ridiculous rating

Good concept, poorly executed.

Am I Missing Something?

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

If I had to believe all the positive reviewers on here I would be watching masterpieces every day. And also for The Wall, whom for a lot of reviewers is a masterpiece apparently. But for me it isn't. Why? Because you don't get any explanation about the invisible wall around her. If there would have just been a little attempt to explain I would have scored it a six. And also if the woman in question that is trapped for so long would at least try something to pass the invisible wall by digging, looking how high it is or whatever but no none of that all happens. Instead you get a narrating voice of the woman in question during the entire movie. There is basically only one human character played by Martina Gedeck, and then you have her animals. The narrating voice teaches you a lesson in life. It's about loneliness, compassion, the meaning of life, pain, struggle, solitude and so on. Not bad but not enough to make it exceptional.

THE WALL has a classic B-movie plot - a woman in rural Austria finds herself trapped behind an invisible wall with nothing but a dog for company - but, instead of making it a survival story, it uses it as the jumping off point for a slow, philosophical Euro movie. It's basically a one-woman show for Martina Gedeck, who carries this adaptation of the classic 1960s Austrian novel beautifully, with some assistance from the gorgeous Salzkammergut scenery. There's lots on the sheer isolation, lots on the relationship between man and beast, and a certain amount of symbolism but the film never goes overboard (although the appearance of someone later on suggests at least one rather weak feminist interpretation) and has an open ending.

I haven't seen a foreign-(I'd say)low budget movie in a long time. This one was, in short words, interesting (or, maybe, I just missed a fantasy movie).The scenery was beautiful indeed and there's no point in writing more about it since other reviewers already did.The acting was OK in my opinion. But there's not much to say here either since there was only one actor who appeared through the entire movie.The story began in a modern manner, with a scene from the present followed by a scene from the past (how it all began). I didn't particularly appreciate the beginning, but moving on. I liked some details, like that moment when the main character attempted to pet the dog, but quickly drew her hand back because of the reaction of the animal. But after she found herself trapped in that bubble, she quickly became best friends with the dog named Luchs.I didn't like the length of some scenes. I understood that they're there to allow the viewer to reflect on the acts and thoughts of the woman, but I would've just cut off at least a few seconds.The movie also contained some violent scenes like the one when the dog is killed. They were so contrastable with the peace and beauty of the place.What I really liked in this movie was the balanced, rational, peaceful way that woman chose to deal with her situation. I thought that she is an introvert and I appreciated that she admitted her fears and emotions in her improvised diary. (But as a cat fan I really hated her for letting her white cat out on a dangerous night that killed her) The ending left me confused as I didn't expect it. I thought that they'd reveal something about that "wall". I understood that it was about meaning, possibilities, unknown, but I would've given them more points for creativity if the ending was different (but here's probably not so much their "fault" as much as the author's "fault").The entire movie was peaceful, deliberate, only at times the silence was disturbed by some events like the car crush, the mysterious man, the hunting. I could think of many meanings, even some that probably had nothing to do with the author's intentions, like the whole wall is a symbol for extreme introversion, or for autism.To sum up, it was an interesting movie to watch, but many of us might find it boring. I guess you just need the right mood for it. I do believe that there are many other better movies with such a subject to watch. Call me superficial but this one did not make me raise as many discussions and thoughts about life and human nature as other movies (and I'll give as an example another recent foreign movie: The Broken Circle Breakdown (but that movie has a completely different subject though).

I have not read the book nor read about the movie before watching it.Almost everything about this movie is brilliant - location story cinematography acting editing - should have belonged in my top list of favorites. It is not. Even with the thematic similarities with Cast Away (7.7), Life of Pi (8.1) and elements from The Mist (7.2 - looking inwards at the face of a larger unknown), this premise and the story works beautifully. Stunning visual compositions and the soulful performance absolutely stand out.What positively do not work are the monologues and the music. 'The wind was howling and the house was creaking' is something that needs to be written in a book – to say the same thing in the movie is an annoying intrusion while the audience is riveted with the visuals, sound and performance. There is at least 50% excessive pointless monologue in the movie – anybody heard of the use of silence? The movie is meant to be philosophical and inward looking. Lingering beautiful shots will be totally understood by the audience who are willing to invest in a movie like this. Why impose a monologue when it is only going to kill the impact of the moment? See Cast Away for comparison – for almost one hour in the movie there is no music no monologues – just the background sounds.The "music" is unsuitable and almost completely not required. It is disappointing that the director who could write such screenplay, extract such magnificent visuals and riveting performance has no taste in music.Perhaps with 15 less minutes and 50% less monologues, it could have made it to top ranks instead of the 6.7 it currently is.