Land of Dreams

Ok, i admit it, i lasted only 25 minutes before i gave up on this mess, but this movie is so bad i couldn't watch another minute of it. Look, if you gonna make a movie, at least try to give me reasons to stay and watch it till you start unraveling your deep, meaningful and though provoking scenario that is supposed to amaze me..or something. Well, it's simply nothing for me. 25 minutes in and nothing, I mean absolutely nothing happened...not even a decent sentence or conversation. Oh ffs, come on...! Since I am not a movie director, or a screen writer, or whatever, I do not know what the heck happens in their meeting rooms, but I know this: this movies fails so bad at every turn it has given me digestion problems. Stay away from it.

Shirin Neshat is a celebrated visual artist famous for her multi-media installations at MOMA and elsewhere. Her visual hand is everywhere in this visually stunning film realizing a script by the great late surrealist, Jean-Claude Carrière (with Shoja Ansari). True to her other films, NeshaL resists providing easy and pat interpretations of her visual images or the storyline of the film. The visual settings of the film echo the title--Land of Dreams--with floating representations, starkly engaging characterizations, and varying contrastive landscapes. Sheila Vand is the accomplished "dreamer" and dream collector at the center of the film achieving multiple characterizations in a nuanced performance. Matt Dillon and Isabella. Rossellini add polished star power to the film. Mohammad. Ghaffari stands out and is immediately arresting as a mystical guide in a commune that may or may not be real. This is a film that should be seen more than once to plumb the depths of the emotional symbolism that is at the center of all dreams.

If your kid is in this movie, you should watch it. Anyone else: no reason to subject yourself to it. Full confession: I came to this out of a crazy love for the Matt Dillon resurgence. More Matt Dillon, please. I read the poor reviews and thought maybe other viewers want formulaic Hollywood blah blah, whereas I actually enjoy go-nowhere indie films. But no: I was wrong and arrogant and the other IMDB users who wrote in before me to warn you were correct. This is so disjointed that it's not just that it has no clear beginning, middle and ending - there doesn't appear to be any point to ANY of it. And there are some lovely, talented actors in this - they were so wasted. Don't pile on to this train wreck. Save yourself!

This is an arthouse movie that only gets bad reviews because people don't get the style. Being arthouse is not a saving grace and it doesn't excuse a badly made movie. This does not fall in this category.

The style is clear and consistent. The storytelling is unique but not random. Look forward to an intriguing journey into the quirkiness of a semi-dystopian but still charming and uplifting movie.

The acting appears wooden only as a stylistic choice. It is not. The characters are complex and immaculately portrayed.

While there is a level of political commentary, it does not dominate. This is a movie about identity, self-awareness and sticking to one's own reality, regardless of the "reality" the status quo tries to push on you.

Oh, and full of beautiful imagery in New Mexico.

The production could be much better with even a lower budget. I can just feel that there are some sloppiness here and there. Also, the solo part of the leading actress is too straightforward.