A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence

As much as Andersson's style is unique and intriguing, a third film in the span of 14 years rehashing the exact same format and themes strikes me a sign of stagnation. "En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron" seems to be packed with less neat surrealistic twists than the previous two and, although it's still an odd, thought-provoking creature, I feel that Andersson fails to communicate anything truly original.

too much take it back [if roy andersson were a delicious gourmet seasoning]

Tati-esque in its absolute commitment to visual gags.

I think one Roy Andersson film is my limit - even if I watched it years ago. This latest one is a step too far for me. As soon as it starts, you know exactly what you're in for: deliberately drab, static scenes; pallid, moronic characters in surreal arguments; loose connecting threads and repetitions here and there but nothing you can get your teeth into. It's akin to watching paint dry. Is there supposed to be social commentary here or is it just the rambling delusions of an old lost mind?

Mmm, that is one dry pigeon.

Can be a little slow at times, but the awkward acting is great. People look and act bored because that's the point. The use of static camera won't appeal to all but that's Andersson's trademark. Clever tragicomedy on display here, with the King being the highlight of the film. One of the final scenes is pretty depressing as well. It shifts tones whenever it feels like it.

clever but hard to stomach

Not the easiest of movies, but certainly rewards the patient viewer. Hilarious at times.

Doubtlessly Roy Andersson has an eye for creating wonderful shots, and there is no shortage of those in "En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron". At its best, the film displays the relatable slices of life and thought-provoking musings on the human condition that he knows to deliver so well. Nevertheless, it is marred by several pointless vignettes, occasional sluggishness and the permeating feeling that he is going over the same ground once again - and with the exact same approach.

watchable

The most fantastical and political of the trilogy and a wonderful end.

Everyone looks like they're on the cusp of death but you'll be happy to hear they're doing fine. Or, they're not fine, but at least it's Wednesday again.

01.18 Tuğba

????????????????????????????????????????????/???1943?????????kiss, just for a glass of beer. ??????????????"????"???????????

Komedi nerede geçiyodu lan?

A huge step down, I think he has lost it!

A movie inspired by the paintings by Peter Bruegel, a realistic representation of a nordic society. This films might get awkward but only to provide a scene for the dialog which explores in depth topics.

I feel like giving this a bad score exposes me as some kind of idiot, but as much as I wanted to enjoy it, I just couldn't find a meaning in anything that was going on. So it was absurdity for the sake of absurdity, which is fine, but tiring over the course of an entire film. It looks great, though, and I found myself praying for each scene to end (because it was boring), but also so that I could see the next stage.

Funny in its very absurd and deadpan style. Some parts are better than others, highlights to me are the flashback to the bar in 1943 and Karel XII's legion suddenly dropping in at a bar. But it is too artificial for me to really love this.

Nobody makes films quite like Roy Andersson, but his signature style perhaps isn't as effectively 'repeatable' and diminishing returns have begun to set in. The move to digital is dubious: it brings greater clarity but lends an antiseptic quality to the visual design, highlighting its mechanical contrivance. The vignettes seem more disconnected and the scenarios are less imaginative, with few exceptions. Those exceptions make it worthwhile though, and his droll humour remains firmly intact.

Dead Horse: The Movie

Intriguing, sometimes humourous, often unfathomable and even slightly dull but worth reflecting on.

Star Rating: ★★★★

Love Andersson's wry style, the stillness of the frame only serving to enhance the humor and/or the drama of the moment. This generally fits in well with his earlier work, if not rising to the great heights of *Songs*. That said, I have no idea what to do with the dream sequence, which seems to be much more pointed/less ironic than anything else in the trilogy, as if the anger over contemporary society just boiled over uncontrollably.

Somewhat thematically unfocused, but also frequently at its best when it just runs wild with some absurd or haunting vignette. Those moments make it more than worth it to sit through a few lesser scenes. Andersson's comically dry vision of life is still enticing.

