User reviews

This film might be too experimental and fragmented for its own good, but it is enlivened by fantastic performance by Ellen Barkin as Colleen West, an retired actress trying to find her place in the world she is not familiar with. The film doesn't follow traditional narrative and scenes jump from present to past, and between dreaming, dreams and nightmares (there is one haunting scene near the end the puts most contemporary horror films into shame). Yet, this fragmented flow of the film doesn't take anything away from Ellen Barkin's wonderful character. Actually it all enhances her confusion - did she already loose everything (herself among) while she was working as an actress or, everything went loss after her retirement? It is my own personal interpretation, that she was already lost, but when she quit the circus she just started to see the things. Although, experimental with its directing style and it sounds pretentious self search/loss story, the film stands much higher than your usual artsy film school stuff that deals with existencial crisis. The heightened meaning behind this might come from Barkin's performance and her own life experience. Don't be afraid that film, although black and white, might be too depressive or bleak, as it offers some nice laughs. Especially scenes between Colleen West and her new neighbor Shelly (Melora Walters). Barkin's character is wonderfully arrogant and self conscious, but not unpleasant, actually she is very cool.

Definitely not for everyone, but this movie has definitely hasn't got the recognition it truly deserves.

...i feel like i have to set something against what has been written about this film in an earlier review on this website. sht year is a very sensitive, empathetic portrait about an eccentric, depressive yet somehow sympathetic woman, it is a film about loss, the loss of meaning, sense, purpose, occupation, loss of love and ultimately about the fear of the end of loss of having nothing more to lose. since the other review is highly subjective and since i don't know how to write a decent review i will just say: there are a lot of things i like about this film, i just watched it again after about 3 years and, again, i greatly enjoyed it. but even if you're not into the kind of photography/videoart aesthetics archer employs along with his talent for stillness, even if you don't recognize the existential struggle with identity and being a real person in a real life world that gifted actors seem to be prone to and which is embodied here by such an actress in a very very courageous, intimate and personal way, even if you do not identify with the character or the imagery, one must acknowledge that it is a strong and unusual film. it is by no means trashy or cheap or attempting to be something it is not, like the other review suggests. im not saying you're wrong in not enjoying it since its your subjective experience, but you're making it sound like its impossible that anyone might enjoy it and its total crap which is not true at all. it is a strong movie, it has a strong point, and a sense of urgency. it is artistic expression by means of film on a high level in the way its written, performed, captured and produced. so im not saying its for anyone, everyone should watch it, but i like it a lot and its certainly worth a shot. it deserves to be taken seriously, please don't just dismiss it because one dude on IMDb couldn't make sense of it. i could and i recommend it as well as archers first feature length film "wild tigers I've known" (again very specific images, but if they tell your story it can feel like someone knows whats in your heart and i am thankful for that, its the best thing about art!)

Have you ever watched Persona by Ingmar Bergman? I did. Apparently Cam Archer watched it too.