User reviews

1913 is a year that fascinates me. It was the last year of an order that reigned in Europe and the world for almost a century, established at the Congress of Vienna that had traced in 1814-15 the borders of Europe and the relations between the great powers of the time. Of course, it had been a century with many events - the 1848 revolutions, the emergence of new national states (Germany, Italy, Romania among them), conflicts and regional wars - yet Europe had been spared of major continental scale conflicts as the 30-year War or the Napoleonic wars had been in the previous centuries, and the balance between the great powers seemed relatively stable, also influenced by the relations between the royal and imperial families that reigned in many of the countries of the continent. Contradictions and conflicts were accumulating, while the more sophisticated classes benefited from a life style close to decadence. Europe had several cultural capitals - Paris, of course, but also Berlin, Vienna, Prague, or the newcomers Budapest and Bucharest - cities where the arts flourished in parallel with the underground rottenness. The fascination for this last moment of bourgeois tranquility and escapism that was 1913, a moment before the storms of the 20th century, is shared by many authors of books and movies. Hungarian director László Nemes, is the latest with his recent film 'Sunset' / 'Napszállta'.

László Nemes also faces the 'second film' syndrome, which are suffering from the directors who have made an exceptional debut. After 'Son of Saul' enjoyed an exuberant reception by critics and collected about all the major awards for foreign films (including the Academy Award and BAFTA for best foreign language film) three years ago, expectations are high. 'Sunset' is undoubtedly an ambitious movie. Nemes chose the year 1913 to launch a warning about the contemporary period, similar in his views to the accumulation of contradictions, the differences between the styles and the levels of life of the social categories, but above all similar in ignoring the acute problems facing Europe today. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was less than a year after 1913 to be engulfed in WWI, and which would disappear in five years, is a metaphor for today's Europe, another multinational empire suffering of escapism, ignoring the gathering problems or not finding the real solutions. In such times people seek their identity, so does the heroine of the film, Írisz Leiter (Juli Jakab), a young woman coming to Budapest in search of the truth about the death of her parents, about the fate of the hat store left to them in heritage, and about the destiny of her brother, whose existence she learns about, shrouded in a fog of mystery and fear.

László Nemes likes to put his audiences to test. With the story at hand he could have made of 'Sunset' a Gothic mystery with elements of historical drama mixed with 'horror'. These elements are present in the film, but the criminal intrigue does not seem to be the focus of the attention of the director (who is also co-scriptwriter). More important seems to him to be the ambience, an end-of-the-empire Budapest. The cinematography seems to be in tune with the name of the film, obscure lighting that leaves the feeling that night is permanently coming, which makes of the light of the few scenes shot in daylight to seem almost blinding. Part of the story is related to the hat making business, with the beautiful 1913 fashion creations that would make the English royal house of today jealous, a craft and symbol of a twilight world. The actors are superb, with Juli Jakab in the lead role combining the determination and defiance of social rules with an inner power that compensates for her fragility. Romanian star Vlad Ivanov is as good as always (I do not remember him acting a bad role in a movie or on stage ever), embodying Oszkár Brill, the hat store owner, a useless beauty factory, an apparently respectable institution, also hiding vices and dark stories between its walls. He speaks his role in Hungarian, and unfortunately I do not know this language well enough to judge whether he speaks impeccably or with some accent that may suggest a stranger in a cosmopolitan world.

'Sunset' is a beautiful and interesting movie, but the lack of attention or decision in the narrative thread loses the spectators at some point, or at least, it lost me. The characters appear and disappear before they have been completely defined, the same situations are repeated with small variations, and many of the details of the story are not concluded or explained. I could not avoid a feeling of length and repetition, and the open end added another enigma without clarifying anything that has happened until then, which does in my opinion add another element of dissatisfaction. László Nemes does not need to prove anything, he already has made to himself on merit a name among the important filmmakers of today's Hungary and Europe. He should now just pay more attention to his spectators.

I guess I was expecting more dynamics, but unfortunately didn't see it. Too much protractedly and like it turns around and turns, and turns. Nothing compared to the previous one. Yes, the style is the same, fast moving camera in one frame, ok, but it should be more than that considering giving us the good story. This is just running through some smoke, darkness, shiness and perhaps the picture of preparing for the war.

