J'irai comme un cheval fou (1973) watch online HD

The late 60's/early 70's were a time of experimentation for most filmmakers. In fact filmmakers got away with things back then that few would be able to get away with now. Arrabal and his first two features, VIVA LA MUERTE and this, are no exceptions.

One thing you still can't do without scandal is full frontal male nudity - especially of children. The scene where the little naked boy is gunned down by a firing squad of an Army of Christians could be reinterpreted today as a metaphor for how children always get caught in the crossfire when religions declare war on one another. The nudity symbolizes innocence. The 10 second scene is in no way pornographic but try doing that today and you will be shut down before you can call action.

One scene predate's THE CRYING GAME by 20 years. It's too good to give away. The character of Marvel would be seen now as a Arab stereotype for sheer ignorance of all things western. Political correctness aside, the character is too funny and likable to hate.

Cannibalism, still a taboo topic, is treated by Arrabal here as a mere plot device. No wonder this movie had censorship problems, which Arrabal addresses in the DVD interview segment. My only regret is that he didn't include scene by scene audio commentary as Jodorowsky did for DVD of FANDO & LIS -which is based on the Arrabal play. It would be especially helpful in this particular scene because it looks like they may have used an actual cadaver. This finale even tops the VIVA LA MUERTE finale in which a bull is sacrificed on camera. Unless you're doing the latest installment in the FACES OF DEATH series, you just can't do that kind of stuff in a narrative feature today.

Those who see this now as merely a pretentious art film, forget how shocking it must have been then. That's especially true when you consider that it's a gay love story. One of the most unusual ever filmed. It's unsettling in a way that is stimulating. This movie was buried by the censors in 72. No major studio would green light such a production today. If you think you've seen it all, this is one you've got to go back and see in order to say that. Filmmaking could move forward if filmmakers looked back at the "scandals" the "Panic" movement of Arrabal, Topor and Jodorowsky caused in those days. It's a miracle that a film like this can survive intact. Definately not for all tastes but 10 of 10 anyway.

The comments to this bizarre and intriguing film are as interesting as the film itself. People who have never experienced the 20thC European art film milieu will often cry 'pretentious' which is as banal a description or accusation as anything and offers nothing , where the film itself is so full of offering.

I came across this film as a gay theme recommendation which turned out to also be somewhat off-centre considering the epic nature in which modern man's big themes are performed here.

I leave it to the individual to choose regarding seeking out this movie. For me there were two significant rewards in having done so.

1.It is a fine example of the early 70s Auteur-cinema's bent for creating 'tableau' and 'image' - often derived from the contemporary theatre of the time, the advent of the 'Happening' and Performance Art. Often quite stagy, high camp, paying homage to both theatre and cinema (Passolini in mind) it sought profundity and the expression of big themes. To that extent it speaks in a classic period language , and in my mind is a good quality example of the genre.

2. The real surprise on discovering this film 35 years after it's time was how genuinely shocking it actually is. Films like these remind us that the permissive age of the 60s and 70s was authentically radical and that as i write in 2009, i speak from a time of deep conservatism and fear of such a freedom. We no longer trust ourselves with content such as is created in this film. The shock therefore lies ultimately not in the film, but in the fact that my current time is shown to be so oppressive, in the light of the images that flash out from this film.

A short footnote about the Frenchness of this film. The early 70's would see a closure of the taken-for-granted assumption that France was the great cultural engine of the 20th century. Something of the previous spirit resides in this film. The by then established identification of France herself as a geography of Freudianism, of dream, of psychoanalysis; The depiction of the ageing ruins of France's glorious past as mythical symbols of Man's history itself. All this was very much given in French cinema of the day, as a code that conversed with decades of high cultural production. For me it's always a pleasure to experience this outrageous fortune, this extraordinary conceit.

