holtom5
Joined Mar 2006
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
holtom5's rating
The first thing to say is that this is a tragedy, first and foremost, with some comic elements.
Because it seems to be described in many places as a comedy movie, which, along with the whimsical movie poster, might give you this impression that this is a going to be a feel-good experience. But no; while it has some funny jokes, they basically finish up by the middle of the movie and the rest is just a succession of appalling things being said and done.
It's a morality tale; some relatively relateable characters start by telling white lies for the greater good but end up digging themselves into ever worsening problems.
And herein lies the main issue I have: you can have a comedy movie where everything goes wrong: a black comedy. But if there's no humor and you're making an outright tragedy, then you need some other elements to sustain such a story. Here, it feels like they make a point by the end of the first act, and then that point just gets repeated, more and more painfully, through the second and third acts with little entertainment value.
The 4 stars are because the acting is very good.
Because it seems to be described in many places as a comedy movie, which, along with the whimsical movie poster, might give you this impression that this is a going to be a feel-good experience. But no; while it has some funny jokes, they basically finish up by the middle of the movie and the rest is just a succession of appalling things being said and done.
It's a morality tale; some relatively relateable characters start by telling white lies for the greater good but end up digging themselves into ever worsening problems.
And herein lies the main issue I have: you can have a comedy movie where everything goes wrong: a black comedy. But if there's no humor and you're making an outright tragedy, then you need some other elements to sustain such a story. Here, it feels like they make a point by the end of the first act, and then that point just gets repeated, more and more painfully, through the second and third acts with little entertainment value.
The 4 stars are because the acting is very good.
I thought I'd love this film but I found little to like.
There's very little plot to this film. Basically the protagonist, who we quickly learn is dreaming, spends the whole film passively listening to a series of monologues.
Some of the monologues touch on philsophical concepts, such as free will versus determinism. But only at a very basic level. So people familiar with the philosophy will gain nothing, while those new to it, will be put off philosophy, I suspect, by this film.
Why? Because most of the monologues are never argued coherently. Someone new to philosophy watching this film might think philosophy is not about reasoned argument, it's just about talking quickly enough to sound clever, and never giving anyone a chance to dissect your ideas.
The film also feels rather self-indulgent. One of the characters for example, mentions matter-of-factly that there is a bigger difference between Plato and the common man than between the common man and a chimpanzee. The implication being that the filmmakers and maybe others interested in philosophy are better than those who do not. And you can tell that the makers really think this from the tone of the film.
There are a number of facts in the film which are incorrect; I wish I had brought a pad to jot them all down, I can remember two off the top of my head: the fact that we regenerate every 7 years and the fact that dreams are not experienced in real-time. So even where the characters bother to give arguments for their worldviews, those arguments are based on false premises.
I have given the film 2/10 and that second star is simply for bravery; for attempting to do something original and thought-provoking (but failing).
There's very little plot to this film. Basically the protagonist, who we quickly learn is dreaming, spends the whole film passively listening to a series of monologues.
Some of the monologues touch on philsophical concepts, such as free will versus determinism. But only at a very basic level. So people familiar with the philosophy will gain nothing, while those new to it, will be put off philosophy, I suspect, by this film.
Why? Because most of the monologues are never argued coherently. Someone new to philosophy watching this film might think philosophy is not about reasoned argument, it's just about talking quickly enough to sound clever, and never giving anyone a chance to dissect your ideas.
The film also feels rather self-indulgent. One of the characters for example, mentions matter-of-factly that there is a bigger difference between Plato and the common man than between the common man and a chimpanzee. The implication being that the filmmakers and maybe others interested in philosophy are better than those who do not. And you can tell that the makers really think this from the tone of the film.
There are a number of facts in the film which are incorrect; I wish I had brought a pad to jot them all down, I can remember two off the top of my head: the fact that we regenerate every 7 years and the fact that dreams are not experienced in real-time. So even where the characters bother to give arguments for their worldviews, those arguments are based on false premises.
I have given the film 2/10 and that second star is simply for bravery; for attempting to do something original and thought-provoking (but failing).