Takes itself way too seriously

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Very seldom do we see a film so old, but so fresh & provoking. This is the film , even though you probably know it!!***** with the infamous eye-cutting scene ***end of SPOILERS*** and boy, it is the real thing. Many striking images come in mind, most of all, I am glad that most people here do not try to or explain as this would be useless. For what it is worth, this started Bunuel's thing, I have yet MANY of him to see. Sit back and enjoy!https://urbanomp3.com/

I'm not going to rate this film because all I can say is "What the heck?" - That's the G rated version of what I said. This very late silent is on the list of films people must see before they die? And the late Roger Ebert agreed??? It reminded me of a time in the late 80s when I was sitting on a bench at the Dallas Museum of Art waiting for my companion to return from the restroom and noticed that among the masterpieces there was hung a canvas with four squares of different colors painted on it. That's it. Nothing interesting done with perspective or lighting. A five year old could have done it if they could have managed to paint within the lines. How did it get here? Was it WHO painted it that made it view worthy? I didn't bother to go over and find out, so I can't tell you. I'd just say that this film reminds me of that. So some ants crawl around on someone's hand and somebody slits an eyeball. How does any of this relate to the human experience? I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed in a film I was expecting to like or at least be challenged by.I get that it's not really trying to make a point. Surrealism as Dali and Bunuel were interested in it at that point wasn't about anything, wasn't making a statement, it's just a stream of (dream) consciousness/series of images intended, if anything, to baffle and/or upset the bourgeoisie. They succeeded. I'm pretty much bourgeoisie and I was baffled.

Un Chien Andalou is a French silent film created on June 6th 1929, It is directed and produced by Luis Buñuel and is written by Salvador Dali. The cast consisted of Simore Marevil and Pierre Batchef., acting as themselves in the movie. The films outstanding cinematography is filmed by Albert Duverger and Jimmy Berliet. Music was later added too the silent also composed by Richard Wagner then selected by director Luis Buñuel in 1960. This film is known an "surealist film" although not a horror film, this short film is most certainly a huge influence on many horror classics with its nightmarish imagery., For instance the infamous razor-eye moment that is very surreal for its time in movie cinema in the late 1920's. Or the scene that includes the hand having flies coming out of it, which is a very broad and strange moment in this short film. Un Chien Andalou is known in time too give a person a sense of uncertainty and unanticipated feel through out the films entirety. The camera work and shots still hold up beautifully by Mr. DuVerger and Berliet, many iconic shots in this movie. But most importantly it proves how creativity,uniqueness and a sense of vision can have a greater impact on a film than any amount of money or following popular trends could ever achieve because Un chien Andalou is still considered a silent film marvel and remains a classic in time.-

Buñuel's and Dali's opus, when both were strapping young guys in Hemingway's Paris, is film pure. Even more so than 2001, a film that I rate even one notch higher.There is no story here. There are no morals. There is no deep psychology, although the Freudian crowd has of course provided pitiful interpretations for the imagery. It is just imagery. The Freudians are just like hapless children taking a Rorschach test and trying to assign meaning to random ink blots. It is well-known that the two surrealists basically just one-upped each other with their weirdest dreams, and then tried to put on the screen what the special effects and micro-budget of the day allowed. In fact, "Un Chien Andalou" is one of the grand-daddys of independent film. No studio would have touched this thing with a pole. Fatty Arbuckle jumping on actresses and literally exploding them under his weight was poppycocks by comparison.I know that when a film really impresses me, it gets me to do something difficult. After "Chien," I had to sit down and write out some of my weirdest dreams as a stream-of-consciousness short story. About 20 pages of intense writing. My brother and his wife tell me it's pretty far out - but it's not as far out as this film.For some reason, whenever I see this film, I have to think of Brian O'Nolan's "The Third Policeman," a book that starts out harmless enough but then falls into a rabbit hole so deep that it all seems like self-iterative dream."Chien" is simply surreal. If you like Dali's melting clocks and elephants on sky-high stilt legs, or Hieronymus Bosch's medieval monstrosities, you'll like this film. And if not, let razor-blue sky of the blond-eyed and blue-haired take you to the beetle crevice with the whispering headlights that roll up and down in that labyrinth of crackling plaster walls, all rounded, too soft and too steep to climb up from, so you are trapped.