When you climb a mountain and come down the other side, you're in a different place. When we saw Prelude: Dog Star Man in 1963, after it was over we were in a new world. My college roommate Bob and I ran a film series - the last night was this masterpiece. Brakhage had just finished editing it. He sent us the 16mm print in a can. (There were a few bits of popcorn in the can too.) The print even had some last-minute splices in it. I couldn't imagine him sending it out with splices. But that was his generosity. Watching the film with a hundred students who, like almost everyone else on Earth, had never seen a movie remotely like this one, was a thrilling experience. They loved it. I certainly did - two years later, my film school thesis was about the complete version, which Brakhage had titled The Art of Vision. He passed away last year - perhaps the cancer was caused by the toxic pigments he used to diligently paint his cinematic creations, particularly his later, completely abstract works. But the mountain remains - the mountain of his film output, the mountain of the legacy of a life dedicated to Vision.
10 Reviews
See the whole series - in a theater near you
winner5522 June 2006
I sat through the complete Dog Star Man (4+ hours) in a museum in 1974. I dozed off quite frequently, but only for a couple seconds at a time. There didn't seem to be much sense trying to think the movie through, so I just sort of let it happen. When the lights came on, I decided this much-heralded avant-garde film wasn't anything special, only a little overlong.
I had to walk a mile back home, and it was midnight. In the twenty minutes it took to make this journey, the entire film ran through my head again, at lightning speed. I wasn't doing any drugs - yet the whole street around me seemed shot through with flickering light and overlapping images from this movie.
Back around 1960, neurobiologists had begun speculating that the human brain actually remembers every sensation we experience. Brackhage seems to have taken this seriously. Some of the images in DSM are only a single frame; but despite the "24 frames per second" rule of film-perception theory, one notes these single-frame images and remembers them anyway.
The bad news is that this is probably an historical footnote. The likelihood of seeing DSM in a theatrical setting grows dimmer every day. But there's absolutely no point of watching this in any video format whatsoever. In even the highest definition video format, a "frame" is constituted by overlapping runs of pixels in the process of moving from one image to the next. The presentation of a single-frame image such as I have noted above is physically impossible in video.
There are many other reasons why no video format could possible present this film adequately, but this is definitive. DSM works because light reflected from a screen can imprint a single image, however fleeting, onto our neurons. Video cannot do this, I'm sorry.
However, because Brakhage was a visual artist - not a dramatist, not a storyteller, but really the maker of paintings-in-motion - art museums will likely preserve this film - as film - for future generations. Some of these have quite adequate theaters for film projection. If you can make your way to one when this film is shown there, do so. Even if you hate it, you will not regret it. And you will certainly learn something new about the universe.
I had to walk a mile back home, and it was midnight. In the twenty minutes it took to make this journey, the entire film ran through my head again, at lightning speed. I wasn't doing any drugs - yet the whole street around me seemed shot through with flickering light and overlapping images from this movie.
Back around 1960, neurobiologists had begun speculating that the human brain actually remembers every sensation we experience. Brackhage seems to have taken this seriously. Some of the images in DSM are only a single frame; but despite the "24 frames per second" rule of film-perception theory, one notes these single-frame images and remembers them anyway.
The bad news is that this is probably an historical footnote. The likelihood of seeing DSM in a theatrical setting grows dimmer every day. But there's absolutely no point of watching this in any video format whatsoever. In even the highest definition video format, a "frame" is constituted by overlapping runs of pixels in the process of moving from one image to the next. The presentation of a single-frame image such as I have noted above is physically impossible in video.
There are many other reasons why no video format could possible present this film adequately, but this is definitive. DSM works because light reflected from a screen can imprint a single image, however fleeting, onto our neurons. Video cannot do this, I'm sorry.
However, because Brakhage was a visual artist - not a dramatist, not a storyteller, but really the maker of paintings-in-motion - art museums will likely preserve this film - as film - for future generations. Some of these have quite adequate theaters for film projection. If you can make your way to one when this film is shown there, do so. Even if you hate it, you will not regret it. And you will certainly learn something new about the universe.
