Warhol's Empire (1964), a static shot of the Empire state building that begins in day and ends at night. (climaxing when the lights turn on the building, eight hours later!!) The film itself is a re-examination of the way we view cinema, and it's been called the longest establishing shot that denies the viewer everything else.
27 Reviews
My Empire State of Mind, when watching this movie is falling asleep. ZZZZZZZ. It's so boring. Watching Empire is like watching paint-dry.
ironhorse_iv30 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to say, if this documentary 'Empire' is even a movie. It's mostly just static black and white silent footage of the Empire State Building. Regardless, Webster Dictionary states that the word, 'film', meant a series of still images, in which, when shown on a screen, creates the illusion of moving images. I guess, it's technically a movie, but in my opinion, it's not much of a motion picture if that make any sense. Now, that we got that, out of the way; would we consider, this footage made by lazy people, as a 'work of art'? After all, the crew did nothing, but made arrangements to use a Rockefeller office on the 41st floor of the Time-Life Building to leave the camera rolling, near the window. Once again, Webster states out that 'art' is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Nevertheless, I conject that it is a work of art; even if, people barely work on it, due to the fact that the film suggest, how fallible, our senses really are. In this illusion, we see the skyscraper, but fails to notice, it's not really there. It's just a bunch of pictures of the Empire State Building, shot at 24 frames per second, but project at 16 fps. It supposed to look like, the building is right there, 'moving' with our own eyes, when in reality, it's not. It's hard to explain, but I felt that producer, Andy Warhol was going for something similar to 'The Treason of Images' painting by the Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte with this film. That or director, John Palmer, just wanted to capture a time capsule on how beautiful the only floodlit skyscraper in New York City, was at the time. After all, seeing floodlight on a skyscraper was once, considered as 'once in a lifetime' rare moment, in contrast, of today. They didn't know that the opening of the 1964 New York World's Fair in Queens, NY was only the start of this weird type of art, as the skyscraper would once again, be lighted up in 1976 in time for the country's bicentennial and seasonal events and holidays, since then. Perhaps, Warhol's film did help make sure the lights on the Empire State Building, never was turned off, as both of Museum of Modern Art & United States Library of Congress National Film Registry, found the movie to be culturally significant. You might be, asking why? Well, I'm only guessing, but I think the film is one of the early films that help simulated reality of fixedly daydreaming staring. In other words, watching time go by. In this case, 8 hours and 5 minute. You might be, asking me, why would anybody watch this film? Is it because of boredom, curiosity, overthinking or both? Well, let's find out. First off, let's start with the subject on center. What better allegory of the example of the brutal senseless monotony of life, then that skyscraper. Built in early 1931, the building stood for everything good and bad about American Capitalism. By staring at it, we interpreted as our lives as Americans either in a hostile way, or the result of intense concentration or affection. The film could be seem in a spiritual way. We view it, as bright angelic beacon in the world of darkness. Even at certain points of the film, the reflections of the film crew can be seen on the windows of the office. Because of that, the film makes it look like, the ghost of the past are watching us, looking at the skyscraper. Somewhat, like the eyes of God. There is also a moment in the film, where the blurry hand is seem for a brief moment to change, the reel. It gave the impressing of a hand coming down from the heavens. It's no wonder, why some people see this, as inspiring or uplifting. Yet, the movie can also cause discomfort & depression, both mentally and physical due its grittiness & mundane dreamscape abyss nature. Like playwright Arthur Miller's 'Death of the Salesman'. Regardless, you wish to see more or it, or not, you're stuck looking at the American Dream from afar. In truth, the film is like saying the viewer will never, truly get it. You just had to confront the inevitable. Even with all of these analyses, I still can't say, this documentary is worth watching. Even Warhol didn't watch the whole film. Its might be just a five hour long static shot of the Empire State Building. Nothing more. And Warhol probably is still laughing his ass off at all the people who've read more into it. After all, Warhol is known for trolling people. Supposedly, the unwatchability of the film was the main reason, these films were created. Many believe Warhol just did this to "make fun of" the classic movie industry, such like the way, he paint the parodies of the growing commercialism around him with soup cans and Marilyn Monroe. He was testing people to find art in everything. After all, what else, would Warhol do!? This is a guy who make a number of films in which, a guy sleeps for 5 hours, get busy with somebody, performs Anthony Burgess' popular dystopian novel, 'A Clockwork Orange', badly, and then eats a hamburger for dinner and call them 'movies'. Is his art films, 'overrated'? Yes, indeed. Nevertheless, I can't denied there are strong reasons, why people would watch films like this. So I can't totally hate 'Empire'. Certain people just like staring at the wall, even if it has paint chips. Who knows, what subconscious or expressionism thoughts, might come up! Boredom is indeed a genuine malady of the soul. However, it's probably a lot, more entertaining if you just do a staring contest with your friends or family, instead. ''Empire' is no masterpiece.
