jimbloggs97

What a waste of money and all the effort that went into creating this dull, unimaginative, predictable, amateurish production. From the beginning the ominous music dominated and was very off-putting and was like a poor indicator over-trying when the acting and dialogue simply could not build any tension or believability.

The two 'actors' enturing into the forest totally unconvincing they were scientists, the dialogue for the half hour I watched before abandoning the film was so prescriptive, full of platitudes and stupid content, the whole thing reeked of unreality, it totally put me off. After the man cut his foot in the forest, why did the two of them abandon everything they owned and carried on tramping through the forest barefoot and with no indication where they were going?

Sadly, three errors undermine the reality of this film which otherwise had great pathos.The first glaring error was when the opthalmologist became frustrated with Bardem who understandably because of his condition/illness could not understand or take instruction as a normal person, the error being that his daughter clearly did not explain before the exam that her father had dementia as shown by the opthalmologist asking her if her father was 'all there'. How could a caring person (the daughter) not warn anyone dealing with a parent with dementia be so unthinking as to not do this? The second error is a repeat of this, when in the clothes warehouse the security guard tackles Bardem to the floor and all the daughter can say is 'my father is confused'. That doesn't help her father or those dealing with his unusual behaviour--anyone with a bit of sense would make it abundantly clear that Bardem was suffering from dementia, so that others would then treat him more sensitively. The third error concerns the daughter repeatedly excusing herself from an important meeting at her work which involved an important project she had undertaken. It seems that because she didn't make it into work that day, someone else or their work was chosen above her(s). At no point does she explain the truth about why she couldn't get into work ie that she was having to deal with her very ill father; instead she gave mumbled, ineffectual excuses which most likely sounded very lame to her boss or whoever was calling her from her work. Why the hell wouldn't she convey the gravity of her situation when she might then get some understanding and sympathy from her workplace? These are clearly errors in the script, odd that neither the director nor anyone else picked up on them. For em there were jarring, unrealistic moments in the film which accordingly undermined its plausibility.

Such an exceptionally breathtaking film, visually that is; I found the orchestral soundtrack so distracting that it spoiled the experience and I had to shut off audio. Poor writing of the music score, it is far too demonstrative, like it's continually crying for attention instead of its role as a support for the film -- after all a film is overwhelmingly about visual experience, audio should play a supportive part and not be trying to dominate with, as here, a continually strident, demanding presence. The score is too energetic for a film which inspires awe and wonderment. And, sad to say because I absolutely love his film acting, it was a mistake to use Willem Dafoe as narrator. He just doesn't seem comfortable or natural to me, this is an inspiring, superbly made film which demands a relatively anonymous voice which will not distract; using a famous voice like Dafoe's or George Clooney's begs the question--why? Alongside the fact that the first five minutes I listened to of the soundtrack before muting it, presented a wholly vapid, useless narrative. There are so many wonderful voices suited to this work by a large cadre of voice-over artists, who add to the effect of a great documentary, why on earth don't actors stick to their primary skill? Such a shame, such a brilliant film otherwise.