I thought Little Ashes was just an OK movie that would have not even been that good if it was not for the really top notch, great acting that the director got from the movies stars, and really all of the actors and cast did a great job in every single role in this movie so congratulations to whoever did the casting in this movie because they were great!The direction is well done and they clearly knew the story they wanted to tell and how, and again the director did a great job pulling out good performances.The script/story I found a bit basic and by the numbers with no really great moments or surprises. The acting really carried this movie in my opinion.

Oh, wow, I just shudder to think of the multiple directions they could've gone with this, how rich and manifold the ways to do such a project. A film about Dali, Garcia Lorca, and Bunuel in one swoop. And I'm saying this as not a huge fan of these people. Rich in what we know and can imagine about a sort of popular life that we have shared into from our position as audience of one or the other, in the opportunities to annotate a multitudinous artistic life across so many different canvases, and to leverage all that as cinema about the dawn and twilight of the first truly modern era. The first time in history that we could really picture ourselves and, using ourselves, bring to life complex inner worlds.So we have Garcia Lorca: but no fiery duende that rises from the soles of the feet and stirs the heart into song like he wrote about. Beauty when it comes by, is rather plain and ordinary and treated with the faux-lushness of a period film. The man himself is the textbook version of spurned lover and idealist.We have Dali, him above all: but only ersatz madness and caprice, a hedonistic adonis caricature wholly attacked from the outside and using a fodder of replaceable mannerisms, with the mustache curved a little upwards as we know from pictures, and many rants about genius and breaking limits. But nothing about actually breaking them and none of the sublime intuition that melts time and is the revenge of abstract interior space upon the solid forms of history.And Bunuel, a little beside the other two: godless, fierce, radical, tormented, but a mere stubborn footnote in the exchange of visual platitudes about love and art - as exemplified by how vibrant feels among the rest of the film the short clip from Un Chien, of course the eponymous scene.So it's really sad that we have to settle for this, by itself a tame and harmless bout of youthful exuberance, a sort of safe exuberance that is nowhere as complex and impulsive as these people surely lived if we judge by their work, but really the most dismaying in context of these people and that work. The film could have been issued as part of any one of these peoples' vision and shaped accordingly: a poem on evanescent beauty, an absinthe dream, a vicious social statement, ideally conflating all three as their shared adventure across tumultuous worlds. The whole could transform as words and colors were added.So just a lot of ordinary panache is doubly insulting in this case. The pen-strokes all pontificate banalities. This is everything these people worked against all their lives, so to be so stereotypically embalmed in it?

A truly beautiful affecting movie, but, as others have said, not as involving as it could have been. About halfway through the movie, I turned on the subtitles, because I was having a hard time following what was happening because I couldn't always understand what the actors were saying (I'm not an expert on Spain or on surrealism). Once I had the subtitles, that helped a lot, but it also made me realize what they did in the film, which was regularly throw in a French or Spanish word or phrase without any translation. I suppose a really sharp person could get the meaning from the context, but I thought it created a strange barrier between the audience and the film. I liked the movie a lot and I thought Garcia Lorca's and Dali's relationship was shown in a very honest and heartfelt way. But the movie was unnecessarily confusing, and I would recommend that anyone who watches it, unless they're multilingual, they turn on the subtitles. Though, on the other hand, having the words in the frame will spoil some of the impact of the beautiful cinematography. Maybe it's just a film you have to watch more than once, or study up on Spain in the 1920s before you view it.

I stumbled across Little Ashes when looking for Robert Pattinson movies as embarresing as that is but I soon became irrevocably in love with the story. I generally am a very open and accepting person and this story truly showed me different styles of life. I believe that the acting all around was fabulously done not only by Robert Pattinson but also his amazing co-stars. Although like the description says, there were a few disturbing images in the film i believe it was necisarry to understand the main point, "no limits". I was so focused on the movie it was only half way through that I realized I was standing up the entire time. even after a few weeks of watching it, I am still left pondering the very well written lines and the character motavations. the movie inspired me to research Salvador Dali. after completing an autobiography on the great man, I realized that Robert Pattinson didn't show the true side of Mr. Dali. Dali was always "mad" even as a child and even though quite and reserved I believe that Robert could have showed some of that side in the beginning. over all though an amazing film and I recommend to anyone with an open mind to watch!