Waiting for Kong
st-shot22 February 2021
There's a wonderful 10 minute stop motion film to be found in this 8 hour albatross of pretense covering the graveyard shift in midtown. Gathering enough material for a solid work of pixilation the makers Andy Warhol and Jonas Mekas opt instead to let it all hang out.
The result of this "shock of the new" is defined in it's trying and laborious hours and given legitimacy by Warhol's signature on it despite it not being his idea (John Palmer). A voyeur con job travesty it succeeds glowingly in reaffirming Warhol's take on fame as one of his most memorable works. Most will never watch it but they'll remember the name of the guy who made the 8 hour film.
Without a gorilla scaling (stuck in traffic, taking the stairs?), the stoic beauty of the most famous skyscraper in the world wears thin fast leaving you to sit with Andy and Jonas ( his jittery camera style taking a breather) across the way in the Time-Life building in a catatonic stare for over seven hours. A film for insomniacs and hipster denizens of lower Manhattan artiste salons.
The result of this "shock of the new" is defined in it's trying and laborious hours and given legitimacy by Warhol's signature on it despite it not being his idea (John Palmer). A voyeur con job travesty it succeeds glowingly in reaffirming Warhol's take on fame as one of his most memorable works. Most will never watch it but they'll remember the name of the guy who made the 8 hour film.
Without a gorilla scaling (stuck in traffic, taking the stairs?), the stoic beauty of the most famous skyscraper in the world wears thin fast leaving you to sit with Andy and Jonas ( his jittery camera style taking a breather) across the way in the Time-Life building in a catatonic stare for over seven hours. A film for insomniacs and hipster denizens of lower Manhattan artiste salons.
Pure Warhol
squeezebox2 September 2005
Andy Warhol made many movies that are meant to be watched. VINYL, LONESOME COWBOYS, WOMEN IN REVOLT, THE CHELSEA GIRLS are all masterpieces of avant-garde, minimalist cinema. On the other hand, he made many movies that were never meant to be watched, but only looked at. SLEEP, **** (FOUR STARS), EAT, COUCH and, of course EMPIRE.
Anyone who attempts to watch EMPIRE from start to finish (nearly five hours in length when viewed at the correct speed) is missing the point. Just as with much of Warhol's work, the art is that the piece exists, not necessarily the piece itself.
I had a teacher in film school who bragged about having watched EMPIRE in its entirety. I have often wondered what Warhol would have said to that. My guess is, "What a waste of time." EMPIRE is simply a moving still life. Instead of spending eight hours painting the Empire State Building, Warhol photographed it for eight hours, at a fast camera speed so when played at normal projection speed, the image is actually slowed down. The film was intended to be projected on a wall during gallery shows, so that people could stop and look at it the same way they would a painting. It was not meant to be watched like a regular movie. Yet countless underground and art film aficionados have done just that, as though they are accomplishing something.
The fact that people find this movie so fascinating and have written and pondered so much about it is a testament to Warhol's genius. Aside from being a phenomenally imaginative and intelligent artist, Warhol was one of the world's greatest satirists, in that he led much of the world, and particularly America, to become a parody of itself, without even realizing it. That was, in many ways, his greatest work of art.