I watched this movie more or less by chance. I went to a non-mainstream theatre (this movie wasn't widely exhibited in Portugal), read the sinopsis and decided to give it a try.

On the one hand, this is one of those movies that really transport you into another time and place. Due to the brilliant sets and costumes, you really fell that you are in 1913's Budapest.

On the other hand, I found this movie dreadfully boring, I couldn't stop looking at the clock! I found the plot either irrelevant, boring or confusing.

The variety of camera shoots is also very poor. At some point, I got tired of looking at the back of the head and neck of the protagonist as she walks around.

To sum up, athough this movie had a great potential, the final product ended up beyond expectations.

I saw this movie, in an unpremeditated way, kindly accepting the choice of a friend who absolutely wanted to see it. So without any a priori at all. Pros: photography, costumes and sets are all 3 excellent. We really feel in Budapest in 1913. Cons: this is an unintelligible and almost unpleasant sequence of scenes; it's ultra-rough!. A dozen times, I asked myself: what's the relationship between the current scene and the previous one(s)?!? I can not believe that this movie was directed by László Nemes, author of the unforgettable and poignant Son of Saul (2015). According to some people, it's art and/or an advanced form of expression. Well, well, well, ... Honestly? I didn't understand a damn thing. Really!

In summary: visually amazing but desperately boring ... Please László, come back to earth!

It is a very suspense heavy one with Altman-like narrative and with all over a Twin Peaks upbeat. The final scene, which is too plastic, is rather an ex machina ending, than anything else, which really makes it a hard movie, because at the end we would also expect to be able align with her, but it just doesn't really happen.

The whole concept is intriguing, probably more than Son of Saul had back in the days as it was "just another holocaust movie" to experience, well that what I thought, probably many others, yet we got something totally unique in the end. But the theme of concentration camps were already told many times before, and often in painfully cheesy ways. A story about the begining of World War I, about its dawn holds more mysticism and freedom to be told, and after the Saul film I was really excited what Nemes had to tell us about that...

Well... it figures... not that much. All I could gather from the movie is that the team really loves their own narrative technique they used previously, and they just totally projected the sole storytelling language onto a theme where it kinda... mostly... backfired. The elements didn't glue themselves precisely, and they become a part of something that just smells really fishy. They probably thought copying their own concept is enough to keep the glory of Laszlo's artistic career, to make this whole language as an own brand, however it turns out to be underdeveloped and not that flexibly adaptable. And this howler created that specific something of which we might have heard many times in the history of movies: an Artsy Fartsy production.

It's a shame thought, because the images send you back right into that time of the 1910s, it lives in front of you... flesh and blood, the environment, the costumes, historical authenticity is excecuted top-notchly, the colors and compositions sometimes remind us about those avant-garde paintings made by pointilist/expressionist/impressionist artists, and on these factors the team cared to focus 100%.

What Laszlo, and his collaborate writers couldn't hold up to thought is the way a story like this should be told in order to it be realistic and believable. Because what's totally, laughably bad is the dialogue. The sentences these characters "exchange" are unrealistic, we would never encounter in such ever in our daily lives. And seeing the whole realism and authenticity before me I might wonder where this movie wants to be symbolistic/metaphoric and where it wants to be flesh and blood realistic... because these two dimensions just don't add up, barely maintain symbiotic relationship. Throughout the whole movie the summary of 70% dialogue is "well... I don't know" ... then the characters mostly stand there like ALL these words behold huge weight... EACH WORD... even thought these overall don't hold any meaning at all and they end up being fillers apparently.

Not to mention the begining of the movie is already nonsensical from realism standpoint; The Leiter girl tells the assisstants that she is there for the job ONLY after they tried several hats on her... like... what... she couldn't do that right at the moment she arrived to the building? So I guess we should have left the "realism" perspective right from the begining? Well okey, let's do that, but what should we gather then from this storytelling, when no one tells nothing essential 70% of the dialogue, and everyone is just acts unrealistic right at the moment when they have to interact with each other; they stare at each other, standing or sitting next to each other with 80% silence of total screentime... it becomes tedious and laughable reminding me of the acting pracice those no names do in a Barátok Közt episode.

