#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch At Eternity's Gate

(23660) 6.9 111 min 2018

At Eternity's Gate is a movie starring Willem Dafoe, Rupert Friend, and Oscar Isaac. A look at the life of painter Vincent van Gogh during the time he lived in Arles and Auvers-sur-Oise, France.

Willem Dafoe, Mads Mikkelsen, Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac
Drama, Biography
Julian Schnabel

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Drama, Biography
Director Julian Schnabel
Writer Louise Kugelberg, Jean-Claude Carrière, Julian Schnabel
Stars Willem Dafoe, Mads Mikkelsen, Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac
Country Ireland, USA, UK, France, Switzerland
Also Known As Van Gogs. Pie mūžības vārtiem, Van Gogh en la puerta de la eternidad, Vincent van Gogh - Vid evighetens port, 梵谷:在永恆之門, 永遠の門 ゴッホの見た未来, No Portal da Eternidade, Van Gogh - Ikuisuuden porteilla, Van Gogh. U bram wieczności, Van Gogh: Sonsuzluğun Kapısında, À Porta da Eternidade, Van Gogh - Auf der Schwelle zur Ewigkeit, Van Gogh, a las puertas de la eternidad, 永遠の門 ゴッホの見た未来, Prie amžinybes vartu, Vid evighetens port, Van Gogh - An der Schwelle zur Ewigkeit, Van Gogh - At Eternity's Gate, À la porte de l'éternité, Na kapiji večnosti, Van Gokh: Be'Sha'arei Ha'Netzakh, Van Gogh - Ved evighedens port, Van Gogh - Sulla soglia dell'eternità, Van Gogh: En la puerta de la eternidad, Στην πύλη της αιωνιότητας, La poarta eternităţii
Runtime 1H 51M
Description During a self-imposed exile in Arles and Auvers-Sur-Oise, France, Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh develops his unique, colorful style of painting. While grappling with religion, mental illness and a tumultuous friendship with French artist Paul Gauguin, van Gogh begins to focus on his relationship with eternity rather than the pain his art causes him in the present.

Top reviews

Tuesday, 07 Apr 2020 14:11

A novel by Cormac McCarthy about a drunken Irish poet from the 18th century who manages to get himself into an assassination attempt on the British royal family. It's a very interesting idea, and although it never reaches the literary heights of "The Road" or "The Shining" it's still worth watching. Unfortunately, it's also a really boring film. The reason is that we're constantly being shown all sorts of different locations from the 18th century, with little explanation of what's going on. At first I thought that it was a real world, but then we're shown a black and white screen showing the Irish countryside. And at other points we're shown images from movies, or even real historical events. The idea of depicting the Irish countryside in this way is intriguing, but it's hard to see what the point of it is. It's more a strategy for showing the eccentricities of the characters, but even then it's not really well-used. There are some nice shots of the countryside, but it's all very plain and lifeless. The cinematography is also not very good. There are some good shots of the countryside, but they are shot in the same dull, flat manner that the rest of the film is shot. I also found the soundtrack to be very distracting. It's too much of a musical score, that's used at all sorts of different points in the film. The score never really has any impact on the film, it just makes it look like a school play. I also found the direction to be very poor. It's all very stylised and generic, and there's a lot of long, drawn-out shots of people walking and talking, that are just not engaging. I'm not sure if it's a stylistic choice or if it's just the direction itself, but there's a lot of stuff going on that doesn't work. The whole film is very slow. There are many scenes where we're just listening to the soundtrack, while the characters talk and walk around. There's also some slow scenes that aren't very interesting. I also found the ending to be very unsatisfying. It's very abrupt and abrupt, and I didn't find it to be at all satisfying. I also found the ending to be very disjointed. It's all too sudden and abrupt, and in the middle it just becomes a very disjointed film. There's a lot of different scenes that are left out. The problem with the film is that it just doesn't have anything to offer. There's no tension, no excitement, no emotion. I think that a lot of people who are going to watch this film are going to be disappointed. If you're interested in the novel then you'll probably enjoy it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Tuesday, 07 Apr 2020 13:06

In a move that was bound to be controversial, and possibly to be a failure, Spielberg chose to film the film at Orson Welles' home, for a film that was so wildly popular and highly acclaimed. It was the kind of film that would cause a lot of critics to fall over themselves to praise it. But a documentary, by definition, is meant to take the audience inside the film and ask questions about it. The best documentary film is the one that captures the viewer and never lets them go. The best documentary film is The King of Comedy, as it gives you a chance to see how brilliant comedian Dick Gregory was as a performer and comedian. There's also a documentary in the works called The Apostle: How a True Story Became a Musical, which will be shown in March, as a prequel to the film. As a film student, I was thrilled to see how well the film was shot. Most documentaries are shot by the camera man. I think the camera man captures the energy of the film and gives it a documentary feel. I think the director made a good choice to film the film at Welles' home. This is a man who was in a sense his life's work. And he was always so into his films. The film captures the energy that Welles had for the people around him, from the British ministers to the actors, but also the people in his films. And what I liked the most was how well the camera worked. The camera was always close, almost always. It captured the atmosphere of the film. And what I liked most was the camera itself. It was so quiet, almost in a kind of documentary-style. I thought it was like the film was the camera. I also liked the style of the film itself. The film was beautifully shot, but I didn't like that they didn't show Welles' actual house. I think it would have added so much to the film. The film was shot so differently than Welles' other films. I also liked the fact that the film was shot in black and white. It seemed to have the feeling of the time that Welles lived in, and that was great. There's a wonderful scene where Welles is leaving a screening of a play he has just finished. He goes into a room where the theater is black and white. The camera is so close that it feels like we are in the room with Welles. It's a great scene. The film had a good story and was interesting. But I think the film was the wrong choice to do the film at Welles' home. There's so much that could have been done. In addition, the documentary that Spielberg made to accompany the film, for the sake of promoting the film, would have been so much better. I think it would have given the film an entirely different look. I think the film would have been so much more successful, but I don't know. I did like the film, but I'm not sure it's the one I'd recommend.

Write a review