GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

GoldmundX Dutch movies have a tendency to be mediocre at best. Once in a while a movie comes by that surpasses the norm. This is not one of them. The story, while not the most original one, offers potential. Four old friends being confronted with the bankruptcy of their youthful ideals and midlife disillusionment, come together again and hope to refind themselves through each other. Plenty of potential one would think. But Cloaca fails to deliver. And that's really a missed opportunity. It could have been so much better. Bad writing and bad acting are the main culprits. It's an adaptation of a play, but it's maladapted to be suited for the screen. While some scenes offer an authentic feel, others are really painful, with awkward dialogues and clumsy overacting. Moreover, character development and the development of the relationship between the characters is awkward, undermining the whole movie. The flow of the movie doesn't feel natural. At points even the actors don't seem to know anymore. In some scenes they loose themselves in dramatic overacting, in other scenes they seem to struggle with the 'comical' elements. The collage near the end, with the substories coming close to a climax, doesn't fit well with the actually 'climax' of the movie, where the drama is not lifted, but slips through the fingers of the movie makers. It's a shame. The movie would have had more potential in more capable hands.

tedg This is a wonderful drama, originally a play but successfully transformed to cinema. By that I mean that the superb writing is supplemented by images which carry the load.It is the story of four men who in college had a band called Cloaca. We encounter them 20 years later, each with problems we identify. This all rings true, so true and so closely written that I would probably like it even it were a filmed play.That's because of the way it is constructed. Each of the men and all of the possible pairings by turns take the role of being outside the play, on the side of the viewer, commenting on the others. This fold is made explicit by two devices. One involves paintings from an artist whose passion is remarked upon and who clearly reflects on the pictures we see. This is one case where the structure is more apt for film than stage.The other device is more visual (as we never see the paintings). One of the men is a playwright/director who is putting on a play that manipulates this notion of the chorus in the action. He is having sex with a girl in the play who has a central role in that play, and who also happens to be the daughter of one of the other men. Her role in the play is one of the most striking scenes in film: she is covered in some sort of mud and is hosed down to become nude. Its really quite beautiful, interspersed with shots of her disapproving father in the audience being struck by that beauty. Now this fold would have worked better in the stage production I suppose.There's no question but that this is a guy movie, and proudly not silly. There is no compromise in the dramatic arc to land you in a happy ending. It seems true, and real, and a genuine voyage into what men actually deal with.A subtle point: all of these men have noble moments but are all damaged in ways that allow them to damage. This is common. But this business about weaving the drama by having subgroups of two among the four take control, well I find that fascinating. Women simply do not do this in my experience, and never in film. Its a turbulent, shifting set of alliances based on direct relaxing of dominance to form partnerships, which then jointly dominate. The result is an essay on the nature of dominant control of the situation, heightened by the fact that we are there only to experience what they control. A "cloaca" is a single orifice that serves sexual and all elimination needs.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

tominthahouse It's been a while since I saw this film, but the one thing I remember best is the fact I was so unimpressed by the acting. While I was still living in Holland, a friend of the family said: 'if you want to see the creme de la creme of Dutch acting, rent this film!' So I did and I wasn't impressed in the least by the unconvincing Dutch actors. Seeing British and (fair enough) a few American actors on screen, you believe they are the people they're portraying. But in this film, I'm sad to say, I had the feeling that the four main actors were very uncomfortable, undoubtedly did their best, but the outcome is nothing much... If you like arty films and are a fan of any of the actors, go and rent it... But if you really want to see a good Dutch film, rent 'Van God Los'. That was far better than this, (this was, to sum up: a rather weak effort to make it feel like a good film). and based on real events.

jgeerling 2003 was a good year for Dutch Cinema. Not only did we see the success release of 'Van God Los' and 'Phileine zegt sorry', 2003 also saw the release of Cloaca. This movie will appeal to a smaller audience than the other two i just mentioned, but if you read this, go see it. The movie is about four former student buddyies who meet each other in their mid-40ties. One just left his wife, another was a top lawyer but had a nervous breakdown. The 3th guy has a legal battle with his boss, and the last is a director of a stage play, and he is screwing his main actress, the 18 year old daughter of his best friend. The 4 meet and see that their dreams in college have not exactly come true. The question is, is there still a way out for any of them. This may sound like the beginning of a feel good movie, but it isn't. cloaca is funny, dark, depressing and ultimately without mercy. A must see.