User Reviews

Like João Pedro Rodrigues (Two Drifters), Mexican filmmaker Julián Hernández makes obsessively gay films – unlike Almodóvar, whose outlook may be gay but who has achieved almost universal acceptance through his varied milieus, intricately amusing plots and use of women in prominent roles (not to mention his general brilliance as a filmmaker, which neither Rodrigues nor Hernández has yet established). Hernández's sphere is even more narrow than Rodrigues', but more emotionally accessible and less odd. Influences include Cocteau, Pasolini, Wong Kar Wai and the Duras/Resnais collaboration of' Hiroshima mon amour, a line from which is quoted as an epigraph. Unlike Rodrigues', this filmmaker's few characters are not oddballs or obsessives but simply prettier-than-average middle-class Mexico City young men oppressed by love-longing. Like Hernández's previous feature A Thousand Clouds of Peace (2003) in its preoccupations but with higher production values, the subject is a young man whose love object eludes him. Two female characters are barely more than glimpsed in passing. We're examining a gay love affair and nothing else. These are students, but don't ask what their majors are. They spend more time in discos than in classrooms.

As in the previous Hernández feature, plot and dialogue are minimized. There are voiceovers but the characters rarely speak. We get used to their miming their feelings. Gerardo (Miguel Angel Hoppe) picks up Jonas (Fernando Arroyo) in a playing field at the university and the passionate kisses and embraces and the sex begin right away. Then Jonas starts averting his face when Gerardo tries to caress or kiss him. And yet they're still regularly sleeping together. Gradually a third person enters the picture – Sergio (Alejandro Rojo), a slightly older man, a tall, dark, brooding fellow, even easier on the eyes than the other two. He has already watched the pair play hide and seek in the library stacks when he was installing a light bulb. Sergio has wanted Gerardo for a long time, or so he says when they finally get together after one of several encounters in a gay-friendly club – in this film, everywhere is gay friendly. Scenes take place either around the university, in the guy's rooms, or in a club; all problems other than love are minimized or eliminated. Except for some yellow filters, the photography is pretty, but straightforward. None of Wong Kar Wai's richly grungy pads here: the rooms are conventional middle-class housing, with tasteful prints on the walls and textbooks on the shelves, not palatial but posh for students' digs. The guys only have a few pairs of jeans, but they sure have lots of shirts.

The message that the film conveys – and though it is too long, it's basic idea works; the scenes convey the desired feelings and the editing is seamless – at first is that two people never seem to love each other at the same time to the same degree in the same way.

But the ending is a happy and romantic one. Once Sergio and Gerardo are a couple, Jonas begins to long for Gerardo again, and in the final scene, they've gotten back together.

Broken Sky is more like a poem or an opera – or most of all, a dance – than a conventional film. It's a different experience. The mainstream audience would never put up with all this gay sex without dialogue or plot. Not every gay man will have the patience to watch these amorous comings and goings for the full 140 minutes, either. I'm not sure that the poetic voiceovers were necessary; and a third of them are lost to non Spanish-speakers because the white-on-white subtitles are illegible. They are a bit too poetic and general. The boys are too specific to be so generalized by the language. Needless to say, "the real world" is beyond the range of Broken Sky. But there's no denying that Broken Sky in its own way is unique and beautiful. The director achieves what he was clumsily groping for in his first one. He is using cinematic language in a way that it rarely is any more – he achieves the instinctive identification and emotional directness of the silent film. Broken Sky makes you think about the unspoken element in any relationship, the things that can never be communicated in words: in short, the world of eroticism and feelings. Hernández contributes to the effectiveness of his visual poem through excellent use of various musical accompaniments, a few notes on a clavicord, a string quartet – above all, a sweet pop love song – the lyrics of each lovingly translated in subtitles. It's as if Gerardo and Jonas were trying to live a pop song. And I guess that's what moony young gay guys do a lot of the time. There's even a coloratura operatic aria; considering the operatic tone of things, the filmmakers exercise great forbearance in using only one. Maybe this is "a new cinematic language," as was said of Antonioni's L'Avventura. For a while one can savor it, admire the naive sweetness of it. But can anyone read it? And can it say more than one thing?

The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.

In Mexico this movie, presented as part of the Muestra International de Cine 2006, a cinema tour that goes to every state nationwide, was really disappointing. The director seems to understand the dilemma surrounding gay relationships but fails in the use of an expressive formal language to communicate the narrative elements. Movements and gestures were the basic conductors in this story but in order to keep intensity of emotions within the public actors seem to have troubles while expressing them due to whether a bad direction or lack of experience. At some point, the film appeared to me as a choreography set up for stage and to be performed by dancers. It lasts more than 2 hours which I consider very long and exhausting for people to keep attention on it.