"I Will Walk like a Crazy Horse" is quite an interesting film. Many will find the images repulsive and disgusting; but at the same time you can't help but to be memorized by its beauty. The story concerns Aden, a young man who kills his rich abusive incestuous mother. He flees to the desert to hide. Although Aden is a wealthy aristocrat he is unhappy and almost despises women. (mainly cause of his mom) He meets a dwarf named Marvel with miraculous powers; he can talk to animals, fly and turn night into day. Aden instantly falls in love with Marvel. Marvel has never been to the city and has never seen electronics or any part of western civilization. Aden takes Marvel to the city and this leads them on some funny and disturbing misadventures. The film is basically a rejection of the institutions created by western society. The film contains many bizarre daydream sequences. Some in which are disgusting. This film contains incest, excrement, a child execution, really strange sex and cannibalism. It might make many viewers cringe. The films most memorable and haunting seen is the people in white robes and gas masks dancing, all the while a kid drags a skeleton. If you liked both "El Topo" and "Pink Flamingos" you'll definitely enjoy Arrabal's disturbing and surreal masterpiece. Some parts are really funny, and you wonder if you're supposed to be laughing. It's quite a cinematic experience.

The first impression you get when watching this film is quite impressive with random glimpses through the narrative (a giant spider hovering over the boy for instance). However you fail to derive any social commentary that the various segments are trying to make.

Within 20 minutes the movie already seems an hour long. If you switched-it off at this point you should be glad because very soon it begins to try every trick in the book to gross the audiences out. There are extreme close-ups of various internal organs being consumed, a number of scenes fixated on various bodily secretions and scenes of people passing stools, coprophilia, various scenes involving incest, abuse of women, portrayal of people using stereotypes, gratuitous male nudity and employment of disfigured people in the attempt to 'shock' audiences.

Even if you feel that perhaps Arrabal is trying to bring people face to face with all things offensive, the process of doing this is far too lame. There are too many scenes that linger for far too long or are repeated on a couple of instances.

Surrealism was an attempt by a small group of artists to change social norms and highlight bourgeoisie hypocrisy. Arrabal, obviously is far away from this. For instance, this movie is pro-Christianity whereas surrealism was anti-religion.

By the time the movie ends, you hate yourself for sitting through it. And then you notice that the DVD contains an interview with the film-maker. You convince yourself that perhaps the interview will give you an insight that you missed.

The interview, you notice, is one long monologue. Arrabal is sitting in a plush house enjoying a glass of presumably expensive red wine and explaining how 'different' he is and his art is from the rest of society. He claims that newspapers announced that Arrabal had created a scandal. He is a poet, you see, and poets do not creates traps which is what a 'scandal' means in Greek. You hear him mentioning that he would like to kiss society on the mouth and have a pornographic affair with it. Its pretentious garbage. That's when you realise that he is self-centred, arrogant, a show-off, has total disregard for other humans and lacks humility. You forward it a bit and then see him making a phone call and speaking with God. That's when I lost my patience and wanted to throw the DVD out of the house, but couldn't because it was on rental.

J'irai comme un cheval fou is a ridiculous piece of work that goes nowhere and says nothing. It is a medium that is used by Arrabal to deliberately create sensationalism.

Keep away from it. You will thank me for it.

In saying that, it still isn't the worst movie I've ever seen. That award goes to The Brown Bunny. At least this one has guts and is imaginative.

Three years after Viva la Muerte, Fernando Arrabal created J'Irai Comme Un Cheval Fou (I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse), another masterly piece of cinematic surrealism. It follows two men, Aden and Marvel. Aden is sought by the police and on the run after the death of his mother, when he meets the appropriately named Marvel, a mystical loner who lives in the desert with his goat. One of his Marvel's skills is turning day immediately into night (and vice versa) with the click off his thumbs. Aden falls in love with Marvel, and decides to show him the big city. This is where Arrabal shows us the chaos of humanity. Many memorable images ensue. This is imperative viewing for any people interested in surrealism in film. I can't recommend it enough.

This has got to be one of the most pretentious movies of all time. Put all the low-grade "I'm-going-to-impress-the-world" student art films you have seen together and you still wouldn't come close to the level of pretentiousness the film reaches. This is somewhat expected from one of the founders of the "Panic" movement alongside Jodorowsky and Topor, but where the two latter had a certain balance and order in what they did, Arrabal just goes way over-the-top and loses his audience in the process.

