Land of Dreams

The production could be much better with even a lower budget. I can just feel that there are some sloppiness here and there. Also, the solo part of the leading actress is too straightforward.

Shirin Neshat is a celebrated visual artist famous for her multi-media installations at MOMA and elsewhere. Her visual hand is everywhere in this visually stunning film realizing a script by the great late surrealist, Jean-Claude Carrière (with Shoja Ansari). True to her other films, NeshaL resists providing easy and pat interpretations of her visual images or the storyline of the film. The visual settings of the film echo the title--Land of Dreams--with floating representations, starkly engaging characterizations, and varying contrastive landscapes. Sheila Vand is the accomplished "dreamer" and dream collector at the center of the film achieving multiple characterizations in a nuanced performance. Matt Dillon and Isabella. Rossellini add polished star power to the film. Mohammad. Ghaffari stands out and is immediately arresting as a mystical guide in a commune that may or may not be real. This is a film that should be seen more than once to plumb the depths of the emotional symbolism that is at the center of all dreams.

I am of the idea that a movie should tell you a story, within its own terms and following its own rules, HOWEVER, keep it coherent or adhesive and it'll all go well... also, just like Wes Anderson can only do Wes Anderson movies, or Guy Ritchie can only do Guy Ritchie movies, the Cohen brothers, Christopher Nolan, etc. Etc. *only* David Lynch can do David Lynch.

I get it, maybe the intention of the movie is it to feel like a dream, with no coherence, vague, surrealist and confusing, but you have yo bind it all together with some intent... which is, what? Otherwise, is there a porpoise, *at all*, with this movie, other than confusing its audience?

If your kid is in this movie, you should watch it. Anyone else: no reason to subject yourself to it. Full confession: I came to this out of a crazy love for the Matt Dillon resurgence. More Matt Dillon, please. I read the poor reviews and thought maybe other viewers want formulaic Hollywood blah blah, whereas I actually enjoy go-nowhere indie films. But no: I was wrong and arrogant and the other IMDB users who wrote in before me to warn you were correct. This is so disjointed that it's not just that it has no clear beginning, middle and ending - there doesn't appear to be any point to ANY of it. And there are some lovely, talented actors in this - they were so wasted. Don't pile on to this train wreck. Save yourself!

This is a great example of how you can engage an audience without giving the whole plot away in the first 10 minutes. The Directors feed you just enough info to keep you glued to the characters as they develop and expose their motivations, their strengths, and their flaws.

The film is fueled with great performances by Sheila Vand, Matt Dillon and William Moseley as 3 very different people looking for very different answers only to stumble into a world where the answers you were searching for may not exist.

It's a complex satire that demands you pay close attention to the characters. The reward is a rich complex film that will stay with you a long time.