This could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.

Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved – this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up –- is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.

The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button – a lot.

Brilliant concept, brilliant direction, brilliant cast.

Take the final scene. Was that a happy ending or a moment from the past? What to make of the mutual love declaration in the penultimate scene?

What I love about this film are the lateral images - stairs, venetian blinds, bridges, ladders, bookcases, freeways, bars, beds, photographs - and all the shoulder touching, love making, full of doubt and sheer longing moments that overlay them.

This, coupled with the camera's constant circling around the protagonists make this a truly remarkable film. (I hope you noticed the scenes where the same actor appears in more than one spot in the same take.)

Yes, this film is not for everyone. Yes, there is little dialog, and yes, most of you will pan it.

For me, el Cielo Dividido remains a silent, magical love story, brilliantly told by Julián Hernández, coupled with exceptional photography and outstanding performances from Fernando Arroyo, Miguel Ángel Hoppe and Alejandro Rojo in the lead roles.

I listened to to the closing lyrics, " so close, so far," and looked back to the beautiful story I'd just been told.

Well done.

... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.

Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.

After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, "We get it, we get it!!!!!" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.

It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.

I guess it's not surprising that this film received mixed reviews. I knew when I saw it that it would not be for everyone. I have to say though that I really loved this film and would gladly see it again, particularly to share it with someone I care for.

I think you have to just sit back, relax and let this film wash over you. The best way for me to describe it is as a beautiful poem about love, particularly young love. It conveys all the thrill and excitement, the confusion and pain, the jealousy and longing...really all the emotions one experiences from first love. Rather than words, however, this poem is composed of pictures and music and ambient sound. Like a poem it isn't always straightforward, you don't always understand every moment, but the feelings that it evokes are strong and genuine, and it captures universals in a way that a more specific, narrative film never could.

The director has said that the reason there is so little dialogue is that the moments he chose to capture were the ones between the dialogue; before the characters felt the need to speak, and after they had said all there was to say. What's amazing is how illuminating those moments are when one chooses to pay attention to them.

In the context of this film I'm not sure what the phrase "gratuitous male nudity" means. Although I know it never happens in the U.S., in other countries people get naked. It's part of life. It's certainly part of the relationship that this film is all about, and to show it, unceremoniously, as part of the fabric of a life and a relationship can hardly be described as "gratuitous".

I guess the best compliment I can pay this film is to say that I am still thinking and talking about it, weeks after seeing it. The camera work, the composition, the use of sound and music, and the contribution of the young stars, all contribute to the film's success. If you enjoy film-making as an art form, I'd highly recommend you seek out this film.

Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.

Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).

Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us!

This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.

I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film.

This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.

As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again.

This is gay soft porn film. At least 90% of it is sex between the same two guys. As for dialog--what's dialog? As for story? It's so boring that I don't know what the story is, or even IF there is a story, nor do I care. Big Time Loser! (Oh yes, there are English subtitles for the script that doesn't exist.)

I've just been notified that the essential qualification for a movie review is ten lines of text. The guys who run IMDb reviews must be the same guys who wrote the script for this movie and are trying to make up for lost lost opportunity.

How many lines of text does it take to warn people not to waste their time and money?

"Broken Sky" is an art film with great performances, visually entertaining (stills/photography shots during credits are superbly done!), and plot treatment not usually seen in any gay films. Some people may find scenes excruciatingly long, but I've enjoyed every moment of it and the journey the director wants to convey in this movie. You must know that you need this arduous shots to feel the emotions of the characters in the movie. The sex scenes are tastefully done, not vulgar, and the gratuitous frontal nudity is significant (in one scene, main actor examines his body/self on the mirror). I've always admired Latin cinema movie-making as mostly they always get the right texture and lighting for their 35 mm. movie. In totality, it's one of the best films I've seen during L.A. OUTFEST 2006 (next to movies: "A Love to Hide," "Boy Culture" and "The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros"). -- Oliver Carnay

This film achieves a new low in utter contemptible failure it is so awful. The only reason I sat through the first 45 minutes or so is because I was with my bud who will watch anything. And I mean anything. He says he has better taste buds than I do. Yeah right. I really tried to get into this film, I really did. But I actually hated everything about it - everything. It actually got to be a game with me - just how bad could this film be? Then, finally, I realized it was not going to redeem itself in any way, that it just was going to be a stinker to the last scene and I was in no mood for a stinker - I just do not have the time for stinkers and this film stinks to high heaven.

'El Cielo dividido' (BROKEN SKY) is a daring, experimental film from Mexican writer/director Julián Hernández and as such it is bound to polarize audiences. Some will fault the film for self-indulgence while others will praise the bravery of a film of this topic to come from a country not exactly known for its flexible social attitudes.

