Between the moving images of cinema, and the paintings animists of the prehistoric men, it’s been 10 000 years. Is there a connection to the deep and universal that connects them across space and time ? Here’s an interesting idea. Hugh Hudson believes spinning the metaphor of the magic lantern to summon the philosophy of Plato’s cave. But his sleight-of-is old-fashioned. ALTAMIRA does indeed work on revenue tattered straight out of an umpteenth re-enactment on television. Costume bourgeois interiors and the flashy is at the service of a work that claims to aristocracy but has no refinement. The difference between the director of the ALTAMIRA and the masters of classic works, is that the first one captures a performance of actors (not bad) while the latter stage. The grandeur of the scenery should serve as the magnitude of the movement is dramatic, and filmic rather than just being the setting of a scenario flat.
“This is not a particularly poorly filmed, poorly interpreted or poorly fitted. It just has no flavor”
ALTAMIRA has yet a root, exciting, confronting the first sacred place of Humanity with two pendants more recent : the catholic religion and modern science. These last two are well represented with their doctrine as obtuse as the other. But this context of scientific controversy and religious is that the excuse to bring us the chronology of the facts. Gold one expects from a film he draws from his material, a form of gasoline, in order to give the viewer a reason to have spent 1h30 in a room rather than having spent several days reading the biography of Mr Marcelino Sautuola (Antonio Banderas) amateur archaeologist or his enemy’s episcopal (Rupert Everett).
We wonder what all these actors have come to do in this adventure wobbly. Tour both in English and in Spanish by Spanish actors, English, French (WTF Pierre Niney) or even… iranian (Golshifteh Farahani), very beautiful but a little lost), it is believed the grand return of the co-productions of historical between the european televisions. Gloubi-boulga financial these works without the artist does not assume nor their side anachronistic nor their under financial. This is neither particularly poorly filmed, poorly interpreted or poorly fitted. It just has no flavor.
Thomas Coispel
Your opinion ?