AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,5/10
36 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um homem e uma mulher estão unidos, enredados no ciclo de vida de um organismo sem idade. A identidade se torna uma ilusão à medida que eles lutam para juntar os fragmentos soltos de vidas d... Ler tudoUm homem e uma mulher estão unidos, enredados no ciclo de vida de um organismo sem idade. A identidade se torna uma ilusão à medida que eles lutam para juntar os fragmentos soltos de vidas despedaçadas.Um homem e uma mulher estão unidos, enredados no ciclo de vida de um organismo sem idade. A identidade se torna uma ilusão à medida que eles lutam para juntar os fragmentos soltos de vidas despedaçadas.
- Prêmios
- 5 vitórias e 35 indicações no total
Andreon Michael
- Peter
- (as Andreon Watson)
John Walpole
- Bank Investigator
- (as Trey Walpole)
Avaliações em destaque
Baffling. Extraordinary. Pigs. Barely any dialogue. Beautiful looking. Directed by Shane Carruth (Primer), It's very challenging - so much so that I'm not even sure repeat viewings will shed any more light on it. It's definitely one for cinema purists who like to watch cerebral movies. In that respect it's more of an experience than a movie aligned with Terence Malick and Darren Aronofsky material. What's it about? The cycle of life? genetics? religion? morality? ethics? Probably all these things. What's clear is that Shane Carruth operates on a level that is different to most of us!
Ladies and gentlemen, I have rated this a 7.
Not going to go into why.
I don't see any 9&10 reviewers calling the 1&2 reviewers names or degrading them. So what's with the anger?
I love lots of different styles of books, music and films.
I played in a death metal band and screamed and growled almost impossible to understand lyrics.
One of my literature teachers heard one of our songs and asked me why so aggressive, messy and incoherent the music was. (It wasn't at all to me or our fans). I asked him to look at the water colour painting he had on the wall, it was one of his. I asked why the lines were blurred and colors mixed insrmtead of clear, sharp and defined lines; wouldn't that make the shapes and motives be easier to understand?
He just smiled and nodded.
If you don't like it, that's tooootally understandable. I don't like all the movies I watch either. And I might leave a comment about my experience.
But I really don't think those who did enjoy it have ANY need to lie or pretend as some of you have said, nor have anything to gain by writing an anaymous review here.
Hope we are more friendly here.
Here's a film which ponders suffering and celebrates beauty and meaning, so at least on this count I am firmly behind it.
The point is how to have the lesson, for instance that love redeems, which we know in words but often eludes us in life as experience that needs no explaining beyond itself, as actual insight, as something which wrapping it around us we will know its warmth by simple feel.
Well, most serious films try something of the sort.
Usually how it works, is that there is an interplay of 'hard' and 'soft' elements. Hard would be all the stuff that particularize and discriminate, the more of these we have the harder it is to have unmediated insight because what happens in the story registers in a topical way, for instance a story of female Irish workers in the sewing industry of 1915. Soft is the flow of urges and self as one space for reflection, Malick's latest seems to be the pinnacle at around this time. Wong Kar Wai does it.
Usually, we start with some 'hard' particulars and open up in a 'soft' way, shedding self. But now and then, we get a major blunder like Cloud Atlas where the point is the soft insight of interconnected life but that is fenced on all sides by hard impositions, conspiracies, gunfights etc.
This is a weird, complicated narrative, unnecessarily so for my taste but once you see past the complexity, it is a simple thing. The idea is that there is something in nature which worms its way into the soul and is the cause of all suffering. Seemingly this is producing the anomalies that manifest in the narrative, if suffering sounds overly religious call it an existential dissatisfaction or malaise. We get to see the effect of this in a relationship between a man and woman, how what is eating them keeps tossing them apart and together again.
The 'soft' portion of the film is this tumultuous relationship, the point is it could be yours. We have digress, dissonance, reluctance, knowing and knowing the other so well you can't tell his memories from your own. Some marvellous birdwatching, love as agreeing on the same birds.
Kar Wai is king of this 'pure' emotional space, because he traces particulars faintly into the night, the yearning and alienation as something elusive in the air. Malick which this film reminds of, renders them as huge, abstract forces that buffet us, war or loss.
Here, the entire framework is schematic and 'hard' in the extreme, an actual worm, hypnosis, a sinister surgery of some kind, more clearly the man who keeps the pigs fenced and wanders around trying to 'capture' on tape the manifold sounds, which stands for a broader human endeavor.
I find that this approach cheapens and reduces. Suddenly it is about technology and greed, a clumsy set of metaphors.
So overall, this comes heavily on the side of a silly eccentricity. Next to Malick who is an influence in the solemnity of atmosphere, I was reminded at times of Synecdoche, Wax: Or the Invention of Television among the Bees, Southland Tales, even Begotten, all of them ambitious ventures constrained by a symbolic notation on the ideas.
The ending is so silly it has to be seen, the choice of metaphors is the most ludicrous since Cremaster which all but destroys the film.
The point is how to have the lesson, for instance that love redeems, which we know in words but often eludes us in life as experience that needs no explaining beyond itself, as actual insight, as something which wrapping it around us we will know its warmth by simple feel.
Well, most serious films try something of the sort.
Usually how it works, is that there is an interplay of 'hard' and 'soft' elements. Hard would be all the stuff that particularize and discriminate, the more of these we have the harder it is to have unmediated insight because what happens in the story registers in a topical way, for instance a story of female Irish workers in the sewing industry of 1915. Soft is the flow of urges and self as one space for reflection, Malick's latest seems to be the pinnacle at around this time. Wong Kar Wai does it.