Julián Hernández focuses on the history of a first love and without using dialogue he tells his story simply with silent actors, minimal narrative comments which serve as program notes, music, and ravishingly beautiful photographic composition. Gerardo (Miguel Ángel Hoppe) opens the film, a solo youth wandering what appears to be the streets of Mexico City finally ending up in an open amphitheater where his eye glimpses another lone youth Jonas (Fernando Arroyo) sitting staring into space. Gerardo wanders over to him, sits beside him, gains the courage to touch his shoulder, Jonas responds glowingly - and love begins. Through the next scenes we find the couple making love both in bed and in unexpected public places including the stacks of the library of the school where they both are students -and where another pair of eyes enters: Sergio (Alejandro Rojo) watches longingly as Gerardo and Jonas kiss and display an aura of passion Sergio obviously longs for.

The new couple share many experiences, all bathed in love, until they eventually go to a disco: Jonas dances with an enchanted Bruno (Ignacio Pereda) and a trace of chemistry is generated, a fact that Gerardo, watching the boys dance, senses and is disturbed. A crack is created in their bliss and that crack only widens as they each have mixed responses to what they perceive is escaping. Gerardo encounters the winsome Sergio and the two bond physically, a fact that forces Jason to reevaluate his initial feelings for Gerardo.

All of this story is told without dialogue of words but with a very strong dialogue of eyes. Director Hernández seems to want to share how love is an internalized emotion, only demonstrated with physical intimacy, but fragile as a newborn in its vulnerability to wounds. Cinematographer Alejandro Cantú finds stunning settings and lighting and sensitive explorations of love making that never exceed tasteful states. His manner of showing time elapsing is to pan walls within a room that serve as flashbacks and flash-forwards as a means of carrying the story forward. Film editor Emiliano Arenales Osorio uses some very creative techniques to keep the viewer guessing as to whether we are observing fact, fantasy, present or past. And the musical score by Arturo Villela deftly maintains the minimalist stance with simple phrases by cello, harpsichord, and violin, saving the passion expression for the use of Dvorák in Rusalka's 'Song to the Moon' as ravishingly sung by Renée Fleming All of those praises being said, the major reason this film doesn't retain an audience base is its length: it is 140 minutes long, repetitive, and would have been much more powerful had it been cut to 90 minutes at best. It is far too visually stunning a piece of work to step beyond the patience of an audience happy to see the birth and blossoming and challenges of a first love between two beautiful young men. The actors are indeed a pleasure to watch, but in this case less is more. One wonders what Julián Hernández will create next. He deserves applause for this experimental film but hopefully will learn from its tendency toward self-indulgence. Grady Harp

how many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long.

it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys.

the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising

Saw it at SIFF. This is a different kind of film -- but I loved it. I loved the fact that there wasn't a lot of dialogue. I appreciated the non-verbal aspects of this film. While the lack of dialogue some may find tedious it was nice to see something that wasn't shot for the small screen, something that made me pay attention visually, and something that made me think a bit. I thought the camera technique used to convey the passage of time was quite effective. The only technical aspect which drove me nuts was the use of white subtitles on a white background; fortunately this was a small, small part of the film but at key junctions in the story development. I'm rather fond of this film and would like to watch it again.

I saw it last night and loved it! Some of the cinematic techniques were overused and at times it seemed the breakup was a bit drawn out....but having gone through a similar situation, I know can understand how hard it is to give up hope for a reconciliation with someone you really love~! The actors are just beautiful and the facial expressions of the three leads seemed right on the mark to me. I wish there was a bit more dialog between the guys but the long silences gave the viewer time to think and come to their own conclusions. I also liked the use of the mother who just wanted her son to be happy. Does anyone know if these families were considered middle-class in Mexico? The tee-shirts they wore seemed to indicate that each had done a bit of traveling...or maybe they were just gifts? Now, who knows about the DVD release in the US? Please email me if you have any info or access!~Janarrah1@aol.com

I usually find most gay cinema quite horrible - the writing, the casting, the acting, the directing. This film however was truly remarkable. Yes it is long and moves slowly, but it captivated me the entire way through. I was intrigued. I felt like I was watching an old movie from the silent ere. And I was very thankful that it was not some predictable-tack-on-a-resolution ending. I have a difficult time calling this a gay film. Yes, I know it's all about love and relationships between guys. But the story just as easily could have been about a man and a woman I think. It's really just a story about life, love and tragedy. How does one continue living with a broken heart? Very little dialog, but the film speaks volumes.

