Land of Plenty

Superb film. The digital gives the footage a nice effect. There were some great tight shots, and then wide angle landscape. A lot of effort has been put into the paranoia paraphernalia of Paul, and the way Wenders brings this out. I simply adored the way Wenders slotted the characters into a simple plot. I thought the character of Lana was a touch stale, but since she was meant to be the pacifist missionary I'm not sure how else the part could have been played. The social conditions present in the story did tend to be a bit reductionist and instructive, but far from annoying. I will agree with previous comments that it will appeal to European audiences more than American. However, I would disagree that the characters would have been like that before 9/11. It is precisely this tragedy that launches Paul into his hyper-paranoia, the beginnings of which emerged after his experience in the Vietnam war. I did laugh many times at Paul's lunacy. While very different characters, I enjoyed following the film through the eyes of both Lana and Paul. This film is ultimately a Wim Wenders comment on the US, pre and post-9/11. He deserves congrats for tackling the subject, and admiration for the way he went about telling some sides of the story. I will prefer this film to any Moore production, any day.

A beautiful movie. With both main characters one could relate not to their viewpoints or naïve ways but to the persons themselves. I admit that this movie might just work better with European audiences but I feel that the leading roles were more inspired by an ideal than just by the American cliché. Also I understand that Lena and Paul were initially ideas who now live in that movie. There's more to them than just the missionary and the lunatic patriot. Even though it shows things that go wrong, it's very positive. For an outsider who has seen a bit of this country it's a mixture between reality and the imagination about that country. Maybe this movie is stronger in its pictures and moments of interpersonal relations than in its political dialogs.

I really disagree with some American comments here, maybe just because I am European, I don't know, but anyway I liked that movie. It is stupid to think that Wenders wanted to represent into the main character a typical American, obviously it is just an extreme position about the fear of anything (common in USA), but it doesn't reflex the society, it is a product of it. It doesn't take a wonderful picture of USA, but at the same time it doesn't distruct it, it want just show the paradoxes of that land, it want to be watched like the "land of plenty" and it is not, but it doesn't mean to be the hell. I understand when Americans find only cliché inside, but some of them are true, your country has fear mania, not all of you but some. In Italy as well we say that everybody dislike Berlusconi, but he is prime minister. But now it's time to speak about the movie: it is nice, characters' work is well-made and elaborated, Location are incredible, they show another USA, different from other movies. I didn't like Michelle Williams because of dowson's creek, but here she is not bad, her character is understood by people, but I think it is the work of Wim.

This is for me the most coherent of the Wim Wenders films I've seen and it's to-date the best attempt to depict post-9/11 America on film. The not-so-subtle symbolism, the superb acting (especially by Michelle Williams), and moving story line, which concerns an attempt to give a homeless Pakistani man a decent burial after he is gunned down in a drive-by shooting, come together to paint a portrait of an America left stunned and somewhat confused.

I was moved by the one scene in which John Diehl's character Paul is informed by his friend that "It's not who we thought," and we see on his face, the hope fading away of ever finding any relief for his vague need for some kind of justice--and this is mirrored by the fading desert sun in the background.

I agree with the other reviewer that these completely American characters may make sense mostly to non-Americans--but that's only a result of the films unflinching objectivity. Watch and learn.

Wim Wenders is a great director and a really honest artist. What he lacks though is a real feel for the US....Going back to his early use of Dennis Hopper, woefully miscast as Tom Ripley, in Our American Friend, Wenders has a weakness for clichés about America rather than finding the real thing. This movie doesn't change that fact. What is essentially a tone poem about the loss of innocence (and maybe common sense) in post 9-11 America turns into a melancholy family drama about two lost souls who would probably have been just as lost before 9/11 as after it. Europeans might find the American 'types' portrayed in this film a validation of how they view the U.S. but most thoughtful Americans will probably be irritated by the simple reductions of the characters. I found Michelle Williams particularly annoying for some reason...maybe it was her blind faith or maybe it was just her complete lack of edge...they don't make women like that in America these days and probably never did. I really admire Mr. Wenders for tackling this subject as American filmmakers seem not to have the courage to do so themselves. In the end though, this is more a European film that will appeal to Euro audiences...whereas it would have been a better project if it were directed more this way. (I saw the film in Paris last week.)