Det sjunde inseglet

เรื่องย่อ

อัศวินแอนโทเนียส บล็อก เดินทางกลับสู่บ้านเกิดที่กำลังเผชิญโรคระบาดร้ายแรง เขาพบยมทูตมารอคอยและท้าทายยมทูตเล่นหมากรุกเพื่อซื้อเวลา ในระหว่างการเดินทาง บล็อกได้พบเจอผู้คนหลากหลาย ทั้งนักแสดงเร่ร่อน ผู้หญิงที่ถูกกล่าวหาว่าเป็นแม่มด และโจรปล้นฆ่า เขาพยายามหาความหมายของชีวิต ความตาย และศรัทธา ท่ามกลางความสิ้นหวังและความหวาดกลัวที่ปกคลุมแผ่นดิน

คะแนน

3 รีวิว

• 

  Andres Gomez

  8 4 ม.ค. 2556

  Interesting and iconic movie about faith and the meaning of life. A must seen.

• 

  Filipe Manuel Neto

  8 5 ก.ค. 2566

  **The universality and invincibility of Death, the fear of dying, the importance of faith and its use by the Church in a timeless film, but not suitable for everyone.** The film, set in the late Middle Ages, begins with a knight returning to his homeland in Sweden after participating in the crusades. When he spots the figure of Death, who has come to get him, he decides to try to gain time by inviting her to play chess: if he wins the game, Death will not take him. What follows is a huge film essay around the themes of death, beliefs, faith, religion and the role of spirituality in human experience. While the plague is raging and claiming victims, we see people increasingly scared, and blindly resorting to faith to protect themselves from what looks like the end of times. We see people's daily lives, with their mistakes, virtues, sins and difficulties. We see the knight himself, with a growing fear of dying and struggling with deeper and deeper doubts about faith, the existence of God. Furthermore, we also see how the Church exploited the fear of death to reinforce its power, influence and relevance within uneducated communities shaken by the epidemic. The ending is simple, but there is a deep meaning in it. Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman's masterpiece seems to have its origins in his own fear of death. Max von Sydow, who gave life to the knight, is the greatest actor present in the film and gives us a strong and impactful performance. The film has gained notoriety over the decades and has become one of the most timeless and culturally significant classics of European cinema. However, it is not a film for everyone. Its simplicity, the way it approaches very complicated and philosophical themes and the ending that is difficult to understand at first glance are more than enough reasons why many people do not like this film, and I have to admit that there is a reason. For me personally, it wasn't a success, it's not a movie you want to see regularly, but I recognize its value.

• 

  CinemaSerf

  7 10 ส.ค. 2568

  Now of course everyone’s favourite Max von Sydow film is “Flash Gordon” (1980) but I reckon this performance for Ingmar Bergman might be almost as good! With the dreaded Black Death sweeping his homeland, “Block” (MvS) returns from the Crusades with his squire “Jöns” (Gunnar Björnstrand) only to find himself barely off the boat before he encounters the apparently quite reasonable grim reaper himself. “Block” invites him (Bengt Ekerot) to play a game of chess, on condition that he is left to live for the duration of the game and that if he wins, then he is to be allowed to go free. The game isn’t played as one continuous effort, though, and that allows the knight to travel the land experiencing just how the toxic combinations of the sickness and the religious wars have impacted on a population rife with poverty, fear and superstition. Indeed, as the pair attempt to get to their homes, “Block” begins to doubt his own hitherto unshakeable faith in God. There might be a semblance of salvation on the horizon for him, though, when they encounter a group of travelling actors whom he agrees to act as bodyguard for through the perilous forest en route to his castle. It’s his association with “Mia” (Bibi Andersson) and husband “Jof” (Nils Poppe) that might just give him the ammunition to defeat his constant companion - assuming, after all of this, that he actually wants to. The photography and scenario are bleak and effective whilst the questions and scepticism about many things religious as well as the conflict experienced by this honourable man are also really quite poignantly expressed by an actor whose measured and considered performance is powerful. It’s a potent look at the positives and negatives of faith and of the dangers to that faith when it is rationally questioned by a man faced with it’s unfairness and inconsistencies. It packs a lot onto ninety minutes, asks some fairly fundamental questions and still looks great in monochrome on a big screen.