Now, we have paparazzi inundating us with images of famous people who are viewed by the public as demi-gods, simply for being famous. We have people paying outrageous amounts of money to be walking billboards for companies such as Tommy Hilfiger, Nike and Ambercrombie and Fitch.
And many people still think EMPIRE is a deep, meaningful masterwork of cinema.
It's a five hour long static shot of the Empire State Building. Nothing more. And Warhol is still laughing his ass off at all the people who've read more into it than that.
Because a star rating would be meaningless for this film, I have not given it one.
Anyone who attempts to watch EMPIRE from start to finish (nearly five hours in length when viewed at the correct speed) is missing the point. Just as with much of Warhol's work, the art is that the piece exists, not necessarily the piece itself.
I had a teacher in film school who bragged about having watched EMPIRE in its entirety. I have often wondered what Warhol would have said to that. My guess is, "What a waste of time." EMPIRE is simply a moving still life. Instead of spending eight hours painting the Empire State Building, Warhol photographed it for eight hours, at a fast camera speed so when played at normal projection speed, the image is actually slowed down. The film was intended to be projected on a wall during gallery shows, so that people could stop and look at it the same way they would a painting. It was not meant to be watched like a regular movie. Yet countless underground and art film aficionados have done just that, as though they are accomplishing something.
The fact that people find this movie so fascinating and have written and pondered so much about it is a testament to Warhol's genius. Aside from being a phenomenally imaginative and intelligent artist, Warhol was one of the world's greatest satirists, in that he led much of the world, and particularly America, to become a parody of itself, without even realizing it. That was, in many ways, his greatest work of art.
Now, we have paparazzi inundating us with images of famous people who are viewed by the public as demi-gods, simply for being famous. We have people paying outrageous amounts of money to be walking billboards for companies such as Tommy Hilfiger, Nike and Ambercrombie and Fitch.
And many people still think EMPIRE is a deep, meaningful masterwork of cinema.
It's a five hour long static shot of the Empire State Building. Nothing more. And Warhol is still laughing his ass off at all the people who've read more into it than that.
Because a star rating would be meaningless for this film, I have not given it one.
Absolutely pretentious uselessness
Illiad_Odyssey14 February 2018
This film is just bad. I would rather watch an opera by Karlheinz Stockhausen than this crap ever again. A lot of people say that this film is unique and special because nobody has ever made a film like it before... I wonder why?! When I think of revolutionary, artistic films that are unique in that nobody has done anything like them before, some titles come to mind such as Metropolis, Nosferatu, Star Wars, the Monty Python films, even the Harry Potter series has more merit than this. "Art" during this period was just awful. It was just stupid and awful. And it only became popular because of one thing: money. As an artist myself, I don't support this pretentious crap and it actually makes me angry that the art industry was taken over by stupid crap like this. Absolutely useless film. Not even going to comment on the fact that the most interesting thing that happens is the moment when you see Warhol's reflection. This is not art, this is bollocks.
What The F***!
Seamus28299 June 2008
Okay, I'll admit it...I've never seen this (so called)masterpiece in it's entirety (for those who are not familiar with it,it's an eight hour,plus portrait of the Empire State Building). I did see a fragment of it in the documentary about Warhol, called Andy Warhol:Superstar some years back (plus if I'm not mistaken, there's a brief clip of it in that superb,two part documentary that was aired on PBS sometimes last year). I figured, I guess I've seen all that I probably want (or,for that matter,need) to see. I heard rumors that Warhol used to dare people that came over to the Factory to watch it from start to finish. Although I consider myself to be a bit more patient with experimental/avant garde cinema, even this one would be a real challenge (and I sat through all eight hours of Mathew Barney's Cremaster Cycle in one screening a few years back, and loved it). I guess a certain level of pretension is to be expected with this kind of modern/post modern art. I guess the only way of seeing this soiled classic now is to visit the Warhol museum & find out if there is a screening planned of his early silent films.
Andy Warhol aimed the camera at the wrong tower, 37 yrs too soon!