Usually, we start with some 'hard' particulars and open up in a 'soft' way, shedding self. But now and then, we get a major blunder like Cloud Atlas where the point is the soft insight of interconnected life but that is fenced on all sides by hard impositions, conspiracies, gunfights etc.
This is a weird, complicated narrative, unnecessarily so for my taste but once you see past the complexity, it is a simple thing. The idea is that there is something in nature which worms its way into the soul and is the cause of all suffering. Seemingly this is producing the anomalies that manifest in the narrative, if suffering sounds overly religious call it an existential dissatisfaction or malaise. We get to see the effect of this in a relationship between a man and woman, how what is eating them keeps tossing them apart and together again.
The 'soft' portion of the film is this tumultuous relationship, the point is it could be yours. We have digress, dissonance, reluctance, knowing and knowing the other so well you can't tell his memories from your own. Some marvellous birdwatching, love as agreeing on the same birds.
Kar Wai is king of this 'pure' emotional space, because he traces particulars faintly into the night, the yearning and alienation as something elusive in the air. Malick which this film reminds of, renders them as huge, abstract forces that buffet us, war or loss.
Here, the entire framework is schematic and 'hard' in the extreme, an actual worm, hypnosis, a sinister surgery of some kind, more clearly the man who keeps the pigs fenced and wanders around trying to 'capture' on tape the manifold sounds, which stands for a broader human endeavor.
I find that this approach cheapens and reduces. Suddenly it is about technology and greed, a clumsy set of metaphors.
So overall, this comes heavily on the side of a silly eccentricity. Next to Malick who is an influence in the solemnity of atmosphere, I was reminded at times of Synecdoche, Wax: Or the Invention of Television among the Bees, Southland Tales, even Begotten, all of them ambitious ventures constrained by a symbolic notation on the ideas.
The ending is so silly it has to be seen, the choice of metaphors is the most ludicrous since Cremaster which all but destroys the film.
UPSTREAM COLOR is already baffling the hell out of the world and will especially draw disapproval on IMDb.
The plot is not delivered in a way that is traditionally comprehensible, only to those paying close attention to the themes that unite it all. If you're already rolling your eyes THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR YOU.
If however you have experienced or would like to experience films where you have to dedicate your ability to assess and determine the underlying idea that is linking a series of enigmatic actions and subtle scenes, UPSTREAM COLOR will intrigue and probably charm you. It very much plays to the TREE OF LIFE crowd.
For me, it's undoubtedly a massive artistic accomplishment. Hugely evocative and if you unearth those ideas, the ability to have human connection, abuse, hope and language among them, you'll have no problem following along and the ending will be very satisfying.
If you want to say "you're not supposed to understand it, just feel it" that's fine. I think that if you stop and ask yourself what idea is driving moments, you can follow along just fine. The story is in the themes. Details are abstract to drive home this point.
I took off two stars because I found the serious tone and sombre score to be so focused and constant, the atmospherics became a little more monotonous than I think was intended. The briefest of levity here and there might have offset the heaviness.
If you're still reading, check it out.
The plot is not delivered in a way that is traditionally comprehensible, only to those paying close attention to the themes that unite it all. If you're already rolling your eyes THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR YOU.
If however you have experienced or would like to experience films where you have to dedicate your ability to assess and determine the underlying idea that is linking a series of enigmatic actions and subtle scenes, UPSTREAM COLOR will intrigue and probably charm you. It very much plays to the TREE OF LIFE crowd.
For me, it's undoubtedly a massive artistic accomplishment. Hugely evocative and if you unearth those ideas, the ability to have human connection, abuse, hope and language among them, you'll have no problem following along and the ending will be very satisfying.
If you want to say "you're not supposed to understand it, just feel it" that's fine. I think that if you stop and ask yourself what idea is driving moments, you can follow along just fine. The story is in the themes. Details are abstract to drive home this point.
I took off two stars because I found the serious tone and sombre score to be so focused and constant, the atmospherics became a little more monotonous than I think was intended. The briefest of levity here and there might have offset the heaviness.
If you're still reading, check it out.
Upstream Color is, by far, one of the absolute worst films I have ever seen. The movie is, and this is being nice, completely incomprehensible as a narrative work of film. It is nothing more than a bunch of random shots edited together with music and some occasional meaningless dialogue. It reminds me of the "video tests" people post to Vimeo when they're testing out their new still camera's video recording feature. The characters are never set up and the dialogue scenes are full of negative energy. As a result, I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, I don't like them nor do I care what happens to them. I don't know what Shane Carruth was going for other than satisfying his own selfish need to vomit out this horrible tasting gallon of cryptic bile, but it certainly wasn't to try and entertain any human being with a normally functioning brain. I suspect the only reason this movie gets any press at all is due to its technical competency. That is, it looks like a properly shot movie and has a decent sound mix. If this movie had been shot "Dogme 95" style, I guarantee you would have walked out of the theater after 5 minutes instead of 10. The bottom line is that Shane Carruth does not respect a mainstream audience, and in fact takes every opportunity to insult them to their faces and mock them at the same time with this self-indulgent waste of projector lamp life.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe film that Kris is editing at the beginning of the movie is A Topiary, the film that Shane Carruth had begun production on before deciding to film Upstream Color instead.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen the Sampler is incapacitating a pig with his instrument, the knot is thrown towards the pig's face and stretched. In the next frame, the wire knot is around the pig's body between its front & hind legs.
- ConexõesFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Best Sci-Fi Movies You've Probably Never Seen (2016)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Upstream Color?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 50.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 444.098
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 28.649
- 7 de abr. de 2013
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 587.174
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was Cores do Destino (2013) officially released in India in Hindi?
Responda