One would like to establish metaphors and symbolisms to the film and it's characters, but the whole "nature versus civilization" story gets marred in the films sensationalism. The audience is constantly pushed away by the non-stop shock scenes and laughably pretentious dialogue (Love? What IS love?). No one cares for Marvel, the nature-boy midget who is the centerpiece in the film. He comes off as an annoying cartoonesque figure which no one really cares about. The inner logic of the film simply does NOT work (compare to Eraserhead for example, where feelings DO come out of the characters).

The film is an oddity and IS worth to see only for that reason (if you manage to sit through it). You'll wind up quoting the (I can't say it enough) pretentious dialogue with the other deranged people who have seen this. Those of you looking for shocking scenes will probably be pleased: rape, cannibalism, ejaculations, defecations, cruelty... Watch LA Grande Bouffe instead.

In this, the third entry in Arrabal's surrealist trilogy, he steers away from the socio-political aspects that were so dominant in his previous two films, and focuses more on satirizing the modern world, along with his habitual penchant for the degradation of all things religious and themes of incest.

The basic plot outline is as follows: Aden Rey is on the run from the police after instigating the death of his mother. He eventually finds himself in the desert where he meets a curious dwarf who can communicate with and control nature. In the desert Aden gets in touch with his inner-mystic with the help of Marvel the dwarf. After hanging out with goats and camels in the desert and ultimately becoming obsessed with Marvel, Aden decides to bring him back to civilisation and show him the world.

Marvel is some kind of messianic figure. He has lived for 10,000 years and can turn night into day, make blind people see and command bees and goats to do his bidding. When the pair return to Paris (along with Marvel's goat, Therese) Aden introduces Marvel to women, tea, fancy apartments and cigars, all of which he finds incomprehensible and hilarious - regarding an old man puffing on a cigar: "He is like an infant suckling at the breast!".

At one point during the film Marvel is tricked into joining the circus where his act consists of dancing to rock 'n' roll while the crowd points and laughs, but instead of feeling humiliated he enjoys himself to no end. Halfway through his act he climbs into the lion cage and plays with the beast, then innocently frees it into the audience.

Throughout their adventures Aden suffers from constant flashbacks of his childhood, which reveals his mother to be a domineering, abusive woman who allowed him no contact with the outside world and with whom he was unhealthily in love with. He visits her home and dresses in her lingerie, then, in a nightmarish sequence, messily gives birth to a skull.

Unlike Arrabal's two earlier features I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse is not set during the Spanish Civil War but in Paris in the early 70s, so modernism is the subject of constant parody. We frequently see gasmasked people having sex and involved in bizarre rituals. Marvel's running commentary on the absurdity and pointlessness of things is more often than not on point.

As is to be expected all of Arrabal's grotesque imagery is present, from penis mutilation to some repulsive cannibalism at the end, Arrabal never fails to disgust with his particular brand of surrealism.

This was my third Arrabal movie after VIVA LA MUERTE (1971) and THE GUERNICA TREE (1975); all three were released as a DVD Collection by Cult Films – however, I came to own all of them via alternate formats…which, frankly, saved me from doling out my hard-earned cash for the set (especially since I only really liked THE GUERNICA TREE)!

To be honest, Arrabal has here reconfirmed himself an exponent of the kind of Surrealism which I find hollow, ostentatious and positively grating – much like the work of his contemporary Alejandro Jodorowsky (though in his case I’m 50/50, as at least I’m partial to two of the four films I’ve watched so far). Mind you, as I’ve said more often than I care to remember, my all-time favorite film-maker is Luis Bunuel – perhaps Cinema’s foremost Surrealist – and the art form itself is one I feel to be most congenial to the language of film…but not when it resorts to emetic, shocking-for-shock’s sake detail (such as the pointless images here of ejaculation, scatology, various sexual perversions, and ending with cannibalism)!