CollaborativeFilmworks1 April 2021
This 8 hour and 5 minute "art classic" is proof that once the media makes someone famous, they can ride that fame for the rest of their life. Remember, bad publicity, is GOOD publicity, as long as you're still being mentioned in the press. And to think, I used the believe the Campbell soup can painting was Warhol's biggest joke! Put this snoozefest right next to your Ambien on your medicine cabinet. Hint for those yet to watch this movie: Life's too short to waste 8 hours (and don't forget the 5 minutes) on this film. Why not just come to New York, and see the real thing instead?
Why does this film exist?
aarongrierson-7974113 November 2017
Andy Warhol created this film merely to see time go by, but believe me, you do not want to waste 30 minutes, let alone EIGHT HOURS, on this 'movie', or 'a picture on the screen for eight hours'. I really like Warhol's art, but this "experimental" film comes off...well...poorly. In fact, this movie is technically six hours long, but Warhol reduced the frame rate so it could stretch to eight hours. There are no spoilers, no actors, no plot, no nothing. Unless you're extremely high, you will find no enjoyment from this 'film'. Just go on Google Images, look up 'Empire State Building', and stare at that image for eight hours. That's "Empire"!
Gabarge
EddieDrinkwater30 August 2019
Project Empire
RamenJPG30 August 2019
Why is this labled as a documentary, this should labled as a project because only projects are the closet to being as bad as this disgrace to nature, This isn't a film this is a unused torture method, If I was forced into watching this then I would shoot up an elementary school (that was a joke FBI pls don't come after me)
Lmao
snoopdogg-8673827 September 2020
It was filmed on the 42nd floor of the Time Life Building.
krazy_boi_nat2 May 2011
It was filmed on the 42nd floor of the Time Life Building. What makes this film contemporary is that it is not like a normal film, as with normal films you watch the entire film, but Empire is a challenge for the viewer to watch as it just features the same image of the tower. I think it is to be viewed more of a painting than a film. In short, Empire is an extremely weird and wonderful experimentation that Andy Warhol did. Empire is exactly a single uninterrupted shot of the Empire State Building in New York. My overall opinion of the piece is that Empire is one of the most unexpectedly gripping movies I have seen to date, as not much happens but you expect it to. I could not wait to see what was going to happen and as I watched it I began to believe that nothing ever would, but as soon as the lights go on I sprang out of a chair like I would on an action film. Just like in life, sometimes the most simple things are the most beautiful. If all films were a huge 485 minutes long I would most likely be bored out of my skull, but if I was listen to music that was that long I probably would not get bored as there is something relaxing in hearing and letting your other senses go to rest, just like with watching Empire which keeps my eyes busy but relaxes all the rest of me. I would say that the overall technique of Empire is mesmerizing. It used only one shot that would be boring and dull for most films but it uses it as a plus point by making it a film that is one of a kind film that has not be done before or after with any great success. I believe the techniques in Empire were done in a style that Warhol wanted us to relax and to be interpreted in our own way as we are not mentally stimulated enough to keep full concentration on the film itself. Also when I look at this documentary I don't see a film but more of history that has been frozen in time and I believe this is what Warhol wanted to achieve as the film appears to be in slow motion. I would describe the medium of the film as gritty as you can see a lot of grain in the film which is most likely due to it being night during most of it and the time the film was made. The fact that the film is black and white makes it feel more like a contemporary piece. What most films are made of include a visual and sound combined to make a pleasant experience for the audience. Even though this film is a silent movie it still relies on sound to give the whole effect of the film, as when I was watching it I found I was getting easily distracted by sounds around me bringing me out of the trance of the film and then bringing me back into it once I started watching again. The reason I selected this particular piece and Warhol is that I found this motion picture so captivating and it made me want to write about it. It makes me think while watching it and most films do the thinking for you. It is for this reason that this is one of Warhol's best films in my opinion and what makes him such a mastermind. Historical references I can link with this film and the artist is that it was made in the 60's which was a time for change and trying new things that had not been done before Examples include pop music from the Beatles or sex becoming a subject people talked about, so artists were becoming more daring in what they did. I believe if Empire was made in any other decade it would be a lot different from what we see today.
