. "Brand Upon the Brain!" is intentionally funny as are most of his other films, but there is a genuine lack of any clever humor here, as well as a complete lack of any real substance or worth. It works tremendously in style, and it's easy to watch, but there's just nothing more to it.7/10

With the exception of a few brief seemingly random shots, Brand Upon the Brain! is shot (or made to appear in post-production to be shot) in grainy black and white. The look is reminiscent of David Lynch's Eraserhead, a classic that may have been an influence, though the style is quite different. Maddin's film uses much more frenetic editing techniques, particularly frequent cutting to create an abrasive subliminal effect from which the title appears to be derived.I use the term 'abrasive' and for some people that might be a negative, but I found it effective. The film uses captions and along with a neo-silent-era visual design, it has the effect of a coherent experimental film with a bizarre horror narrative. A man, Guy, returns to the island orphanage of his parents after a thirty year absence, on the request of his dying mother. It turns out the parents were subjecting the orphans to some peculiar activities from which Guy escaped.I found the design, high-contrast lighting and editing techniques effective in conveying a bizarre nightmare-type of story, a horror film that is not entirely original in narrative nor design, yet original in its presentation. I liked the voice-over narration by Isabelle Rosellini.There are some very attractive characterisations and depictions of inoffensive perversity. Definitely worth a look.