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.

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?

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.

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!