Guy Maddin's "Tales from Gimli Hospital" is a surreal locomotive of a film that never for a second pretends to make a lick of sense. Characters and events lack logic and motivation, leaving the proceedings within an oddball world of duck feathers, Indian burials, and mute men (some in blackface). The result is intriguing yet pretentious and too deliberately ambiguous (while "Eraserhead" made less narrative sense, its 'clues' were more meticulously assembled), but shows promise from writer-director Guy Maddin, who successfully invokes the classic styles of German Expressionism and even "Hour of the Wolf"-era Ingmar Bergman.

Guy Maddin is a truly unusual filmmaker.His movies are black comedic and supremely bizarre excursions into silent black-and-white cinema."Tales from the Gimli Hospital" is possibly his most famous and creepiest work to date.This is a wonderfully strange and puzzling movie filled with haunting and disturbing imagery.The action takes place in the small fishing town of Gimli,Manitoba, in some indeterminate time in the early part of the 20th Century.Einar and Gunnar,two men afflicted with the deadly smallpox virus,are housed in the small Gimli Hospital,their bodies covered with the scars of disease,their minds slowly slipping into paranoia and fear.Much of the film is silent,only archaic soundtrack is used regularly.The film is shot in equisite black-and-white and looks terrific.Give it a look,if you enjoy watching surrealist cinema.8 out of 10.

In the modern town of Gimli, two young children watch their mother dying in hospital. To distract them they are told a story of old Gimli by their grandmother. In the story it is Gimli years ago when live was disrupted by an outbreak of smallpox. With poor medical facilities available to him, Einar finds himself in a nightmarish half-waking state of "care" with other sufferers, including his friend Gunnar, who are somewhere between life and death. The two friends grow close but shared secrets threaten to tear them apart as the world around them changes quickly.As someone who actually likes Guy Maddin I still have to be honest and say that, while my favourite films of his have narratives I like, usually his work is not where you want to come for stories that grip you and make a lot of sense. And so it is with his first feature film, a story that is being told to two children who, for some reason, are in the room where their mother is dying; it sounds strange and indeed it is. The narrative is interesting enough but if that's all there was here of value then you'd have given up quite quickly; happily there is enough of interest going on to engage the audience despite the narrative being rather incoherent at times. This is not to say that it will appeal to all viewers because of course it will not, but for those that "get" his other films, the story will not be a problem.The reason for this is that his unique style is fully on display here (albeit with a lower budget) and this makes it interesting if not totally engrossing. At times the style overwhelmed the lesser substance to such an extent that it did feel rather hollow but this was a rare feeling for me. Normally I have that problem with his shorts but, with a low running time, it usually doesn't matter so much. With his features it can be a problem but he mastered it with the wonderful Cowards Bend At The Knee and he does enough to cover it here. It did feel a bit sparse at times although that is probably more to do with me being used to his bigger budget films (bigger being a comparative term) rather than the film being weak visually. The cast don't really give much in the way of performances so much as be carried along with the direction but this isn't that much of a problem since the film was never about them.Overall this film is an acquired taste that will not appeal to those who dislike other Maddin films. Compared to his later films, this feels a lot less flashy and sparse but it still works and will please fans of Maddin. Narrative-wise it has some problems that viewers may find difficult to get past but the many strange and imaginative touches to the overall delivery of the film more than cover for these issues and, while not an equal to some of his recent work, this is still worth a watch.

Here's a movie that took its miniscule budget and really made the most of it.How? Well, take a look at the looping synchronization. It can't be done well without being expensive, so they do very little of it, and get around the problem by shooting characters from obtuse angles that hide the problem. Color's expensive too, so it's in black and white. And music? You can hear the needle drop on the record.But the money they spent went in the right areas. The visuals are so strong and the camera placement sometimes so unexpected that you find yourself wondering what it is you're looking at--and then something moves, and the tableau breaks apart into a conventional scene. The opening sequence, a long sfx pan down to the Gimli hospital, going through clouds and angels, evokes the 1940s so well that you halfway expect to see William Bendix in one of the beds. The costuming is strange and the plot seems totally unworkable, and yet it pulls you in and keeps you there, never seems to make a horrible misstep, and at times hits exactly what it's aiming for.Sure it's an amateur film. But look at the nice smooth camera work, the well-paced editing, the good choices in music for mood. While it's all too easy to cite Cocteau, Blood of a Poet comes to mind often while watching Tales from the Gimli Hospital, thanks to the surprising interruption of the narrative by little bits of surreal magic. You don't walk away from this one saying that it could have been done better--instead, you wonder how it was done so well for so little.