This is simply a fake.
Nothing close to Bruegel whatsoever. Bruegel's colors are transparent and clear, lighting is soft. He applied thin layers of paint to achieve this effect. In the movie, on the contrary, colors are running rampant in the most tasteless computer generated sort of way.
Bruegel's palette is certainly not bright. Maybe the director had Flemish 15th century art with its bright colors in mind? But no, he didn't. Flemish masters used glazing to let the light travel through multiple layers of paint to achieve marvellous illusions of tangibility and depth. In the movie though, the colors seem to be borrowed from a candy store. Bold and artificial. Everything in this film is digitally enhanced but acting. Acting is a pure zero while the visuals are a zero digitally enhanced.
The lighting indoors reminds of Caravaggio at best, but it's way too crude. The first scene with the lovers is lit with Caravaggio in mind but the director decided to throw in a bit of Flemish Art. Hence a brightly lit window. Unfortunately, the result is a caravagesque painting torn and another one, Flemish, visible through a hole.
So, what's this film about? Spanish oppression. Well, with no plot, no acting, no drama it's a worthless comment. About the recreation of Bruegel's famous painting? No way. The painting is shown in the movie and it's obvious that it has nothing to do with it artistically. Well, even though out of place, could it be on Barogue art? The lighting indoors is certainly meant to be Baroque. That can be true but than the director has not succeed. If you are interested in Baroque, there are quite a few infinitely better films. Even an entertaining and unpretentious "Alatriste" succeeded in recreating Velasquez way better than "The Miller and the Cross" in recreating anything.
This film is nothing but European artsy pop junk. Will there be an end to artsy directors fooling the public?
I gave the movie two stars because at least some viewers might get interested in Pieter Brugel's art after seeing a "Road to Calvary" painting.
Nothing close to Bruegel whatsoever. Bruegel's colors are transparent and clear, lighting is soft. He applied thin layers of paint to achieve this effect. In the movie, on the contrary, colors are running rampant in the most tasteless computer generated sort of way.
Bruegel's palette is certainly not bright. Maybe the director had Flemish 15th century art with its bright colors in mind? But no, he didn't. Flemish masters used glazing to let the light travel through multiple layers of paint to achieve marvellous illusions of tangibility and depth. In the movie though, the colors seem to be borrowed from a candy store. Bold and artificial. Everything in this film is digitally enhanced but acting. Acting is a pure zero while the visuals are a zero digitally enhanced.
The lighting indoors reminds of Caravaggio at best, but it's way too crude. The first scene with the lovers is lit with Caravaggio in mind but the director decided to throw in a bit of Flemish Art. Hence a brightly lit window. Unfortunately, the result is a caravagesque painting torn and another one, Flemish, visible through a hole.
So, what's this film about? Spanish oppression. Well, with no plot, no acting, no drama it's a worthless comment. About the recreation of Bruegel's famous painting? No way. The painting is shown in the movie and it's obvious that it has nothing to do with it artistically. Well, even though out of place, could it be on Barogue art? The lighting indoors is certainly meant to be Baroque. That can be true but than the director has not succeed. If you are interested in Baroque, there are quite a few infinitely better films. Even an entertaining and unpretentious "Alatriste" succeeded in recreating Velasquez way better than "The Miller and the Cross" in recreating anything.
This film is nothing but European artsy pop junk. Will there be an end to artsy directors fooling the public?
I gave the movie two stars because at least some viewers might get interested in Pieter Brugel's art after seeing a "Road to Calvary" painting.