Try to see Andy there
Ferenc-229 April 1999
Watching this movie is a fight. If you know about the details, you just sit, look at that building at night, watch the small light in the background (appears every 20 minutes) and wait for Andy Warhol who passes in front of the camera for about five times. I've seen him three times. At the end, the lights on the building are switched off and you just watch two small lights on the dark screen (it takes two hours). A really bizarre experience.
There's Nothing Like It
alexduffy20007 August 2002
EMPIRE'S greatness lies in the fact that no one has before, or since, made a film like it. This eight-hour long movie is one that you sit back and simply get lost in your own thoughts as you watch a single shot of the Empire State Building on one evening. It's like a moment of time captured forever, and more of an experience than a film, like watching a living portrait. It's amazing to watch this in a silent, darkened theater, if you have eight hours to spare, or even if you can watch just 45 minutes of it.
A nonstop, nerve-racking thriller
Titleist1820 July 2004
Empire has got to be considered one of the most suspenseful movies ever made. 485 minutes, with every one of them keeping you on the edge of your seat, seemingly impossible for an eight-hour movie to accomplish. The scene changes are so subtle and quick, they barely seem to happen, making you feel as if the story hasn't changed, all setting up each individual shock. The acting is fantastic, each character so stoic and emotionless, as if they aren't in the scenes in the first place. Warhol does a fantastic job at threading each scene together, to make it appear as if it is just one ongoing one. Absolutely ridiculous that the AFI refused to include it in its 100 thrills list. See it, and prepare to have your imagination and sense of reality warped.
This movie is for a future generation
dibau_naum_h17 May 1999
When humans will live 800 years and more, they'll simply adore this movie, full of beauty, completely stimulating, the head doesn't stop working. The cast: The Empire State building in Manhatten, a light near it, small hairs on the camera. The plot: Evening. Lights turn on. Darkness. The building turns into: A spaceship, a party, a robot, a moon, a house, &c. The lights turn off. New York starry night, with no stars.
Effectively Defiant
AW_McGOWAN2 December 2020
Full disclosure, I have not watched all of Andy Warhol's "Empire." I have seen clips of the film, and have experienced a 64x speed version of its entirety, but have never sat through it from beginning to end in real time. To be fair, I don't think anyone has - probably not even Andy Warhol.
The definitive modern artist, Warhol created "Empire" in 1964. The whole film is a single sustained black-and-white shot of the Empire State Building, filmed from the Time-Life Building a few blocks up in Manhattan. With an eight-hour and five minute runtime, the movie starts in the early evening and shows the sky darken as the Empire State Building's floodlights ignite. The camera continues rolling (all the while in subtly slow motion) until around 3am the next day, when the floodlights turn off and only sparse glimmers remain on the dark screen.
Obviously, a movie like this - I guess one could call it a documentary, if not curated CCTV footage - was never meant to be watched in full. As a piece of art, it is more like a painting or a photograph than a conventional film, meant for periodical observation rather than chronological engagement. As one testament to this, "Empire" is often projected on museum walls rather than in theaters.
Nevertheless, it is still a piece of film. Created with a movie camera, it can be nothing else. But rather than create it for the sake of entertainment or aesthetic, Warhol seemingly made "Empire" to inspire debate and conversation. Discussing the film inevitably raises questions about art's purpose and cinema's language.
To me, "Empire" is primarily a defiant example of Andre Bazin's early claims about movies and their indexical relationship with reality. While other film theorists embraced cinema having a language of its own, Bazin (along with Siegfried Kracauer) opposed invasive artistry in the then-novel medium, and preferred the camera as a tool for capturing the world that is.
"Empire" thus exposes the pitfalls of such an approach, as Warhol reflects reality in cinema's purist form with no editing, dialogue, story, or subjects (excluding the distant people and vehicles in the cityscape). The movie demonstrates by contrast how even films that aim for raw realism still incorporate artistry in their functional elements. If a film banished all artistic intervention, the remains would look very "Empire"-like.
Still, some claim that there is greater depth in "Empire," and I cannot disagree with them. When one stares at the building's floodlights against the dark sky for long enough, the image becomes a Rorschach test of sorts, inviting profound psychological questions. The narrative-less nature of "Empire" allows the viewers' minds to wander, creating stories and themes prompted only on some subconscious level.