My first Roy Andersson film, and I had a really unpleasant, upsetting, and uncomfortable time with it-- I like! It plays out like a nightmarish parody of Europe's slow cinema, with a series of very loosely connected segments that add up to form a twisted (though maybe entirely accurate) worldview.

Highly beautiful as always, but this one seemed a bit long-winded (perhaps because after the other two, it is getting a bit old).

A hypnotic exploration of life as a series of small absurdities, viewed from a distance, as these things were always meant to be. A film about surroundings, and boundaries, and how maybe these are more or less the same exact thing. It's either very funny, or very grim, but it handles both situations with masterful finesse. There's great comfort in misery, I think, and that's what's so appealing about this film. I hope that when I die, someone gets a free beer out of it.

Zamanin mekanin ve eylemlerin ayrilamaz ve silsilesiz devamliliği gibi bir deneme.. Filmin sonundaki adam da haydegere benziyordu..

I should probably rewatch the other two in the trilogy, because this is a lot more my sort of thing now than it once was. That said, there's something a little disconcertingly antiseptic and almost too perfectly-calibrated about Andersson's deadpan whimsey (perhaps rooted in his advertising background?) compared to similar stuff like, say, Aki Kaurismaki. Also, the ending of this gets sort of uncharacteristically heavy-handed.

The art department, sound design, makeup, acting, pacing, and ambition makes Andersson consistently valuable to cinema. He's as iconic and aesthetically unique as Wes Anderson or Jim Jarmusch. And there's so many moments of magic-like, spontaneous beauty on display. Perfect balance of the comically repetitive (and monotone) absurdist scenes. Beauty and suffering. Andersson can't show one without the other.

The very idea of deadpan. Loses steam towards the end.

Unique in style it starts great and very promising, but once you've seen a couple of scenes, most that follows is quite similar and repetitive. Still worth watching for some very surreal moments.

bir yorum değil, gözlem filmi olması kendisini belli anlatım gerekliliklerinden kurtarmıyor. durağanlık bir şey anlattığı sürece problem değildir, gözlemi kuru bir sinematografiyle aktarmaya çalışmayla böylesine ancak böylesine kopuk bir film ortaya çıkıyor. bağırmanın zıttı belki susmak gibi geliyor olabilir, tartışılır; ama bağırmanın doğrusu susmak değil.

Aside from a rather brilliant penultimate scene, Andersson continues his slippery downward spiral into mediocrity. In fact, that scene feels so out of tune with the rest of the film, it makes you wonder why everything else doesn't share its impact and vision.

Static shots that bring an anticipation to take in every detail of each new shot make for an interesting viewing. I was also anticipating the final beautifully staged shot for a good half hour. Little long. Some amazing single takes involving the King almost make you stand up out of your chair. It's the most three dimensional 2D movie I've ever seen thanks to phenomenal set design. Introduced two phrases into my lexicon: "I'm happy to hear you're doing fine," and, "Then it's Wednesday again."

Not as fresh as 'Songs from the Second Floor', but still a rewarding and often quite funny experience.

It's well made and it has some surrealistic and smart moments. But it's 2 hours of static shots and strange things that happen in front of the camera. Andersson said that the film had been inspired by "Bicycle Thieves", but here there isn't the simplicity and the emotional hammer of the De Sica's masterpiece. Ok, another style, and there is a similar message, but the message seem "artificially" forced in the film, with forced metaphors. You cannot put "message" above the film. Pretentious.

Başka Sinema - Moda Sahnesi: Nedense (neredeyse) herkesin en "gerçekçi" filmi yapmak için uğraştığı bir dönemde, bünyemde can simidi etkisi yaptı Roy Andersson'ın absürt ve gerçeküstücü mizahı.

Filmekimi 2014 & R. Andersson'in diger filmleri dusunuldugunda bir hayal kirikligiydi.

İletişimsizlik,yanlızlık,umursamazlık,ruhen ölmüş insanlar ve absürd olaylar.