So these problems are really apparent in the first half, the second half of the movie is getting more exciting and finally developing to somewhere, expressing its artistic, metaphoric language in a more adequate way. It gets darker, really atmospheric and foreshadowing, you can really feel the arrival of something dark and cold that could shatter all that fanciness and golden age of peace people believe to live in. The music, the sounds, the visuals work really well here, and all the tediousness and fishiness - that we got from the whole 2 and a half hour screening time - fall back a little, making the movie watchable till the end and leaving you with some satisfaction in some ways. But, again, the breaking the forth wall, staring at the whole audience with the eyes that tell you "YOU SEE? YOU SEE IT NOW? HEY! YOU SEE?" moment... well... it's just... really bad... because YES, for god sakes, we saw it, we watched the movie, you don't have to spoonfeed us.

So in the end, as I finished the movie, all I could feel as a conclusion from this all; well... "I don't know"

And that's... again... a shame, because the whole concept of the story that is being unfold on screen is depressingly beautiful; The rotten flashy surface being rusted by the ugliness it hides, and to that the Leiter siblings tell "No way, we shouldn't keep it on hold, release it, and let's face it, whatever is underneath!"

Movie very boring with something about to happen which never happen. Why make a such extended film for a so small story?

Just found this too dark and too slow. Many scenes are just too drawn out and the almost constant close-up camera work becomes annoying after a while. Nearly 2 and a half hours that could have easily been much more effective in 1 and a half with a better pace.

"Sunset" (2018 release from Hungary; 142 min.) brings the story of Irisz Leiter. As the movie opens, we are told it is "the early 1910s", and Irisz has come to Budapest, hoping to land a job at the Leiter House, a legendary upscale hat store. Turns out the store was founded by her parents, who passed away when she was just 2 years old. The current owner, Mr. Brill, declines to give her a job, despite her obvious talent and pedigree. Later that day, Irisz is confronted by a guy who claims to act on behalf of her brother. Irisz is bewildered, not knowing that she had/has a brother... What happened to her parents? what is the deal with this mysterious brother? At this point we are less than 15 min, into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the highly anticipated new movie from Hungarian writer-director Laszlo Nemes, whose debut film, 2015's "Son of Paul", was as astonishing as it was harrowing and haunting (and promptly winning the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Movie). I had it as one of my top movies of that year as well. Now three years later, and with a generous budget (for Hungarian standards), comes this. My expectations were high, alas way too high as it turns out. Where did it all go wrong? Let's start with the most obvious: a movie of this kind will succeed only if one buys into the story and is invested. emotionally, in the characters. I am sorry to say that the movie fails gigantically on that level. I hoped to become connected or invested into the Irisz character, but it just didn't happen. At no point did Nemes give me any reason or excuse to become emotionally invested. If you have seen "Son of Saul", you know that it was filmed in a very peculiar way (many extreme close-ups and filmed from behind the main character's perspective, as if you were walking right behind him), and Nemes uses the very same technique in "Sunset". Whereas it worked well in "Son of Saul", it does not in "Sunset", in fact, it works against the movie. Newcomer Juli Jakab plays the Irisz character, and frankly she looks utterly lost at times. Last but certainly not least, with a running time of about 2 1/2 hrs., the movie is far too long for its own good. A tighter edit could've cut at least 30 min. without losing any of the needed narrative. A darn shame.

"Sunset" premiered at last Fall's Venice film festival, and it finally opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended so-so (about 10 people). I knew going in that the movie had not collected anywhere near the buzz of "Son of Saul", yet still I had high hopes. Alas, it was not to be, and in fact I can't help but feel that "Sunset" is a major disappointment. Of course I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater (not very likely), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

As a Hungarian I was stunned at this pointless disconnected script.

I guess this film is feigning art.

Loved the costume and period photography. What is the background or the foundation for this plot, if anything.

If this period was pre WW I why all the bombed out buildings in the set?

Greetings again from the darkness. Hungarian filmmaker Laszlo Nemes mesmerized us with his first feature film, SON OF SAUL (2015), the Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language film. That debut was an incredibly unique viewing experience centered on the Holocaust at Auschwitz. Mr. Nemes got much of the band back together for this follow up, and their collaboration, while a bit frustrating to watch, is again quite fascinating to look at.