Then there are the questions of postmodernity and industrialization. Warhol made the film just months after the Empire State Building installed its floodlights for the 1964 World's Fair. Is Warhol celebrating the technological sublime, or belittling it? Are the lights going off at the end meant to be foreboding? In the 1960s, is he showing us this towering edifice to say something about the future? The past? The death of narrative meaning in a post-structuralist society?
Or is he saying nothing at all, and in his silence, letting our interpretations run rampant?
Rating a movie like this is near-impossible. All the elements of cinema that usually warrant criticism are taken out of the equation. It seems effective at what is does, but what it does is up for endless debate. Meanwhile, if we bought tickets to a movie and got "Empire," we'd definitely want your money back. And if we were forced to watch the whole thing, we'd probably die of boredom near the fifteen-minute mark.
Let's just give it a 6/10 and understand that it cannot be judged alongside most (if any) other movies.
The definitive modern artist, Warhol created "Empire" in 1964. The whole film is a single sustained black-and-white shot of the Empire State Building, filmed from the Time-Life Building a few blocks up in Manhattan. With an eight-hour and five minute runtime, the movie starts in the early evening and shows the sky darken as the Empire State Building's floodlights ignite. The camera continues rolling (all the while in subtly slow motion) until around 3am the next day, when the floodlights turn off and only sparse glimmers remain on the dark screen.
Obviously, a movie like this - I guess one could call it a documentary, if not curated CCTV footage - was never meant to be watched in full. As a piece of art, it is more like a painting or a photograph than a conventional film, meant for periodical observation rather than chronological engagement. As one testament to this, "Empire" is often projected on museum walls rather than in theaters.
Nevertheless, it is still a piece of film. Created with a movie camera, it can be nothing else. But rather than create it for the sake of entertainment or aesthetic, Warhol seemingly made "Empire" to inspire debate and conversation. Discussing the film inevitably raises questions about art's purpose and cinema's language.
To me, "Empire" is primarily a defiant example of Andre Bazin's early claims about movies and their indexical relationship with reality. While other film theorists embraced cinema having a language of its own, Bazin (along with Siegfried Kracauer) opposed invasive artistry in the then-novel medium, and preferred the camera as a tool for capturing the world that is.
"Empire" thus exposes the pitfalls of such an approach, as Warhol reflects reality in cinema's purist form with no editing, dialogue, story, or subjects (excluding the distant people and vehicles in the cityscape). The movie demonstrates by contrast how even films that aim for raw realism still incorporate artistry in their functional elements. If a film banished all artistic intervention, the remains would look very "Empire"-like.
Still, some claim that there is greater depth in "Empire," and I cannot disagree with them. When one stares at the building's floodlights against the dark sky for long enough, the image becomes a Rorschach test of sorts, inviting profound psychological questions. The narrative-less nature of "Empire" allows the viewers' minds to wander, creating stories and themes prompted only on some subconscious level.
Then there are the questions of postmodernity and industrialization. Warhol made the film just months after the Empire State Building installed its floodlights for the 1964 World's Fair. Is Warhol celebrating the technological sublime, or belittling it? Are the lights going off at the end meant to be foreboding? In the 1960s, is he showing us this towering edifice to say something about the future? The past? The death of narrative meaning in a post-structuralist society?
Or is he saying nothing at all, and in his silence, letting our interpretations run rampant?
Rating a movie like this is near-impossible. All the elements of cinema that usually warrant criticism are taken out of the equation. It seems effective at what is does, but what it does is up for endless debate. Meanwhile, if we bought tickets to a movie and got "Empire," we'd definitely want your money back. And if we were forced to watch the whole thing, we'd probably die of boredom near the fifteen-minute mark.
Let's just give it a 6/10 and understand that it cannot be judged alongside most (if any) other movies.
Sublime proof that "Art is anything you can get away with".
edchin20061 October 2008
This will be my first comment about a film that I've not seen which, merely, puts me in the company of the other commentators.
