Tar (El color del tiempo)

A boring movie that the creators thought would be cool, just because of the cool actors. The movie sounds like and endless poem, which many times repeats itself. There's basically no story, everything moves extremely slowly and the music makes it sad for no apparent reason. Of course it's one of those movies, many people would say it's artistic, therefore you should watch it. I'd say, don't watch it.

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

When i read the reviews (on rotten tomatoes also) i thought i didn't need to write my own, but i think that the audience had it all backwards. They kept on writing stuff like »came here because of Mila Kunis and was disappointed«. Don't you see that these actors are the very reason this film fails so badly? To be honest, what could you expect?

Mila and James (and even Jessica, damn it) are impersonating the hollow shells they are, so you can't even call this pretentious, it's honest to their characters, it's shallow, it's all for show. And the looks are not deceiving, the aesthetics of the movie are nice, but don't expect people to follow this for 90 minutes if you have no substance, no story, no narrative. Works for a video-clip, doesn't make for good feature length.

Poor film class students, just imagine what you could have achieved with such a high profile cast in the 70s. Mind you, they probably wouldn't have let you produce a mindless piece like this, back then.

If this film were about me i wouldn't be flattered. Or maybe i didn't get it: Was the author known to bore people to death? I don't know the poems of the writer as of yet, but a quick look on youtube tells me his ted speech is going to be more rewarding than this ordeal of a movie. So it had a positive outcome. It enticed me to research the author. I do hope he's better!

Rarely do I review films that I give so few stars. I don't like to write negative stuff. But I'm about to do just that. I watched the film, basically because of the cast which has more than one star actor in it, and also because it's based on poetry and I'm a poet/writer. Unfortunately, despite the all-star cast, the film didn't work. Or, perhaps it worked as well as it could given what the writer/director were trying to do which was bring to life some poems of C.K. Williams. Because of the actors, and some of the photography, the film was easy to look at. In fact, if less good-looking actors had been in it, I probably would have turned it off after ten minutes. Because ultimately, even if one liked the visuals and enjoyed hearing some of Williams' poetry, it was boring. It's not as short as it is (73 minutes) for no reason. I think one has to really enjoy the artiness of the film in order to enjoy the film. If not, there's not a heck of a lot to keep one watching.

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.