Land of Dreams

The movie "Land of Dreams" should be called "Land of Nightmares". Absolutely nothing does work in this movie, the plot is vague, superficial, and without much to tell. The dialogues don't help either with absurd conversations and the actors seem to lack charisma, too dry, without feeling and soul. They literally look like aliens. But the worst in this movie are the set design, continuity and editing. There are too many to mention, but the dinner during a census interview was the worst.

The movie has a political theme but is totally lost with so much satire and symbolism. The direction, and soundtrack are a complete mess as well.

This is an arthouse movie that only gets bad reviews because people don't get the style. Being arthouse is not a saving grace and it doesn't excuse a badly made movie. This does not fall in this category.

The style is clear and consistent. The storytelling is unique but not random. Look forward to an intriguing journey into the quirkiness of a semi-dystopian but still charming and uplifting movie.

The acting appears wooden only as a stylistic choice. It is not. The characters are complex and immaculately portrayed.

While there is a level of political commentary, it does not dominate. This is a movie about identity, self-awareness and sticking to one's own reality, regardless of the "reality" the status quo tries to push on you.

Oh, and full of beautiful imagery in New Mexico.

Shirin Neshat's Land of Dreams is a beautiful, witty, and fun journey of an Iranian immigrant in America, in a land where dreams and reality blend magically. The outstanding performance of Sheila Vand, Isabella Rossellini, and Matt Dillon, makes a perfect combination with Neshat's distinct and artistic way of storytelling.

It is a beautifully crafted film with stunning visuals. I strongly recommend it!

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?

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.