25 minutes of boredom
Horst_In_Translation11 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Dog Star Man" is certainly among Stan Brakhage's most famous works and he made this one even before his 30th birthday. This one here is the prelude, which runs for no less than 25 minutes and I have to say it's a massive drag and bore to watch. The irony that the entire film even runs for 75 minutes... I may be a bit biased because I am not too big on Brakhage in general, but watching his approach to filmmaking is really a challenge. The main problem is the story. I am not even sure if there is one. But if there is, then it's impossible for anybody to understand other than Brakhage himself who knew what he would want to come up with. It's basically watching flickering lights and objects for almost half an hour and it's changing so quickly that you simply don't know what you just saw. Or missed. The only thing somehow positive what I can say is that Brakhage's style is obvious and it's clear that he made it. That's not necessarily a good thing though. If you are the only one who does something, maybe it's because everybody else thinks it's simple not worth making. I definitely do not recommend this movie.
dog star man - by brakhage
dmgrundy27 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
(note - the review refers to the entire film, rather than to the four parts (+ prelude) considered separately.) a brief note on structure might be in order - as much as the film can be said to have a 'narrative' (which in any case is more in the order of the epic or the myth, rather than the 'story' of traditional film-making), it concerns the rise and fall of the dog star man (though the title can be taken two ways: either as the name of the man, or as a conflation of the three main visual threads of the film - a man, a dog, and a star (the sun, shown both in archive and original footage). the man undertakes a physical journey up a mountain, where, accompanied by his dog, he chops down a dead tree: various dreams and remembrances (of his child and his wife) combine with sense impressions of the landscape around him (mountains, trees, snow, clouds, sun), as well as less obviously referential visual patterns created through superimposition and handpainting on film. the prelude combines footage from the four following parts and is concerned, broadly, with the cosmic - much use is made of footage of the sun (the 'star' of the title). part i introduces the footage of the dog star man, a woodsman (brakhage himself) climbing a snowy mountain with his dog, and chopping down a dead tree. part ii superimposes onto footage of a baby (one of brakhage's children) a riot of colour and rapidly changing visual phenomena, achieved thru the technique of painting on film, a kind of animation which he intended to approximate 'closed-eye vision' - i.e. what one sees when one closes one's eyes. part iii, a 'daydream of sex' is visceral and supremely physical, mixing footage of the sexual act with blood and organs - most notably, a beating heart. part iv returns to the woodsman, whose journey up the mountain comes to seem increasingly futile; trapped in an endless ascent, with no hope of reaching a summit, and made, through looping, to continuously chop at a tree which never falls, the man collapses on the ground, grimacing in agony, his wild long hair giving him a caveman appearance - the struggles against nature and physical limitation are unchanged from man's early beginnings. a mystical quality briefly emerges, hinting at some kind of hope, as the man reaches for a nightsky of twinkling stars, but these stars are, in reality, full of molten, deathly heat, as we see from the footage of the sun.
that's a very brief outline of what 'happens' in the film, although inevitably, in order to provide some sense of cohesion, i've perhaps imposed a too-schematic narrative outline on a film which lives moment by moment, as a profoundly immersive and visually busy experience. it's almost as if the absence of sound is made up for by what might at first seem to be an OVERcrowding of visual event; and watching the film silently, as intended, provides a very different experience of how one experiences the medium - not only is one's eye trained to become more active, more able to discern connections, cohesions and fractures. therein lies the main problem with trying to describe 'dog star man' - for, fundamentally, the film teaches one how to read it itself, as it progresses: no amount of preparation will really equip one to the same degree as this instantaneous visual training. in that sense, the film is, like the best avant-garde art, a PARTICIPATORY piece, an experience which the viewer can share - but to do so, they must work, they cannot sit back and let the film-maker tell them something. this makes watching 'dog star man' a very personal experience, and the film itself is a very personal piece, showing the most intimate details of brakhage's life, the most intimate and extreme details of his fears and hopes. but at the same time, it has an epic scope rarely matched in conventional feature films. it is about the simultaneity of the local and the cosmic, about the struggle for security, for a home base, and the dangers and rigours of manual labour, of making one's way in a world full of overwhelming sense data, a world that shapes one and that is shaped into being by sense perceptions, rather than existing as something 'already there' which one can schematise, organise and make sense of.