The unique film "Broken Sky" is an invitation to a different world, a quiet and dreamlike place where only love seems to hold any importance. The characters Gerardo and Jonas inhabit this private world, and no one else matters. Filmed in beautiful gold and brown shades, the two Mexican boys fall in love at first sight. The two are so in sync with each other that they barely need words to communicate their feelings. It seems things could not be more ideal for these two guys, until outside influences and doubt threaten to destroy their perfect, untainted love. "El Cielo Dividido" is not really a mainstream film; there is virtually no dialog, and the production moves along like a slow, hypnotic dance, rather than the typical fast pace of todays cinema. There has rarely been a film that so effectively creates it's own world, and it is a world filled with beauty and romance and sadness, a world that i personally was reluctant to leave at the film's end. Actors Miguel Angel Hoppe and Fernando Arroyo are both beautiful and utterly believable as the confused lovers, overwhelmed by intense feelings that are so new to them. Unique especially for "gay cinema" is this film's subtlety. The nudity and sexuality is not aggressively splashed across the screen to shock or titillate the viewer. It is simply there, and it is all a part of this private world of the two lovers. Best of all, "Broken sky" manages to recreate the feelings of first time love and sexual awakening like few films have managed. This is far from the typically flashy and garishly silly style of most gay films. Thankfully, there are no gay stereotypes to be found here; this is a film about love, and nothing more. "Broken Sky" is a unique and beautiful film.

I love how a film with little dialog can generate as much discussion as it has in this forum, and I think it's a very productive kind of discussion.

I've seen some other films that make the artistic choice to exclude homophobia/discrimination from the world they depict. In this film, that artistic choice is echoed by the choice to exclude dialog. What you are left with is an opportunity to appreciate the depth of male-male feeling while simultaneously being held powerless to use dialog to relate that private, intimate meaning to public life.

I was so scared when Sergio kissed Gerardo at school, but then I realized the film had removed the possibility of fear and had done so without giving any explanation or opportunity to understand. My fear had been obviated, and I received a kind of emotional shock, a positive shock to be sure, but still a shock.

I think the key to this film is to allow it to push you past your limits. You may experience it as tedium, but you can choose to view that feeling differently. It's a demanding film -- give in to its demands, and it will give you more than you expected. An earlier review ("Amazing") captured the feeling well: He was bored the first time, but he really got it the second time.

This has been a long expected banquet, and a generous one. From my humble opinion, "Broken Sky" is a landmark for this country's cinematographic art. I was deeply moved with such a well-thought portrait of loneliness, and its rhythm has been smartly solved, excellent production and music, and you can tell someone with experience has set up this piece. Once Julian Hernandez decides to skip the obvious, superficial dialogs, the plot is nurtured by long periods of silence which reveal a given need for them, even by conveying that the characters are split apart, as well as when they communicate with each other through their inner monologues. "Broken Sky" solves itself out, though it leaves an interesting watermark by not yielding to stereotypes, and -for instance, by demystifying the Mexican gay ghetto. This opens a magical ground, for the given and missed encounters, when as a viewer, one can dress up the character's egos and hearts, placing from one's mind the thoughts and insights for them, to fill up such apparently void, mute spaces. Then you are taken by the hand of the splendid traveling and panning shots to the very edge of existential cliffs -theirs, yours, ours for that sake. "Broken Sky" feels like a sequel to "A Thousand Clouds..." and leaves me yearning for more. I need this mirror again. For a moment, I felt taken into Skolimowsky's "Deep End", judging from the Alejandro Cantu's palette, or even sequences that seem like a tribute to Fassbinder. Therefore, I cannot dare to stick "Broken Sky" in a regular category. It's been a while already since "Dona Herlinda and Her Son" double standard, or the first homosexual kiss in "A Place Without Limits". This is not a "gay" movie per se. This is an honest effort here.

The first time I watched this movie, I was thinking .......what????? All that camera spinning had my head spinning, but even then something out of the ordinary seemed to scream right out of the screen.Then, out of sheer boredom (because every movie I own I've watched a thousand times already) I watched again. It suddenly was like a lightbulb went on in my head. Since then I've watched it two more times and every time I see something new that I haven't seen before. This is a brilliant piece of art. All my complaints from my first viewing have become positives. The lack of dialogue works. The slow movements works. The spinning works. And the final coup is the masterful use of the credits to give the final ending of the movie. The music and songs selected blend in seamless and the acting is superb. As with everything in life, nothing is perfect and use of lighting could have been better and there was too much "choppiness" to the feeling of the overall story. But, still, in a matter of weeks, this has become one of my top 5 fav movies of all time. I'm glad now I was bored enough to watch it a second time. I have a feeling I'll watch again a hundred times. Amazing!!