demaoza

I think that fact that I'm a male, and this film is considered to be one of the defining feminist films could make my review seem biased, in a way, since perhaps I cannot truly identify with what the director, Shantal Akerman, was trying to convey. That being said, she did say in interviews that she was reluctant to consider herself as a feminist filmmaker, so what do I know.

Anyway, in case you somehow don't know this - this movie is 3 and half hours long, and 90% of it consists of showing mundane house chores done in long and static shots, with the intent of showing you how boring and terrible those are, and making you understand the patriarchal prison the heroine is trapped in. It's not a spoiler - you'll realize this very very quickly once you start watching the movie.

Personally, I understand the point of the length and making this so mundane, but I don't think it's necessary. Would you have needed to see a film lasting 12 years to understand the pain and suffering of the hero of "12 Years a Slave"? I assume that the answer is no.

Some critics take pride in the great experience the movie transforms its viewers through, but it truly sounds to me like some modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Some self-deluding to try to justify a waste of 3 and half hours on something that honestly could have been much shorter, still painful to watch, but at least somewhat legitimate.

I'll ignore stuff like the occasional "boom" (microphone) hairs sometimes sticking into the frame. I'll also ignore some terrible acting moments (which is surprising, due to fact that most of the movie is consisted of silent handling of chores), but what I can't ignore is the fact that even though I do understand the importance of this film (mainly as an historical milestone, which is the main reason this gets 2 stars and not one), it does not justify watching it.

There, let me take of care of it for you: PATRIARCHY IS BAD. I've just saved you 3 and a half hours. No need to thank me!

This is going to be one of those reviews that will be considered as unhelpful. So be it. After all, it's always a matter of taste, isn't it?

That being said, it's important for me to provide some warning, to those who may choose to watch this for some reason - even though browsing carefully through some other reviews here will show you I'm not the first to write them. Nevertheless, here they come:

1. This is NOT a sci-fi series. Don't let the art and the synopsis fool you. If this is sci-fi, then I suppose that watching a film about a kid that stumbles upon a lamp, rubs it and finds a genie that grants him 3 wishes should be counted as sci-fi as well. Most of the series is about kids stumbling around in the outskirts of a city, finding some weird stuff that happens to do fantastic stuff, and how they deal with it. The robots and the retro-futuristic scenery are cool, but they mostly feel like ornaments, and they aren't really relevant to anything.

2. The series tries to tackle some profound philosophical ideas, but in ways that you've probably seen a hundred times already, and done better. You'll probably know what's going to happen a long time before it actually does, and it won't have much of an effect on you. If I felt anything, it was mostly disappointment. I hate it when I feel that there's such a huge effort of creating a beautiful scenery and setting, but almost none of that story wise. Such a waste.

3. The series is excruciatingly slow. I'm not bored easily, and you can check my profile to see I've watched thousands of films and series from any place and any time. I don't have such a low attention span - and yet, it really feels that the director felt that every single shot needs to continue 2 more seconds than you'd expect it should. Was it made to fill some time to make every episode be 50 minutes long? Was it a stylistic choice? Probably both. I suspect it's the kind of choices that are trying to provide this profound feeling, with the intent of trying to make the viewer admire the scenery and really bask in the atmosphere of the series. I mostly got this "Emperor's New Clothes" vibe from it, as the pacing mostly felt unnecessary and it irritated me.

4. Most of the actors weren't so good, in my opinion - but it could also be because of the bad scripts. The (sparce) dialogue felt wooden, and their behaviors were irrationals a lot of times. When I reach a point i which I start losing track regarding the characters' motivations, I also lose my empathy towards them, and so when something dramatic (supposedly) happens, I find myself shrugging. This happened too much in this series.

5. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I found it amusing that a major part of the soundtrack for this series sounds like a ripoff to Max Richter's score to The Leftovers. Look it up. It's almost exactly the same thing. I've had more expectations from Philip Glass.

I assure you, though - if you're an emotional person, easily impressed and love indie films in which not much happens, but some young people gaze into the air with blank, miserable expressions, you're going to fall in love with this one - and I may be sounding critical and cynical about this, but hey, such people do exist, and it's totally OK! You'll fit right in to The Loop. Drop on by :)

To conclude, all in all, I thought of giving this a better score because of the art and cinematography, but then I thought about those 8 hours and the great things I probably could have done with that time. Alas, we can't win them all, can we?

I don't usually write reviews, but I feel like this film is suffering from an exaggerated bad reputation - too exaggerated, in my opinion.

Let's clear up something very basic - this is NOT a Coen Brothers film. They wrote the screenplay for this a long time ago, never actually completed it, and eventually it was bought by George Clooney who altered it and turned it into what it is.

What it is... is not so good. It's a heavy handed liberal manifesto about racism in the US that wraps a typical crime-gone-wrong Coen Brothers film, such as Fargo, Burn After Reading or Blood Simple.

Now, when you watch the film, it's very evident which parts were written by the Coen Brothers and which were added later by Clooney and Heslov. I went to the movie expecting the worst after reading the reviews here and checking its score, but the trick is to simply ignore the revisions, and enjoying the Coen Brothers' core story, which still lies in there, mostly untouched.

If you're a fan of their movies like me, you'll understand what I mean and enjoy this as well. Obviously it's not as fun as watching one of their films, but it's more enjoyable then most of the crap that plays in the cinema these days - again, if you ignore the propaganda parts, which aren't really connected to the core story of the film (I get what Clooney was aiming for, but it doesn't work), and are just bad. Unfortunately, I'm talking about 30% of the film - but in my opinion it's still worth it. Just be prepared to watch it for what it is.