What little plot there is concerns a murder mystery, which then develops into a chase when the victim’ own son is somehow targeted as the perpetrator; the unsubtly-named Police Inspector Gay follows the handsome anti-hero into the desert, where the latter meets a magically-endowed dwarf. In spite of the danger, the man returns to the city (Paris) and takes the little man along: the latter’s incongruity with his surroundings – he’s a shepherd who never caught up with the modern world – is fairly perceptive and, even if the midget’s behavior is generally nothing short of obnoxious, this constitutes just about the only tolerable aspect of an otherwise grossly self-indulgent film. For what it’s worth, everything comes to a head when one character takes over the personality of the other!

Incidentally, given the number of ‘humiliating’ scenes she appears in, it’s baffling how a respected actress like Emmanuelle Riva (playing the mother) allowed herself to be involved with this kind of extreme stuff! And, just as much of a paradox is the fact that, for all his intended savagery and pointed irreverence, Arrabal gives the film a curiously polished look – which is accompanied besides by a quite agreeable soundtrack (highlighting gibberish children’s vocals)…

A strong and moving SYMBOLIST fable on existential questions. NOT a Hollywood bonbon. I think it's good to see a movie that makes people uneasy and not only on the violence level (which I think the society is getting numbed by). In the North American society, archetypes are often distorded or tainted; in the movie they are plainly exposed,and it is not crude but the reality.

This film really straddles the line between art and pornography. I feel the need to praise it for its uniqueness and beautiful surrealism, but I don't think I would want to watch this film again. Between these two points of view, I'll never forget this film.

There are some great images: a skeleton in a nest at the top of a steel pole; sex between two people wearing gas masks; the protagonists being rolled around in a plastic sphere.

Then there are some absolutely unpleasant images. The midget places a rose into a woman's crack, pulls it out covered in s--t, and licks it clean. This and similar scenes have done nothing but disturb me. This fascination with human waste seems fetishistic and pornographic rather than artistic. Also, the film features some oedipal scenes that just feel uncomfortable. I have to reflect that Un Chien Andalou, which is considered a masterpiece of its genre, deliberately went for shock value in its day, so I forgive this film somewhat. But at the same time, I feel unwilling to see it again.

Some scenes have me on the fence. In a nativity scene, the Christ child has his genitals skewered. A young boy gets shot to death by a firing squad. There is a scene of cannibalism. The scenes are both artistically striking and difficult to watch.

I wrote in an earlier review for Blockbuster.com, "This film really is a troublesome one. It is at turns a sublime menagerie of images and a grotesque carnival geek show. The director is at turns a genius and a pervert. The works of genius make the film worth seeing." As before, you have the right to be curious.

I didn't know what to expect when I first viewed this film. But a lot of the imagery is something a normal person wouldn't even think of. But I did find this movie to be funny (some parts at least) and some of it to be shocking. But there's not too many filmmakers that have done anything like this Except for alejandro jodorowsky. And arrabal. But I honestly enjoyed it an

I think this movie is Arrabal's attempt to achieve something that looks like surrealism, taking scenes from Jodorowsky's "El Topo" and turning then into just senseless images. It seems like if he was just searching for things that would look "surreal", so to put them in the film. The plot, besides all the misleading "surreal" stuff, turns out to be a simple (and very used) boring movie plot; the guy that takes the native man from his environment and shows him the city blah blah blah. Besides this, there are still good things in the movie, like the lady from the TV news in the beginning of the film or the police trying to capture the main character. I didn't like the film, but what i do like is what Jodorowky has done with Arrabal's work, turning it into a masterpiece.

This flick gives surrealism a bad name. Trite philosophy conveyed through obtuse symbolism and "shocking" imagery. The dialogue oscillates between the obvious, the ridiculous, and the stupid. I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus so now I hate women but I love this ugly troll. Society is blah blah blah. And what would a pseudo-surrealist picture be without abundant excrement and animal torture? OK guys, you go crap back to back in the moonlight and you, go bite the heads off these chicks. It's just so outrageous! It's shocked me out of my complacency. I'm forced to reassess my life and role in society. God I was bored, I just wanted it to end already. The only thing that genuinely shocked (and angered) me was the chick-head-biting scene I mentioned. The rest is purely "film-school."

