Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!

Absolutely awful.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

The biggest part of the movie that doesn't work IS the Wendigo, and when your title character fails, your movie usually isn't far behind it. The filmmakers' interpretation of the Wendigo's form is interesting, and can be properly menacing when filmed correctly - when the fleeing killer sees the Wendigo in a flash in his rear view mirror, for instance - and the tree-form was actually very good. However, as a monster character it never really comes to life. We don't get much of an explanation for its behavior, and what we DO see from it doesn't jibe with either the story told in the movie itself, or any Wendigo lore I've ever read.

I think one of the main reasons that the monster fails is that it isn't given enough to do, in the movie. When you boil this film down to its bones, what you have is a suspense thriller with a little bit of a supernatural element, instead of a movie about a monster.

The cinematography is good, though a little cheesy; the filmmakers use scenery, lighting, and time of day to convey atmosphere and mood rather well. The character of Otis comes across as truly dangerous and unpredictable, making him the real monster in the film. It might have been more effective to explain his behavior as him being possessed by the hungry spirit of the Wendigo, which would also be a more accurate representation of the real legend.

I have heard unconfirmed reports (from a newsgroup) that the reason the Wendigo doesn't do much is that, when the monster suit was built, it wound up so heavy and and uncomfortable (in order to mimic the stance of it standing on cloven hooves, the performer had to walk on his toes) that it was nearly impossible to run, walk, or otherwise perform in it. Thus the many flashes of the creature standing still, and the obvious sped-up footage of it running. I stress that these reports are uncomfirmed.