The film looks like a Rembrandt on even my smallish screen. I can't imagine how good it would look on the big screen. It's sparse and despairing, but beautiful and straightforward. A bitter but decent woman is angry at her dead husband who abandoned her decades previously. She seeks some kind of redemption through the church, but can find none. It's a lot of Beckett's "I can't go on, I can't go on, I'll go on." It's kindred spirit with Bresson, amateur actors, beautiful framing mise en scene, moving slowly yet assuredly. We are caught up in the director's vision of our fate.

There aren't many words in Vitalina Varela. This is a forgettable feature. Here's what ya do... Smoke three bowls. Then you can become a critic and talk about how artsy it is. It's a bore, but it's fun to look at. It's a film that just lies there and if it's your cup of tea then good for you. It isn't mine and I dare you to tell me what it was about without looking up a summary. Exactly. Final Score: 1.8/10

The story didn't do anything for me, but holy cow this movie is absolutely stunning visually. Unlike anything I've ever seen before. Must see.

This movie is horrible

Exquisite atmospheric cinematography and lighting aside, this otherwise excessively tedious exercise in pregnant pauses, long lingering shots of insignificance, pretentious monologues and voluminous footage of mundane activities that adds nothing to the narrative makes one glad for the fast forward button. Fewer films have I seen that make the viewer long for the ending -- and, when it finally comes, it's largely unsatisfying, likely to evoke a huge "So what?" I fail to understand the critics' raves about this one, but, with such a dearth of new material out there at the moment, I imagine that almost anything will do to satisfy the appetites of the hungry.