I'm glad I saw this film. I almost didn't, I hated it after ten minutes and demanded it be turned off at 20 minutes. I saw it to the end mostly because the friends I was watching it with found my infrequent outbursts amusing and because we collectively wanted to see if we could get through it. If nothing else the experience gave me a quick and easy answer any time someone asks me what the worst film I've ever seen is.

I liken it to eating a raw egg; it's something horrible you put yourself through under the vague understanding that it might be beneficial. Also you need to suppress the urge to vomit throughout.

Giving a synopsis of the film's plot seems beside the point as that's not really important. The film is essentially a string of metaphors and commentary about nature and the state of the modern world ranging from macabre to perverted to ludicrous, (often all of the above,) all with the subtlety and finesse of an atom bomb.

There may be those who appreciate this surrealist kind of film-making and while I don't count myself as one of them I do have an appreciation for it if it is clever. However Fernando Arrabal's approach is like a Gothic teenager's idea of insightful commentary; he is immensely pretentious, blatantly obvious, and nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is. So Arrabal makes up for this by trying to be shocking. On that count he clearly succeeds but for me personally that just added to the film's overall absurdity and unlikeability rather than adding to any artistic merit.

There is some form of value in I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse, some artistic intent. But it is so hilariously awful, so disgusting, and so overall disturbing that you have to ignore a lot to try and appreciate that. This is a very bad film but I still say it's worth seeing, if only just to see if you can. A twisted sense of humour and a strong stomach is mandatory though.

This is the type of cinematic oddity that you don't know what to write about. You can stop talking about it rather quickly, or you can discuss the deeper meaning and various types of symbolism for hours and hours. One thing's for certain: "I Will Walk like a Crazy Horse" is one of the weirdest movies ever made, with a level of bizarre that is practically on par with Alejandro Jodorowsky's "El Topo", Andrzej Zulawski's "Possession", David Lynch's "Eraserhead" and Shinya Tsukamoto's "Tetsuo – the Iron Man". The story is pretty much impossible to describe, let along summarize, but I'll try anyway. Aden Rey is a 30-something man, with a serious Oedipus trauma, on the run for the police. He flees into the desert where he makes an acquaintance with a lonely midget prophet named Marvel. This little guy sort of represents Jesus Christ and Mother Earth, because he can turn day into night like he's using a light switch and floats through the air on cherubic music. Aden falls in love with Marvel's purity and brings him back to civilization. Marvel is very curious to find out about our supposedly civil lifestyles, but the pollution, overpopulation, aggression, barbarity and exploitative nature of our society also makes him very miserable. They even try to make Marvel an act in a traveling circus because he's so cheerful and naive. And whilst Marvel slowly becomes "contaminated" by our cruel world, Aden gradually finds redemption. "I Will Walk like a Crazy Horse" is a mysterious and unfathomable metaphor on the deterioration of our society. The symbolism, although sometimes very far-fetched and grotesque, is brilliant and writer/director Fernando Arrabal obviously doesn't know any taboos. The imagery in his film is shocking, explicit, confronting, perverted, nauseating and cynical. There's footage of child executions, cannibalism, religious blasphemy (Jesus Christ statues coming to life etc), fascism and copious perverted sexual images (including fellatio, feces-fetish and loads of homosexual innuendo). The music is fantastic, the acting performances perplexing and the use of scenery is staggering. This film is simultaneously fascinating and hypnotizing to stare at, but you simply can't comprehend everything that you see. Probably not even after a dozen of viewings. Don't even think you've seen weird before you've seen "I Will Walk like a Crazy Horse". Personally, I thought I had seen my share of weird stuff already, but that was before I witnessed the sight of a midget sticking a flower inside a hermaphrodite's posterior and licking off the feces of the stem.

