El lado oscuro del corazon 2

El lado oscuro del corazón 2 was definitely not my kind of movie.

The entire film has a metaphorical existence with no concrete counterpart, which is to say that characters don't engage in real human behavior and dialogue, but in some kind of allegorical behavior, as in a dream poem. The main character is a poet who is looking for "a woman who can fly". This, I suppose, symbolizes our quest for a woman who makes us feel like we are flying.

I guess.

The dialogue consists of stuff like this:

"I'm a physicist"

"Great, I want to know about gravity. It scares me."

"Why are you afraid of gravity?"

"I'm not afraid of vertical gravity, which pulls us inevitably down to earth, but horizontal gravity, which pulls us inevitably forward in time to death"

Or this:

"I seek a woman who can fly"

"I am not good in the air. I am a creature of land and water. I am an amphiobian."

And so forth. We are left to guess which, if any, real words might have been exchanged.

Swirling camera, vibrant colors, romantic music to a tango beat, faux-poetic dialogue. That kind of crap. This is sort of like a Spanish-language version of a Zalman King story. Imagine a long episode of Red Shoe Diaries, en Español

DVD info from Amazon

widescreen anamorphic

The good news is that there are several topless women, all quite beautiful, but all shot in exactly the same boring sex scene, (woman on bottom, man looking into her eyes, camera captures them above the waist, the woman's breasts barely visible in dark lighting). The only one that really interested me was Ariadna Gil, a perennial Movie House favorite, and the ongoing winner of the Spanish division of the Kate Beckinsale look-alike contest.

The Critics Vote ...

It was nominated for three annual awards by the Argentine film academy. (Best Actress, Supporting Actress, Director)

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.6/10

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, this film is about three miles of blacktop. A stab at popular art, rarely successful.