A Million Little Pieces (2008 Video) User Reviews

Turquoise screen

[Rectangular_businessman · 1/10 · 11 July 2010]

A turquoise screen doesn't mean anything.

Is just a turquoise screen.

There is nothing symbolic, deep or meaningful about a turquoise screen. Is just a turquoise screen.

Is delusional pretend it to be meaningful or symbolic. Is just a turquoise screen.

This is not a movie. Is just a turquoise screen. A turquoise screen. For 70 minutes. Nothing happens. There aren't characters, story or anything at all. Just a turquoise screen. No, I'm not making this out. That's the reality about this fake movie.

A turquoise screen shouldn't be considered a movie, and it doesn't deserves to be reviewed as one.

Utterley pointless

[bryanross1985 · 21 November 2009]

In 1993, the taboo shattering and groundbreaking English artist Derek Jarman created a film called "Blue". As the artist/writer/director almost completely lost his sight due to complications from AIDS, he felt it would be appropriate to make a film and let the world "see" things as he saw them, completely blue but with an ultra clear grasp of sound, the film is a masterwork.

Sadly, with only a turquoise screen and no sound, "A million little pieces" serves no purpose as either a work of art or a film. It has no sound at all and therefore is not a film. it is the same as staring at a wall for 70 minutes.

I am someone who appreciates art in all its forms but this is pointless. completely pointless.

what

[fokke-26982 · 1 August 2018]

Again, this is equally artless to glueing random household objects together and calling it "art". there is no more to say to that, because it is just a cyan screen, i could get more fun out of staring at a darn wall for feature length than watching a million little pieces.

Breathtaking

[guywhowatchesmovies · 10/10 · 18 April 2011]

When I first shelled out $9.50 cents to see Nigel Tomm's "A Million Little Pieces", I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical. I hadn't been too impressed with his previous artistic adaptations of "Hamlet" and "Oedipus Rex", having found an hour of pure white and red screen respectively to be a bit tasteless. But from the first moment of this movie, I knew it was going to be different. Turquoise, to be specific.

Made for a clearly well-spent $375 dollars, this movie masterfully kept me on the edge of my seat, like a child waiting for a school bell to ring, while moving along at a briskly rate I hadn't felt since watching the 324 minute cut of "Heaven's Gate", immediately followed by the 236 minute director's cut of "Dances with Wolves".

I don't want to give anything away, so I'm going to end my review before I burst of excitement. So as parting words I say, please do not denounce this film as a piece of flimflam, when it is clearly the work of a genius who totally didn't make it while sitting drunk one night in front of Windows Movie Maker with no footage to edit.

I give it a million little stars out of ten.