I was curious about what sort of person (if any) might actually sit through such a movie. I'm sure Andy Warhol wouldn't. So, when I read the comment that this film was not to be watched, but looked at, I realized the true genius of Andy Warhol.
"Empire" was not made to be watched nor looked at. It was meant to be talked about... And the proof (partially verified here at IMDb) is that we are all reading, writing, and talking about this opus.
I wonder if Andy would have made a followup work "Eiffel Tower" might it be deemed too exciting compared to the tranquil "Empire"?
I was curious about what sort of person (if any) might actually sit through such a movie. I'm sure Andy Warhol wouldn't. So, when I read the comment that this film was not to be watched, but looked at, I realized the true genius of Andy Warhol.
"Empire" was not made to be watched nor looked at. It was meant to be talked about... And the proof (partially verified here at IMDb) is that we are all reading, writing, and talking about this opus.
I wonder if Andy would have made a followup work "Eiffel Tower" might it be deemed too exciting compared to the tranquil "Empire"?
a masterpiece from the past
oliverbatura23 October 2020
Mesmerizing, but not for everyone.
PeterBradford30 September 2004
I saw EMPIRE at the Whitney some time circa the early 90's. I watched the first 90 minutes of it, which I thought was an appropriate feature length. The film is silent, which makes it difficult to watch in a theater. It's easy to get distracted by the sounds of viewers shifting in their seats, or the talking among the blue-haired ladies who had no idea what they walked into. The film works (at least the first 90 minutes) because the Empire State Building goes from dusk to night, so there is a change slowly occurring on the screen. The film is mesmerizing, and I don't think I have ever looked up at the Empire State Building since without thinking about this film. There is something captivating about staring at it's fixed image, flickering on screen at 16 frames per second (which is what it was shot at, and a projector at the Whitney was modified to run at that frame rate). I wouldn't sit through 8 hours of it, but it's worth viewing for the experience of seeing this rare film.
just look at the voting details !
frank vandenblock7 August 2003
I saw "Empire" during an exhibition in Brussels. First of all, I would like to be honest and tell you I didn't see the whole 8 hours. Even watching the Godfather I, II and III for about 8 hours without a break would be pretty difficult.
But this movie, which shows a static view of the Empire States Building from dawn till dusk, is fascinating in its simplicity. It's like Koyaanisqatsi but the other way round. One thing that I found remarkable when looking at the voting details, is that almost everybody either gave it a "10" or a "1". This must be the movie that is a definition of "you either love it or hate it"
But this movie, which shows a static view of the Empire States Building from dawn till dusk, is fascinating in its simplicity. It's like Koyaanisqatsi but the other way round. One thing that I found remarkable when looking at the voting details, is that almost everybody either gave it a "10" or a "1". This must be the movie that is a definition of "you either love it or hate it"
An unexpected Masterpiece
connorroyse11 July 2022
It's okay
flumswack17 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Empire (1965) is the first installment in the ECU (Empire Cinematic Universe). It is the origin story of the Empire State Building, who is the one of the most important characters in the ECU. He is signed to two more ECU films already in production: Empire Rises in 2019 and Buildings: Infinity War in 2020.
Andy Warhol really is a good director, but he doesn't do anything special with the cinematography. I feel like this film could've been a 10/10 if it was directed by Edgar Wright.
I was also quite dissapointed that the ECU producers didn't haven't have the bravery to kill off any of the characters, other than a few pigeons.
But these are my only complaints. Push them aside, and you have a solid film with crazy action sequences (although I couldn't quite remember what happened in them); and some really funny dialogue.
Another perfect masterpiece from Any Warhol.
Andy Warhol really is a good director, but he doesn't do anything special with the cinematography. I feel like this film could've been a 10/10 if it was directed by Edgar Wright.
I was also quite dissapointed that the ECU producers didn't haven't have the bravery to kill off any of the characters, other than a few pigeons.
But these are my only complaints. Push them aside, and you have a solid film with crazy action sequences (although I couldn't quite remember what happened in them); and some really funny dialogue.
Another perfect masterpiece from Any Warhol.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
