The Color of Time

This is a prime example of a film that will either alienate or entrance...or possibly both at the same time. My suggestion for best getting something out of this collage of words and images is to just abandon all preconceptions and allow it to seduce you.

First simply savor the absolutely stunning beauty of the photography...the incandescence of the closeups and exquisite portraits of potentially mundane locals are among the most beautiful images that I have ever seen...

And as the visual glow seduces you ...let the deceptively simple words gradually intertwine with the photography till the entire film becomes a rather entrancing collage of one creative human's voyage through life.

I am saddened that so few audiences seem willing to give up a few moments of their lives to open themselves to one of the loveliest and most perceptive little films in recent memory...

Give it (and yourself) a chance.

Review: This film was totally boring! All the way through the movie, James Franco is quoting his own poetry, which sounded like complete gibberish to me and there isn't any talking at all. Kunis is only in a couple of scenes and the movie goes back and forth in time which makes it even more confusing. After looking at the cover for the film, it looked really promising, but what I didn't know was that there wasn't any script and its totally based on poetry. Personally, I lost interest after the first few minutes and the annoying music really got on my nerves. Maybe I didn't get the point of the project but I don't think that I missed much. Awful!

Round-Up: What is James Franco and Mila Kunis doing in this movie? Franco is known for doing some quirky movies, but this one was really bad. I honestly thought that it was going to be a Rom-com or something in that type of genre, but its a deep drama about a man who starts thinking about his past and he begins to question his love for his girlfriend. Thats the only part of the film that made sense to me but it started to go down other avenues which were strange. Anyway, I think that you can tell that I didn't enjoy this movie at all and I found it a complete waste of time. 

I recommend this movie to people who are into there deep dramas about a poet who has flashbacks of his past. 1/10

Not on Poe that is and something that might have helped me (maybe others too?) to figure out what it (the movie) was trying to do here. As it is and without any knowledge going into this, I had no clue what to expect. It is clear that everything is kinda connected, but I'm pretty sure the poems themselves make much more sense and are a lot more gripping than the way the movie portray the stories.

The acting cast on hand is good, but feel as disconnected as the rest of the movie most of the time. Maybe if you have read the poems it'll be easier and more enjoyable or maybe this will float your boat no matter what. But I reckon a majority will find this "boring" (or annoying, depending on your mood maybe both). As it is, this slow paced drama is just above the water ...

This film tells the life story of the poet CK Williams, through the use of his poems.

I had high hopes for this film because there are three stars that I like in it. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough material to fill up the already short screen time. It tells several excerpts of Williams's life, and none of these events have dramatic turns. In fact, the events told are so plain that they are not even interesting. Watching Williams watching TV about a nuclear disaster, without any follow up or response, hardly qualifies as interesting. Either Williams had a very uneventful life, or the research into his life when making this film was inadequate. "Tar" is a film that goes nowhere, which is a pity as there is great star power.

Greetings again from the darkness. It's either a most unusual biopic on Pulitzer Prize winning poet CK Williams, an example of how director Terrence Malick has influenced the next wave of filmmakers, or a self-congratulatory exercise disguised as a class project. Regardless of your final take, most cinephiles will muster at least a modicum of interest in a film with 11 directors and 12 writers … each NYU film students during James Franco's time on campus as an adjunct professor.

We see the life of CK Williams through the flashbacks and memories of James Franco (as an adult Williams prepping for a reading of "Tar"). Williams as a child, as an adolescent, and as a college student (played by Henry Hopper, son of Dennis) offer a glimpse into the girls and events that helped shape his poetry. The sequence of Williams as a child is so similar to Malick's Tree of Life, that we viewers experience our own flashbacks … right down to Jessica Chastain recreating her scenes from that movie (this time as Williams' mother).

Mila Kunis plays Catherine, Williams' second and current wife, and it's clear – in a modern expressionist kind of way – that they are very happy together. There are a couple of disjointed sequences that come across as created simply to provide an outlet for Zach Braff and Bruce Campbell. However, when dealing with poetry, rules don't apply … at least that seems to be what this group of young filmmakers would have us believe. The washed out colors, fuzzy focus, shots of nature, and muted emotions dotted with monotone dialogue are all elements of artsy films. Whether these are the foundations of artsy films is a separate topic. Interspersed throughout are a couple of clips of CK Williams with his own readings.

Experimental filmmaking is always a risk and should not be discouraged. It's given us every advance in the medium for a century. It is a bit worrisome, however, when experimental film appears so similar to the work of a current master. Let's hope that's just the first step in the process of developing filmmakers. This one also acts as a reminder that turning poetry into actual images often defeats the purpose of the written words.