A bizarre work of surrealist art. I don't know if I've just outgrown this kind of thing or if this one in particular is just sophomoric, but I didn't like it all that much. I didn't exactly hate it either. It surely has its share of outrageous and entertaining images and gags, but it feels like director Arrabal (best known for writing Jodorowsky's debut film, Fando and Lis) is doing little besides trying to shock the audience. So we get all kinds of penis torture, cannibalism, and poo play, and it gets tiresome long before the film is over. What little story there is has on-the-lam murderer George Shannon running into holy fool dwarf (Hachemi Marzouk) in the desert. The dwarf shows him how he lives in the desert, so Shannon later repays him by bringing him back to Paris. The dwarf, an outcast, continuously points out how silly the modern world is. I rented the film because it was the only one with Emmanuelle Riva that Netflix carried that I hadn't already seen. In particular, the film wasn't worth seeing as a memorial to the recently deceased actress. She plays Shannon's mother and murder victim. She barely says a word and catches some guy's ejaculate. Not her proudest moment.

This degenerate twaddle is merely another example of shock cinema, with the usual blend of perversion and fake profundity. If movies had a stupid-scene alarm, this film would be ringing constantly. And the "symbolism"! This movie has more skulls than the booklet of a Manowar album.

I pity every fool who was suckered into financing this. I pity the fool who wrote and directed this. I pity the fools who agreed to make asses of themselves in front of the sperm-stained camera-lens in this. But most of all, I pity the fools who actually enjoy this crap. (These are the people who walk around children's parks in large coats – and those who fantasize about doing that.) Whose more foolish, the fool who makes a foolish film or the fool who believes him that's it's a piece of art?

Then again, I also envy any fool who enjoys this flick. Fools have it easy: they live in a Disney bubble.

A stupid movie title that sounds like a pompous indie rock album? Check. Two men defecating together? Check. A man biting off the heads of chickens? Check. A mother lighting up her son's erection? Check. A small boy's penis having nails thrown at it? Check. A boy watching her mother get spat on during sex and then getting an epileptic seizure? Check. A woman getting cum all over her face? Check. A man putting on his mother's lingerie and then "giving birth" to a skull? Check. A man eating sand and goat turds? Check. A noble-savage midget with god-like powers? Check. A midget collecting goat urine? Check. A women getting her tongue nailed to a table? Check. Another woman later on having her tongue pulled? Check. (Probably "symbolizes" censorship or some such Marxist fetish topic.) A boy playing with the erection on a wooden doll? Check. A woman cumming all over legs after her young son bites her on the shoulder? Check. A rooster getting its head lopped off for this shitty film? Check. White-clad priests wearing gas-masks dancing stupidly in a desert? Check. A naked woman French-kissing a skeleton? Check. Fake testicles and penis attached to a naked actress's body? Check. Close-up of a penis urinating? Check. A guy killing a prostitute because she refuses to have sex with a bad-smelling virgin midget? Check. Cannibalism? Check. A dwarf sticking a flower between a woman's bum-cheeks? Check. The dwarf pulling out the flower from her ass, seeing that its petal is dung-stained and eating the dung? Check. Idiotic Nazi songs played over random scenes? Check. A man getting quartered by camels while a kindergarten song doodles? Check. Naked men being rolled in a large plastic bubble by angry church-goers? Check. Imbecilic religious imagery thrown in completely randomly throughout the movie? Check. A man devouring photos and letters? Check. A man counting the number of a midget's nail-clippings? Check. A midget spontaneously offering to chop off his finger to prove his friendship to a guy he just met? Check. Me shaking my head at tons of Euro-trash nonsense posing as profound art? Triple-check.

Pretentious pseudo-philosophical left-wing propaganda thrown in every 30 minutes to try and convince dupable morons (hipsters and film students) that this isn't just a cheap snuff film? Check.

Now take into consideration that the movie only lasts under 90 minutes and you get some idea what a cluster-duck of random "arty" scenes this movie is. Every hipster's wet dream personified. This idiotic trash offers the self-loathing modern wimpy male (the hipster) an endless possibility of film essays. He can weave poetic for years, writing up delusional gibberish about what this movie allegedly means and even more importantly how it helped him get through a very emotional and turbulent part of his life (like the time his pizza came an hour late).

If the list of "checks" I gave you make you watch this dumb film instead of warning you not to, I both pity and envy you. Keep enjoying the bubble.