moving in, from outline to detail, we might ask 'what do we have here'? and to answer that question would require a whole book (a frame-by-frame analysis is out of the question!) but, in brief, we can say that we have: perception nature repetition cycles recurrences man in the cosmos light movement the body organs sex fluid secretion the breast the penis the axe the tree the eye/ man as mythological figure an epic made from home movies the handmade handscratched handpainted the sun's molten leaps clouds passing the ascent the struggle up the mountain interludes lightness the woodsman playing with his dog (who, as we know from 'sirius remembered', decomposes in a quite horrifically beautiful way)/ back from the sense of narrative based around character development to the epic cipher figure yet with an utterly intense focus on the body inside and outside its environment (the dog star man, the woodsman, is brakhage himself but his motivations are not considered in the sense of a 'character study', though the preoccupations ARE very much diurnal - his baby, his home life sex, the mountain near his home, his cabin (in part iv), manual labour, struggles and fears in the moment revealing huge cosmic dramas) its environment snow falling thru and landing on trees twigs branches hand drawings of crystals superimpositions snow caught in hair snow struggled through and slippery hair skin organs blood opening and shutting the mouth beating of the heart blood red black/ we can say that we have the elemental (which is never, really, elementary)
that's a very brief outline of what 'happens' in the film, although inevitably, in order to provide some sense of cohesion, i've perhaps imposed a too-schematic narrative outline on a film which lives moment by moment, as a profoundly immersive and visually busy experience. it's almost as if the absence of sound is made up for by what might at first seem to be an OVERcrowding of visual event; and watching the film silently, as intended, provides a very different experience of how one experiences the medium - not only is one's eye trained to become more active, more able to discern connections, cohesions and fractures. therein lies the main problem with trying to describe 'dog star man' - for, fundamentally, the film teaches one how to read it itself, as it progresses: no amount of preparation will really equip one to the same degree as this instantaneous visual training. in that sense, the film is, like the best avant-garde art, a PARTICIPATORY piece, an experience which the viewer can share - but to do so, they must work, they cannot sit back and let the film-maker tell them something. this makes watching 'dog star man' a very personal experience, and the film itself is a very personal piece, showing the most intimate details of brakhage's life, the most intimate and extreme details of his fears and hopes. but at the same time, it has an epic scope rarely matched in conventional feature films. it is about the simultaneity of the local and the cosmic, about the struggle for security, for a home base, and the dangers and rigours of manual labour, of making one's way in a world full of overwhelming sense data, a world that shapes one and that is shaped into being by sense perceptions, rather than existing as something 'already there' which one can schematise, organise and make sense of.
moving in, from outline to detail, we might ask 'what do we have here'? and to answer that question would require a whole book (a frame-by-frame analysis is out of the question!) but, in brief, we can say that we have: perception nature repetition cycles recurrences man in the cosmos light movement the body organs sex fluid secretion the breast the penis the axe the tree the eye/ man as mythological figure an epic made from home movies the handmade handscratched handpainted the sun's molten leaps clouds passing the ascent the struggle up the mountain interludes lightness the woodsman playing with his dog (who, as we know from 'sirius remembered', decomposes in a quite horrifically beautiful way)/ back from the sense of narrative based around character development to the epic cipher figure yet with an utterly intense focus on the body inside and outside its environment (the dog star man, the woodsman, is brakhage himself but his motivations are not considered in the sense of a 'character study', though the preoccupations ARE very much diurnal - his baby, his home life sex, the mountain near his home, his cabin (in part iv), manual labour, struggles and fears in the moment revealing huge cosmic dramas) its environment snow falling thru and landing on trees twigs branches hand drawings of crystals superimpositions snow caught in hair snow struggled through and slippery hair skin organs blood opening and shutting the mouth beating of the heart blood red black/ we can say that we have the elemental (which is never, really, elementary)
Surrealistic Nightmare/Daydream
JasparLamarCrabb15 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This review captures the Prelude as well as parts 1-4 of DOG STAR MAN:
PRELUDE: Stan Brakhage's surrealistic nightmare (or daydream depending upon your mood) begins with images of beauty, color and a lot of majestic shots of Colorado mountains, mostly snow-covered.
PART 1: Shows man's attempt to live in nature, climbing and climbing with ax and dog.
PART 2: Images of a newborn baby.
PART 3: How that baby was conceived(?) showing erotic images combined with a lot of freakishness.
PART 4: It all unravels with the birth of the child(?) and the man's fall from the mountain.
