The End of Time

The End of Time is a meditation on the nature of time in the loosest terms imaginable. Such a broad concept is laudable in its undertaking; however, the immensity and loftiness of this subject is what ultimately dooms the film. Ironically, the most common complaint I've seen about the movie is that it was a waste of time. And, at almost two hours, you would hope every minute of screen time is necessary to the story. At the outset of the film you quickly learn from very long, uninterrupted scenes and glacial narration that the filmmaker is using the movie to make the audience further aware of their perception of time. The pacing of the film is confrontationally slow to a audience that uses movies as a way to pass time or to escape into a world without the pressures of time for an hour and a half; though, I doubt the filmmaker intended to make a film that evokes confrontation rather than thoughtfulness. These long takes are an excellent concept and serve the filmmaker's intentions but only for the first ~30 minutes, until they lose the novelty and become cumbersome. One of the reasons this happens is because of the cinematography. There are some stunning shots and beautiful landscapes but there are also issues with consistency, framing, and camera quality that come off as amateurish. There's definitely more good than bad with the cinematography but for the scenes to earn their length, every shot should be great--not just good.

The other problem with the film is the concept itself. I expected a more narrowly defined thesis that explored the nature and origins of time and human understanding of it and I thought that was what I got when the movie started at CERN; however, the film took an abrupt philosophical turn that I did not expect. When the film begins to explore subjective and personal experiences of time, it also begins to feel like it takes itself too seriously and begins to rely too much on it's concept rather than the truth or incisiveness of it's subject matter.

I imagine it's a divisive film and the amount of people that hate it is equal to those that love it. The experience of the viewer is largely predicated on their foreknowledge of what kind of film it is and their reluctance or willingness to watch a long, discursive meditation on the nature of time.

Beautiful, mesmerizing meditation piece. Very gutsy to do as there is no story, not a series of interviews with experts: it's an experience and the theme of time is almost incidental.

The photography, music and image editing are all stunning. But none of them are "artsy" to call attention to themselves. They all contribute to this meditative experience. I love the fact that the venues range from LHC/CERN to Detroit to life at the edge of a volcano and it's ceaseless lava flow.

If you must have plot, tension and resolution to enjoy a movie, this is not for you. If you are ready to sit back and enjoy a beautiful experience, this will blow you away.

The viewer is subjected to many exasperatingly long spans of unnarrated contemplation. It would help if the visual content had a direct bearing on the subject at hand or if it was shortened to 30 seconds or so. As for the interviews, the documentary seems to be throwing up various unrelated topics hoping one will stick and inspire you. At first, there are fascinating discussion with CERN scientists. That got my attention ( 3 stars for that). But you are then left hanging. Things devolve to interviews with people who don't seem to be using the few brain cells they have left. The perspective from eastern and aboriginal spirituality is brought out in the same drawn-out inept fashion. The ten-minute unnarrated psychedelic ending is laughable but a heartfelt opinion of an elderly woman closed this fiasco.

You have to be on serious drugs to bear to sit through the whole movie. They probably needed some to make such rubbish and then think highly of it.

A waste of my time.

Things this film is not: does not explore time, is not a documentary, is not artistic, is not experimental, is not animation, is not about death, is not sufficiently edited, is not thoughtfully soundtracked. In fact, most sentient folk have long known that "time" does not exist per se. This film makes as much sense as trying to render a pseudo-intellectual rendition of the concept of distance. blah.

For those of us old enough to remember the children's game Spirograph, and its younger equivalent Spirotot, much of this 2 hour film is just that. Another major "artistic" unoriginal is the abusive use of slow-motion, as if the simple act of slowing reality down a little made it somehow more "beautiful". Slow motion is fine to document and examine events that are too quick for the human eye, but that's pretty much the limit of its usefulness.

The trouble with this director, also evidenced in some previous films, is he thinks that he has a fantastic eye for beauty and uniqueness, when in reality, the cinematography is cold, uninspired, uninformative, and unoriginal. A reasonably tech savvy elementary school student could produce something of equal impact. He seems to want to be in the same league as Baraka and the Koyaanisqatsi series, but fails on all counts.

I've never taken time out to write a review for anything, ever ... But something needs to be said to warn others. This feature could have been edited to 30 minutes. I'm not sure if dragging on for endless minutes though irrelevant content was the directors attempt at contributing to the message they were trying to convey but this was horrible.

I know someones blood,sweat, tears most likely went into this but ... WHAT IS IT?!???

I don't even know where to start...

I would love to see some detailed explanation of how and why this film got the awards that it did.