JeremyATurk I'll give it a two because the lighting and the cinematography are well executed. Also, one would have to say that the scenes were probably directed as well as they could have been.That being said, there is no plot. It is a jumble of senseless scenes. There may be a statement in there somewhere, but it is my opinion that the job of the filmmaker is to make the point clearly. Not to hide it in nonsensical scenes. Sure, we all like a mystery, but the mystery shouldn't be what the plot is. I mean a baby, wearing a necklace, lying with two swords, while two strange children sing opera (they sing it actually quite beautifully) and naked children dance around, a woman paints war paint on her brother, other naked children play with jewelry... it just becomes cumbersome. Perhaps the intent was to make this movie literally painful to watch.I know that there is an audience for this stuff... somewhere... but the vast majority of people (even the type of people that like some of the more strange movies, or avant guard movies) will not like it. As other reviewers have said, there are so many other movies out there. Ones that actually tell a story that you can comprehend that do not involve 16 year old girls breast feeding old ladies that talk to wallabies. Hey, you might even find one that doesn't involve a man cutting the wing off an eagle! I know that all these images have some background story that is related to some mythology, but who really cares? If it doesn't tell the story of the mythology, or doesn't inform us what these things mean, hasn't it failed as a film? I suppose it depends on what the director intended. In this case, it appears that the director intended for people to have no idea what the subject matter is about, and for his movie to be seen by as few people as possible. A shame really. He had the opportunity, the means, the resources to make a movie (something many of us dream of doing, but lack the resources) and he used it on this. As I stated earlier: The lighting is beautiful. The cinematography well done. The technical aspects performed so well. All wasted.If you have the opportunity to watch this film, even if you are a film buff, a huge movie nerd, don't. It's a waste of your time.

starrbaby82680 This movie is one of a kind. It was so weird I couldn't stop watching it. If you like strange and unusual movies like I do, then watch this one. You won't be disappointed. I've seen it 3 times so far and I still never ever get bored with it. I can only imagine what the writer was smoking when he wrote this story. It's one of those movies that stays with you forever. It makes no sense whatsoever, but, you can't stop watching it. For those of you who have never heard of it or seen it, you should definitely give it a whirl. You might have to watch it 2 or 3 times like I did, to try and understand what the hell is going on. Good luck and enjoy.

zetes Weird for the sake of weird, which is great if you're into that. I am, most certainly, and I found this oft-dismissed take on Alice in Wonderland endlessly beautiful and fascinating. Frustratingly esoteric, yes, but if you just appreciate it for what it is and don't get lost in the symbolism, it can work. Cathryn Harrison (who co-starred in Robert Altman's Images a few years prior) plays a young woman named Lily who is trying to escape from an apocalyptic war zone (it seems that the battle of the sexes has come to its culmination, and men and women are slaughtering each other willy-nilly). She soon discovers a chubby, brown unicorn which she follows (as Alice does the white rabbit). It leads her to an out-of-the-way mansion in the middle of nowhere, and it's populated by a dying old woman, her twin grandchildren (an androgynous set of male-female twins, both named Lily, just as the heroine) and an unspecific number of always-nude children who run around the farm driving various sheep and swine. The rest of the movie has Harrison wandering around the farm and mansion, observing the odd behaviors of the inhabitants. Basically, it's just a bunch of completely weird stuff, but it's always gorgeous, hypnotic and dreamy. And often very funny, too. Many will find the film dull, but if you like this kind of thing, it's a must-see. Luis Bunuel's daughter Joyce collaborated on the screenplay.

writers_reign The interesting thing about Louis Malle is that he is often lumped with the new waveleteers primarily because he shot a feature - Lift To The Scaffold in English - on location shortly after Godard's Brainless and Truffaut's The 400 Yawns, when in fact he has always (or so I thought) made more or less mainstream films. With Black Moon the Academic-Psued axis may well be justified in labeling him with something trendy like post-New Wave because Black Moon is a genre-defying one-off and it meets the principal criterion of Academia in that it can be about ANYTHING they want it to be which means they can 'teach' it til the cows come home offering a different interpretation each semester. For the rest of us mere mortals we can either take it or leave it. We not first the depressing colour and equally depressing landscape, a suggestion of late Autumn of even full Winter negated by the gamboling/frolicking of totally naked children. The protagonist - if that's not overstating it - is clearly old enough to drive, i.e. late teens, who can get away with early twenties yet is also perversely childlike. In rapid succession she encounters 1)armed militia who mow down a group of innocent civilians, 2) a group of naked children playing with a pig, 3) an apparently bed-ridden old woman who talks into a wireless set via a microphone and 4) a unicorn - grey-black rather than pure white - with whom she is able to converse. We are free to make of this what we will. Multiplex fodder it's not. intriguing? This depends entirely on your own point of view. Mesmerising? See above. Watchable? Yes.