A masterpiece of film-making by the great Brakhage, DOG STAR MAN unfolds with a rush of images, some fast, some slow. Any attempt to detect a pattern or rhythm is quickly squelched. The film is hallucinogenic with it's cross cutting, montages, and repetition. A real mind-bender from the early '60s that clearly influenced everything from rock concert backdrops to TV commercials. There are scenes of idyllic mountain vistas juxtaposed against raging rushes of water, snow falling, a baby crawling and more.
PRELUDE: Stan Brakhage's surrealistic nightmare (or daydream depending upon your mood) begins with images of beauty, color and a lot of majestic shots of Colorado mountains, mostly snow-covered.
PART 1: Shows man's attempt to live in nature, climbing and climbing with ax and dog.
PART 2: Images of a newborn baby.
PART 3: How that baby was conceived(?) showing erotic images combined with a lot of freakishness.
PART 4: It all unravels with the birth of the child(?) and the man's fall from the mountain.
A masterpiece of film-making by the great Brakhage, DOG STAR MAN unfolds with a rush of images, some fast, some slow. Any attempt to detect a pattern or rhythm is quickly squelched. The film is hallucinogenic with it's cross cutting, montages, and repetition. A real mind-bender from the early '60s that clearly influenced everything from rock concert backdrops to TV commercials. There are scenes of idyllic mountain vistas juxtaposed against raging rushes of water, snow falling, a baby crawling and more.
Thoughts as random as the movie, perhaps...
Polaris_DiB26 March 2006
I think the "Ugh, nobody could watch this, it just gives people a headache" argument died with MTV.
This avant-garde approach to film-making certainly isn't popular, even among cineastes who take film seriously. However, it's still an effective film, even if neither hide nor hair could truly be reaped from it. It tends to annoy people when something isn't supposed to make sense (even when it follows a narrative like 2001: A Space Odyssey), but it's not ABOUT making sense much less than it TRIES NOT to make sense.
You're supposed to sit back and watch, and that's all the work you do. If you can't handle that, then I'm confused as to what you get out of film.
But enough about you, let's talk about this movie. According to Brakhage, it's supposed to tire your eyes, make them exercise, work them "to see with one's own eyes", to relearn how to see, all that wonderful philosophical stuff. However, jabbingly quick editing and barely synthesized flashes of color are actually the mainstream of cinema now (think stuff like Domino), thus that appeal is quickly lowering. Instead, it's becoming... *gasp!* relaxing! to watch this film. It helps that this, the prelude, has no sound. Instead it's just a flow of flashes, a realm of color easy to get lost in.
--PolarisDiB
This avant-garde approach to film-making certainly isn't popular, even among cineastes who take film seriously. However, it's still an effective film, even if neither hide nor hair could truly be reaped from it. It tends to annoy people when something isn't supposed to make sense (even when it follows a narrative like 2001: A Space Odyssey), but it's not ABOUT making sense much less than it TRIES NOT to make sense.
You're supposed to sit back and watch, and that's all the work you do. If you can't handle that, then I'm confused as to what you get out of film.
But enough about you, let's talk about this movie. According to Brakhage, it's supposed to tire your eyes, make them exercise, work them "to see with one's own eyes", to relearn how to see, all that wonderful philosophical stuff. However, jabbingly quick editing and barely synthesized flashes of color are actually the mainstream of cinema now (think stuff like Domino), thus that appeal is quickly lowering. Instead, it's becoming... *gasp!* relaxing! to watch this film. It helps that this, the prelude, has no sound. Instead it's just a flow of flashes, a realm of color easy to get lost in.
--PolarisDiB
god's sight
buyjesus16 May 2004
yeah yeah.
so you dont sit down and watch the dog star man series. can we move past this now? its still beautiful and worth every penny of your pocket if you can track it down. i recommend putting some music on in the background though- something like william bakinski or aphex twin's select ambient II or my bloody valentine or what have you. and, you know, do whatever you have to do chemically to your body to.
brahkage is itself an experience. visually, you will never run into anything quite like what he constructs in the way he constructs it unless you are seeing something that generously takes from him. its a totally now construction.you wont confine or condition anything from his films to memory apart from the overall breadth a brahkagian work in motion.
so you dont sit down and watch the dog star man series. can we move past this now? its still beautiful and worth every penny of your pocket if you can track it down. i recommend putting some music on in the background though- something like william bakinski or aphex twin's select ambient II or my bloody valentine or what have you. and, you know, do whatever you have to do chemically to your body to.
brahkage is itself an experience. visually, you will never run into anything quite like what he constructs in the way he constructs it unless you are seeing something that generously takes from him. its a totally now construction.you wont confine or condition anything from his films to memory apart from the overall breadth a brahkagian work in motion.
