This movie was tragically bad.
Why anyone would compare this mess to the works of Tarkovsky or Terrence Malick is completely baffling to me and probably will be to you, too.
I loved Russian Ark, but this was simply a poorly made student film with no passion, no zeal, and no interesting qualities whatsoever. Some of the silent and slow moments were rather meditative, but I would've much rather have seen this as a short film.
The story was dull and trite, and frankly I didn't appreciate the message or idea at all. A mother who loved her son that much should let him go into the world and be his own man. That's the definition of true love, not keeping him around to wilt along with she. And if the young man loved his mother, he would "let her go" rather than allow her to suffer and strain in such pain.
Maybe it's a philosophy conflict between myself and this director, but I did not see this movie as a love poem, but rather an example of true selfishness on the part of both characters.
And the cinematography. Oy vey! This is where I was most confused, as already suggested. When I saw the box for the DVD, I was already a bit surprised to see the description of the film (which concentrated almost solely on how beautiful the movie looked). From the pictures, it looked like a made-for-TV movie in some backwater E. European town...
... and indeed, when I put the movie on, that's exactly what it looked like. Such splendid landscapes, to be sure, but sullied completely by ridiculous filters that distorted each view and that put a faded greenish brown tincture to everything. This did not represent a dream or a hallucination or the "act of decay" for me. It just looked bad.
Really bad. And even beyond the silly, obfuscating filters and the like, the compositions were horrendous. There was no semblance of aesthetic responsibility in the creation of the shots. Looked like they just randomly set the actors in various places and blindly left the camera wherever it would stand.
If Lars von Trier were to try yet again to make "the crappiest film ever" as he tends to joke about doing, he couldn't make something that looked this awful. For people to excuse the terrible narrative concept for the cinematography is just strange. Perhaps I need to see it on the big screen?
Thank goodness this one is so short. Ugh. Avoid at all costs!
Why anyone would compare this mess to the works of Tarkovsky or Terrence Malick is completely baffling to me and probably will be to you, too.
I loved Russian Ark, but this was simply a poorly made student film with no passion, no zeal, and no interesting qualities whatsoever. Some of the silent and slow moments were rather meditative, but I would've much rather have seen this as a short film.
The story was dull and trite, and frankly I didn't appreciate the message or idea at all. A mother who loved her son that much should let him go into the world and be his own man. That's the definition of true love, not keeping him around to wilt along with she. And if the young man loved his mother, he would "let her go" rather than allow her to suffer and strain in such pain.
Maybe it's a philosophy conflict between myself and this director, but I did not see this movie as a love poem, but rather an example of true selfishness on the part of both characters.
And the cinematography. Oy vey! This is where I was most confused, as already suggested. When I saw the box for the DVD, I was already a bit surprised to see the description of the film (which concentrated almost solely on how beautiful the movie looked). From the pictures, it looked like a made-for-TV movie in some backwater E. European town...
... and indeed, when I put the movie on, that's exactly what it looked like. Such splendid landscapes, to be sure, but sullied completely by ridiculous filters that distorted each view and that put a faded greenish brown tincture to everything. This did not represent a dream or a hallucination or the "act of decay" for me. It just looked bad.
Really bad. And even beyond the silly, obfuscating filters and the like, the compositions were horrendous. There was no semblance of aesthetic responsibility in the creation of the shots. Looked like they just randomly set the actors in various places and blindly left the camera wherever it would stand.
If Lars von Trier were to try yet again to make "the crappiest film ever" as he tends to joke about doing, he couldn't make something that looked this awful. For people to excuse the terrible narrative concept for the cinematography is just strange. Perhaps I need to see it on the big screen?
Thank goodness this one is so short. Ugh. Avoid at all costs!