Mr. Nemes co-wrote the script with his SON OF SAUL writing partners Clara Royer and Matthieu Taponier (also the film's editor). And for those that share my frustration in watching the film, it's the story that is likely to blame. Is there a story? Certainly not in the traditional sense - which makes it difficult to follow or try to explain. Irisz Leiter (played by Juli Jakab) is first seen being fitted for fine hats in the elegant shop that bears her family name. We soon learn her parents both died, and she has been absent from the city for many years. The new owner, Oszkar Brill (Vlad Ivanov, 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS, 2007) is startled to learn of Irisz's return, though we aren't sure why he is so uncomfortable around her. Irisz soon discovers she has a brother (a surprise to her) and that he is quite notorious in these parts.

Much of the film focuses on Irisz trying to track down her brother, and then track him down again. That's the closest thing to a plot we get. Mostly it's a succession of scenes where people ask questions that never get answered. In fact, there is minimal dialogue to go with the now-familiar camera work of cinematographer Matyas Erdely who utilizes his SON OF SAUL first person perspective with background fuzzed out so that we see what one person is seeing. There is an underlying theme of what is apparently a corrupt part of a mysterious sub-culture in the society - even involving the Royal family. Keep in mind this is 1913 Budapest and war is at hand.

The set design and costume design are extraordinary ... especially the lavish hats from the era. The score is from Laszlo Melis (also from SON OF SAUL), and while Ms. Jakab is pleasant to look at, the story is disorienting and unfulfilling. The approach with the camera work is designed to force us to see things through the characters' eyes, but it's not enough to offset the incoherent and aimless wanderings of Irisz as she collects scraps of information that may or may not be pertinent. Perhaps you are smarter than I am, and will be able to connect the dots ... or at least find dots to work with.

Even if you like hats this film will still disappoint. Watching a dripping tap would be far more interesting.

That Avengers Endgame scored 30 points higher on Rotten Tomatoes is not a comment on either film, but rather a statement that attests to the sad, pathetic state of film reviewing.

There's no point comparing a fun evening at the theater and a truly moving film experience, both certainly valid options as a way to spend two or three hours at the theater, so we must find way to review films that are different animals on on different scales. many will see Avengers many times, but if you want to see a moving, profound film - conception, acting, writing, Cinema, compelling narrative, and Most original, exciting. Innovative film making them try to see Sunset on the big screen while you can.

Pretty and pretentious beginning to end. I watched the entire unintelligible mess in disbelief, assuming that some rational explanation of what was happening would appear. Hopeless.

Terrence Malick looks at the World through The Tree of Life and sees a heaven. Paul Thomas Anderson looks at the World through There Will Be Blood and sees a hell. Then László Nemes looks at the World through Sunset and sees it as a plain World; but then confirms Anderson that it is mostly a hell.

More than two hours of a psicopathic woman looking in the nothingness....moreover this "genius" tried to give lessons about life....definitely pathetic

While the fall of the Third Reich gets discussed as nauseam, its historical precedent doesn't get the same cinematographic attention. This movie however brilliantly captures the heavy, nightmarish atmosphere that permeates the metaphorical and literal death of an entire societal and value system, a literal apocalypse.

It's a dark movie, there's no redemption: the word is so corrupted that both aristocrats and revolutionaries have lost their sense of humanity. All these rivers of blood will flood the trenches of the Great War.

Couldn't get myself to watch the second half. Dialogues were dull, plot was not interesting, couldn't relate to any character or felt for any of them.

I feel really annoyed with myself by wasting my life watching this tripe. Pretentious rubbish. Who funded this rubbish? I urge you not to waste your time.

Sunset is, on all levels a film so rich that it needs and deserves to be watched many times.

Finally we have a film maker who not only takes risks with audiences expecting a standard narrative and cinematic experience, but more critical, he and entire cat and crew succeed to create a moving and compelling experience.

Hard to believe we have both innovation and a film that will reward all viewers who are able to set aside their normal expectations.

I was really touched by this for and also excited to come upon amazing film experience.

Intended or not. I found much of Bela Tarr and Miklos Jancso.

Thank you Kaszlo Nemes!!!!

The worst hugarian film I ever seen. No one answers the whole movie... no one knows why, except the director.