Retinal Stimulation Movie
druid333-19 April 2009
Stan Brakhage may,or may not have been a visionary with his view on cinema (there were other early experimental film makers that implemented various experiments on film,i.e. painting on the film,abstract editing,etc.),but he was one of the most well known,as his films were getting attention about the same time as his contemporaries,such as Jonas Mekas,Andy Warhol,Jack Smith,and others (plus Mekas had his cinema in the East Village that screened those experimental/underground films in the early to late 1960's/early 1970's). Brakhage's 'Prelude:Dog Star Man',as well as the subsequent segments over the next few years is a film to be experienced (preferably in it's entirety,in one screening). It is a series of abstract images,that convey a lyrical feel to them. I had the rare open window of opportunity a few years back to see it,all together in one screening,with a live sound track by an ensemble of musicians (including Lee Renaldo,from Sonic Youth,and master percussionist William Hooker)at Real Art Ways,in Hartford,Connecticut a few years back,and was blown out of my shoes by it. Don't try to make any kind of sense out of it (just sit back & be dazzled by it's use of random images). Obviously not rated by the MPAA,but does contain a few images that could be unsettling to some.
74 challenging, rewarding, and fulfilling minutes
cervovolante13 April 2010
This review refers to the entire film DOG STAR MAN, the Prelude and the four Parts, which I saw several hours ago in the cinema of the Austrian Film Museum in Vienna.
IMDb should condense the five separate units into ONE film item, since this is clearly how the filmmaker intended his work to be viewed. I compose music and after about ten minutes it was clear to me that this work should be experienced and felt as VISUAL MUSIC, a symphony in five movements comparable in length to those of Bruckner or Mahler. I wouldn't have any problem closing my eyes during a 74-minute-long symphony and I had no problem turning off my ears as Stan Brakhage's stunning silent images flooded the screen.
The "visual composer" Brakhage showed himself to be a master in the incredible density of his phrases / images, in their imaginative and suggestive juxtapositions, and in the creation of a clearly imagined and personally experienced global form in five movements, whereby "themes" are introduced, developed, reintroduced and redeveloped in a convincing and existentially rooted manner. And there were SO many memorable images ... right now I'm recalling the man's vertical ascent at the end of Part One, and the introduction of the baby at the beginning of Part Two. The often fluttering editing of the winter scenes in the Colorado Rockies was so sensually intense that I could almost SMELL the surroundings-- an incredible feat for a silent film. The rough spots in the editing were like ... the rough spots in life.
I have seen several other films by Brakhage and admire his existentially demanding films abut birth and autopsy, but DOG STAR MAN tops it all.
My sincere posthumous thanks to Stan Brakhage for the 74 challenging, rewarding, and fulfilling minutes that I spent with this work.
IMDb should condense the five separate units into ONE film item, since this is clearly how the filmmaker intended his work to be viewed. I compose music and after about ten minutes it was clear to me that this work should be experienced and felt as VISUAL MUSIC, a symphony in five movements comparable in length to those of Bruckner or Mahler. I wouldn't have any problem closing my eyes during a 74-minute-long symphony and I had no problem turning off my ears as Stan Brakhage's stunning silent images flooded the screen.
The "visual composer" Brakhage showed himself to be a master in the incredible density of his phrases / images, in their imaginative and suggestive juxtapositions, and in the creation of a clearly imagined and personally experienced global form in five movements, whereby "themes" are introduced, developed, reintroduced and redeveloped in a convincing and existentially rooted manner. And there were SO many memorable images ... right now I'm recalling the man's vertical ascent at the end of Part One, and the introduction of the baby at the beginning of Part Two. The often fluttering editing of the winter scenes in the Colorado Rockies was so sensually intense that I could almost SMELL the surroundings-- an incredible feat for a silent film. The rough spots in the editing were like ... the rough spots in life.
