Un pigeon perché sur une branche philosophait sur l'existence

It's not a typical kind of humour: in it there is also a glance of melancholy and it gathers outcast characters showing all their fragilities. The movie is composed by 39 shots and each of them is a sequence. That fact sometimes makes the movie a little too slow. The scenography and the directorial cut of every shot are very interesting. Often they remind Wes Anderson's shots. This film is not an immediate view.

I was so disgusted by the movie that I was forced to register on this website to tell you that this is the most BORING and awful movie I have ever seen. I don't understand how it was able to win any kind of Awards, for me it remains a mystery! DO YOURSELF A FAVOR don't waste 2 hours of your life. The movie is without a story. It is just a series of long nonsense scenes. And to make things worst, the movie contains scenes that depict CRUELTY TO ANIMALS! My rating is the minimum allowed on this website 1/10, but even that is too much... for this movie they should allow a negative rating, below 0.

Not funny, not tragic, has no content and sense. Just not deserve attention and time on watching it. Thought it is really something unconventional and can keep you interested at the start.

This movie - though many people will see it as "art" - is just rubbish. Somehow the people behind it missed to join the different acts in the movie. Therefore it is just a collection of uninspired very long sequencies. More like a student film project which missed the final cut. They took some effort in the scenery but that is just all. It's funny to see how a lot of people try to overrate this movie because they think it has to be good because it is somehow different. But to be honest: sometimes it's awful even if it won an award by "critics". Better get some really strong drugs and make sure you don't have suicidal tendencies before you enter the cinema.

A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence is strictly Roy Andersson. And should you not know what that means, it's better you approach it at your own curiosity of revelation. This movie is the final part in a spiritual trilogy of movies about being human, as so clarified by Roy Andersson himself in the movie's opening credits. It's a movie that is as expected, all over the place; thematically, periodically and even emotionally. It's a bizarre final look into the human condition through the eyes of Roy Andersson; this time however, with a watered down lens that ends up being a lot more individualistic. That grandiose sense of scale that existed in the first two movies have been exchanged for a more personal means of analysis; through which the topics of boundaries, greed, companionship, aging and so much more are presented to us. And I think I'm better off having watched this than if I didn't.