Goya's Ghosts (2006)

I was not aware of this magnificent film until 2010 and did not see it till now (May 2011), but it not only does not date, but Natalie Portman was a revelation, considering I have just seen her in Black Swan, and in this much earlier film, she was already proving her acting prowess. Javier Bardem proves his worth as much as in his later award winning films (The Sea Inside, No Country For Old Men, etc.) and I wonder how such a craggy-looking man can be so charismatic. Bardem has something unusual, a rare quality of conveying total realism in his acting which becomes him, not just a superficial persona he puts on. The supporting cast, especially Stellan Skarsgaard as Goya, provide a worthy backdrop for the two central, very powerful roles played by Bardem and Portman who convey the darkness of the period in excruciatingly detailed performances, then reflected in Goya's paintings. The film brings to life Goya's dark, realistic portraits of humanity in all its terror, grotesqueness, cruelty, and suffering during a tumultuous period of war and carnage. A brilliant film by Forman and I recommend anyone wanting a challenge in film to see this if they haven't already done so.

Fmovies: This is one of the most beautiful movies I have seen. The actors are excellent, transferring their feelings of being lost, of hope and despair. And the movie itself is beautifully done - in the tradition of Amadeus, Ragtime and Valmont. I suggest seeing it on big screen.

It is nice to see Forman return with such a movie. Also, congratulations to the cast:

Javier Bardem (Brother Lorenzo), Natalie Portman (Inés/Alicia), Stellan Skarsgård (Goya).

I especially liked Natalie's performance. It is rare that such a young actress in Hollywood delivers such a performance in such a movie.

I read someone else's comment on IMDb (much more adulatory than I would be for Goya's Ghosts), who said that it was a masterpiece not only for Milos Forman and co-writer Jean-Claude Carriere, but for Luis Bunuel too. And that intrigued me even more than I was already in anticipation for the film, merely before as a Forman fan. Upon seeing it I can understand the enthusiasm, and had a kind of private, nearly perverse pleasure in recognizing (maybe too obviously on a subjective level) little things that popped up when Carriere and Bunuel collaborated on some of the late master's best works. On the other hand, for those not too familiar with films like the Phantom of Liberty, the Milky Way or That Obscure Object of Desire, Goya's Ghosts may seem like strong, strange film-making that starts to go a little more haywire after the half-way title card "15 Years Later" (possibly another in-joke for Un Chien Andalou fans) pops up. But it's not only certain things regarding the line between true drama and surrealism that marks Forman's latest as something interesting.

Matter of fact, it is a flawed film, notably in the casting of Stellan Skarsgaard as Goya himself. Why cast a Swedish actor, who usually isn't necessarily bad in the character-actor parts he takes on, in the role of one of the most decadent and ribald *Spanish* artists in the past 250 years of worldwide painting? Skarsgaard doesn't do too much to elevate the part outside of being the guy on the sidelines, dramatically trying to not get too much into the situations, at first, but then soon becoming like a match-maker in the second half when "daughter" drama happens between an ex-"Brother" and an ex-prisoner-of-inquisition. And yet, there is perfect casting in having Barden as the Brother Lorenzo, who doesn't change in how he tries to push aside any of the problems in his life that he doesn't want to deal with, be it questions of real faith, taking care of a certain lost woman, and his illegitimate child, even as he changes from man of the cloth to revolutionary in several years time. Seeing him in the first half in that black robe, his eyes dark and leering of Goya and even the Church to an extent, it's not wonder that he's one of the most sought-out actors of his time. And even better then that, as far as conventions go, he gets the truest kind of arc with his character.

Then there's Natalie Portman who, as probably as something of both an in-joke/reversal of the tactic used in 'Obscure Object' with two actresses playing the same woman, and a sort of disintegration-of-soul aspect that Forman might be after ambivalently, embodies the crushed innocence of repressive religion. Ines is tossed into a prison following a confession- whether true or not is left nicely vague- that she's Jewish following a questioning of what she ate, and left for more than a decade. Seeing her in this section it's clear she's lucid in her presentation of a simple characterization: sweet and naive, then later torn into oblivion by insanity and a near absurd desperation to find the child she birthed while in prison. When she plays the daughter it's a little more flat and pat, as all we see of her is as a 14 year-old (yes, 14 year-old) harlot. This mixed-up matching of actors (plus a few bits with Randy Quaid as a well-played pudgy king) is set to a backdrop of Spain where society is merciless and without much compromise unless the regime changes, which is towards one way (the ultra stric

Goya's Ghosts fmovies. Hollywood will have to wait for long time to see again films of such quality,films that are condemned not to have a big commercial success but films that will remain in the history of art of cinema.The "ghosts of Goya" is taking us back to a past time showing with incredible reality the conditions of this time,and helped by a great performance of the actors,Milos Forman gives us another sample of his rare directing talent.In the question which film i like most "Amadeus" or "the ghosts of Goya" i can't decide which is more great,Mozart-a genius of music composing,Goya-a genius of painting,aspects of their lives under the unique look of Milos Forman.When i went to see this movie,here in a small town of Greece,there were only 25 people in the cinema,while films like "300" were played here for 2 months with the halls full of people.What can i say?History will judge us all...

This movie had a great storyline and kept one's attention from beginning to end, a well directed movie, I believe one of the best I've ever seen. While some period movies are overwhelmed by the attention to period detail, in this movie the background enhances and makes the movie more believable. The acting was very well performed and all the actors deserve equal mention. I would see this movie again and recommend to all. I have no doubt that this movie will garner many awards in many categories! The costumes, the backdrops and scenery were bar none and worthy of many accolades. The historical context is well worth mentioning. A terrific period in Spain's history that left a long and hideous scar on its glorious and eventful history. Enjoy and share this movie with a friend and then enjoy comparing notes of what each of you saw and felt especially attracted to!

I saw it yesterday on film festival. And it was great.

When I was reading the description of the movie, I had some doubts. It seemed it would be yet another film about bad, intolerant catholics and good and democratic atheists. I'm just fed up with that kind of films. But it was not so. In a short - it's a great film with bad description.

What it really is about, is that it doesn't matter what principles one believes in if their life is doesn't match these principles. Both inquisitors and French democrats were capable of same brutality - always, of course, in name of some noble idea - love, freedom, equality... It's not sentimental or pathetic and it doesn't try to tell you what is "the only truth". It simply says that its not principles and ideas that are bad - its people. Characters are very human, with many errors - but, at the same time, each of the characters, even "villains" have moments when you will like them. It is also because the film changes perspective several times, and those who were despots become victims.

Maybe its not the best Forman's film, but it is very good.