Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Canada 93m, B&W, Colour Director: Guy Maddin; Cast: Jason Patric, Isabella Rossellini, Udo Kier, Kevin McDonaldKeyhole is a dark surreal film noir styled erotic ghost story loosely based on Homer's Odyssey about Ulysses Pick, a gangster whose mob pals shoot their way into his family home. Upon his arrival, Ulysses is inexplicably accompanied by a stuffed wolverine named "Crispy" and a drowned woman who apparently comes to life. His odyssey is a claustrophobic adventure through his labyrinth of a house which seems to defy the laws of time and space. Nearly incomprehensible, Keyhole offers a glimpse into a dead man's life through nightmarish visuals that are as interesting as they are perplexing (Klaus Ming August 2013).

I won't say I "like" Guy Maddin in the sense that I am a fan, but for sure his name makes me consider watching a film because while I normally find them difficult to follow or fully appreciate, they usually offer so much that is of interest that they are worth a look. His style is something quite unique to him and sometimes he is so unique that his target audience can appear to be only himself and if the rest of us like it too then so be it. I say this because this is sort of the case here and I hope he really likes Keyhole but I would struggle to think of too many people who would really understand it or enjoy it as he would.There are lots of ideas here and lots of style to deliver them. A gangster and his gang hold up in an old house while the police wait outside; the gang want to know the plan but Ulysses Pick is more concerned with working his way through this house full of ghosts one room at a time. As an idea it is a good one – a man on a journey through himself by virtue of literally confronting the ghosts in his house. It appealed to me as an idea because it offered so much of interest in the hands of Maddin (who is known for his surreal imagery and films constructed around real or imagined or perceived pasts). Sadly it doesn't come off and it ends up feeling like an idea that was probably fully fleshed out in Maddin's head but not in a way that he was able to translate to film.The result is a film that feels clever but all too often does it in a remote "art student" manner where it is happy doing what it wants because it is your fault if you are not smart enough to understand and appreciate all the hidden meaning in the symbolism. It is a shame because there is a good cast here in Patric, Rossellini and Kier but I wonder do even they really understand what it going on – I hope not, because if they did then they didn't do much to share it with the viewer.A disappointing film then; it offers much in the concept but in the delivery it seems far too closed off and full of randomness with no threads or cues to really help the viewer keep up or go along. Maddin is usually worth a look but here it isn't the case.

Usually I do not go out of my way to give poor reviews; if I don't like a film, normally I just don't bother.But...Since I AM an avid fan of Surreal, Abstract, and vague Art films, I felt that I really should leave some comments. Seriously, I really LOVE David Lynch, Jean De Cocteau, and even some Jodorowsky, etc. But this film... Well, it quite honestly left me flatter than Chaz Bono.I mean, I really do like way out SUPER weird films, I do. But in this film, all I see are a bunch of quick, senseless edits, constant repetitive shots of people squawking, and just a TOTAL mishmash of noise and images. To me, THE key element missing here is that there is NO real atmosphere or mood at all. ZERO, at least for me personally... When a movie simply doesn't move you or do anything for you, then all you are left with is a feeling that it is completely meaningless and that it has no emotional or entertainment value. At least that is the way it made me feel after watching it. It just didn't resonate with me.For example, let's say in 'ERASERHEAD', you have many, MANY long scenes where it seems like nothing is happening and so on the surface it LOOKS like just long, static shots. BUT... and it is a BIG BUT like Mariah Carey's... There is MOOD pouring and dripping from every damn frame. Intensity with layers of underlying tension in the soundtrack. The lighting is to die for, etc., etc., etc... But, with this film, you get NONE of that. YES, there are individual shots that could be viewed as nice set pieces, but the way they are all put together (or rather, NOT put together) ends up having no real impact at all. Cinematically, atmospherically, or in any other way really...I DO respect the fact, though, that others here apparently really do like the film. In some way that I do not understand, it resonates with them as an authentic artwork and does indeed DO something for them personally. I guess whatever it is that others ARE relating to in this film, must be going right over me and I'm just not seeing whatever it is that they see in this movie. I suppose what you can take from this is that if you are like me and you like your Surrealism / Art Films to be more ponderous and indirect and more heavily laced with a deep moodiness such as David Lynch's 'ERASERHEAD' or 'MULHOLLAND DRIVE' where you appreciate the silences and pauses. and where there is more of a dark, PALPABLE appeal to the subconscious, then you may not like this film where there is more of a superficial feel, with frenetic editing and imagery, that at least in my lowly opinion, is much more obvious and crude with big, fat, old, naked men lying on the floor with their little wee wee's and fat bellies hanging out and quick close-ups of his lined face, and fast, choppy edits between people's faces and dark rooms, and then back again as they let out these bizarre baying sounds. With odd comments like 'Now, all the people who are dead, stand over here' HUH...??? Sorry, that is just not my kind of thing...I'm afraid that I must side with others here who just do not like this film; maybe I'm truly missing something, I don't know. I DID give it a '3' because the B&W photography looked nice. But quite honestly as far as I'm concerned, I think It rather rip my own testicles off then to have to ever, EVERY sit through this movie again (let's hope it doesn't come to that...)

While I'm definitely a Maddin fan, make no mistake about that, and I recognize his hat tips to Lynch and Von Trier and Harmony Korine, and I love any movie with Udo Kier in it, clearly this is a take-the-tax-grant and run flick.Meanwhile, I'm going to strip naked and go to the antique mall and make some foggy black and white videos for YouTube and see which government wants to bankroll me for more! The 3 rating is strictly for how well this stacks up with other Maddin predecessors. The uninitiated, unless chemically altered, would probably strain to give it a zero.IMDb here is insisting I go on at length in my review. I'm so glad there is governmental support for the arts, but sometimes it's just a siphon into a drain somewhere. For once, I am going to call this out. I will have to do so extensively, or I won't pass muster for my review length.I did think some of the bric-a-brac props in the movie were cool. I like to shop antique flea markets myself, and some of the stuff was really prize. OK, I think I have filled up the text buffer to this website's satisfaction.