The Color of Time

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.

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 ...

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!

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.