I have seen several other films by Brakhage and admire his existentially demanding films abut birth and autopsy, but DOG STAR MAN tops it all.
My sincere posthumous thanks to Stan Brakhage for the 74 challenging, rewarding, and fulfilling minutes that I spent with this work.
the "creation myth" in a "closed eye vision"
Quinoa19842 May 2016
I should note right at the top that it seems unfair to give this a rating or a vote based on anything to do with story. My praise for this piece of art film - and that is what it is, no ifs ands or buts about that - comes from the cinematography, the special lighting effects, and naturally the editing. This is so far beyond the scope of what many in the world seek out to watch as this is the definition of 'experimental' in cinema, and yet for those who find it or somehow it comes to them (via a small revival house or from the Criterion collection set) it's a wonder to behold.
Funny though to think that, not intentionally I assume, when the "MTV Generation" of directors would make their videos (and still do, but I mean when they were regularly shown on TV) they were decried by critics for being cut too fast. This really goes back to Brakhage here, though of course his intentions were not to promote some band with the rapid-fire cuts and the stream-of-consciousness flow of images and colors and warped contours folding into one another. That's why it's kind of hard to write any kind of appraisal of this aside from 'well, watch it for yourself, and if you make it past the first few minutes there's... more of these wonders to behold!'
I think because of the way my mind works I watch something like the Prelude to Dog Star Man (the whole "film" is in four parts), and I do try to find some semblance of a story. My mind is still on the experimental, transgression and consciousness-expanding wavelength, but I think that if you look for at least some kind of scenario there's the slightest, most subtle touches going on. You can see the shots of the sun, which are shot via help from an observatory, and also a naked woman (her breasts and public hair are there to see), but unlike Brakhage's Window Water Baby Moving you don't get a clear sense of a woman giving birth.
There IS a sexual component, however, something to do with the flesh and lots of moving parts with it and blood that flows underneath - red is always a potent color, the kind that vibrates and you (or I at least) can feel something that has to do with blood, life force, something that goes back to a time before we can remember. Or... maybe it's all simply a bunch of images meant to conjure in the viewer anything he or she is looking for or identifies with. It's an adventure in... stuff, in colors, in mountains, in driving on a road, in a bearded guy playing with a kid, with things that are happening and in motion (and, at times, kind of akin to what we see if we close our eyes in dreams).
No other filmmaker has made or will make a work quite like this, and even at 25 minutes it feels like an epic and so 'out there' in a pre-psychedelic sense that it makes the Jupiter & the Beyond the Infinite in 2001 look like a conventional effects trail.
Funny though to think that, not intentionally I assume, when the "MTV Generation" of directors would make their videos (and still do, but I mean when they were regularly shown on TV) they were decried by critics for being cut too fast. This really goes back to Brakhage here, though of course his intentions were not to promote some band with the rapid-fire cuts and the stream-of-consciousness flow of images and colors and warped contours folding into one another. That's why it's kind of hard to write any kind of appraisal of this aside from 'well, watch it for yourself, and if you make it past the first few minutes there's... more of these wonders to behold!'
I think because of the way my mind works I watch something like the Prelude to Dog Star Man (the whole "film" is in four parts), and I do try to find some semblance of a story. My mind is still on the experimental, transgression and consciousness-expanding wavelength, but I think that if you look for at least some kind of scenario there's the slightest, most subtle touches going on. You can see the shots of the sun, which are shot via help from an observatory, and also a naked woman (her breasts and public hair are there to see), but unlike Brakhage's Window Water Baby Moving you don't get a clear sense of a woman giving birth.
There IS a sexual component, however, something to do with the flesh and lots of moving parts with it and blood that flows underneath - red is always a potent color, the kind that vibrates and you (or I at least) can feel something that has to do with blood, life force, something that goes back to a time before we can remember. Or... maybe it's all simply a bunch of images meant to conjure in the viewer anything he or she is looking for or identifies with. It's an adventure in... stuff, in colors, in mountains, in driving on a road, in a bearded guy playing with a kid, with things that are happening and in motion (and, at times, kind of akin to what we see if we close our eyes in dreams).
No other filmmaker has made or will make a work quite like this, and even at 25 minutes it feels like an epic and so 'out there' in a pre-psychedelic sense that it makes the Jupiter & the Beyond the Infinite in 2001 look like a conventional effects trail.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
