kangdan

Some commenter's would have you believe that there was a plot hole in the movie. But then they forgot to explain what that hole was exactly. If you're going to critique a film then have the good sense to explain your argument. Don't go around saying you're "feeling" that something bad is happening with the film and just leave it at that.

Having seen Casino Royale I've never seen Mad Mikkelsen in anything other than the villain role. A testament to his acting chops in part. Playing Jacob the idealist he plays his character as an alien in a familiar land. In particular his home country. He seems to feel more at ease within the slums of India than at a posh Denmark hotel with a copious amount of amenities at his disposal. The transition from slum to posh was well done IHMO. The transformation of his character as new information is revealed to him is subtle and maybe a bit too subtle as I felt that I didn't really get to know Jacob that well and what could have been a more powerful change was settled for the subtle. The struggle that Jacob must fact in choosing one world for the other wasn't as compelling as it could have been with better performances and some better writing.

The shooting style reminds of the dogma 95 and also the French New Wave. Being hand-held, jump cuts and use of natural lighting. It adds to the documentary feel if you will of the story. Even the wedding plot device was I believed to be used in a Dogma 95 film. All in all the movie starts with a good start but falls a bit at the finish.

Using the idea of dreams and reality intertwined. Gondry furthers his whimsical explorations on the human mind on film. While his previous work explores the idea of memory and how it plays or does not play a major role on whom you fall for. (If you like someone, if you erased them from your head you'll fall for them anyway... its fate Joel.) Here Gondry explores the idea of dreams and reality and the blurring of the lines as realized in the character of Stephane.

Stephane is a creative type and he is most creative when he is asleep. The use of a talk show setup was a brilliant move for mise en scene as it allows some interesting interactions of Stephane's memory, the world around him and the wants and goals of Stephane. You'll have to see, particularly when he remembers his childhood and his wishes to win the heart of Stephanie.

This film is a bit more busy than Eternal Sunshine but the trademark Gondry style comes through with the hand made efx and cinema verite shooting style. The actors are wonderful and the ensemble really hams it up for the dream sequences. There are many layers all playing a strange game for the wants and desires of Stephane. Language, he speaks English, Spanish and French, jumping between French and English most of the time. Memory, what is dream and what is reality is confused sometimes wonderfully and sometimes tragically. Relationships, mother and Stephane, father and stephane, Stephanie and Stephane, Zoe and Stephane, and his crazy coworkers. Going from filial to romantic to fraternal. All this makes for a wonderfully dense film viewing experience that will have your head swimming long after the film ends.

ken park or krap nek as they say is basically four episodes with each episode dealing with an individual's family situation or lack thereof. These episodes are inter-cut within each other.

Though Larry's Clark's movies deal with very explicit, or "realistic" subject matter his presentation is overwrought. Characters are more caricatures than 'real' people. The zealot father, the aging housewife, the weird kid, the father with unrequited love. The scenes with these characters were hard for me to take in. The actions and reactions they take seemed so hackneyed to me. Could it be that Larry Clark is developing a "larry clarkness"? a style? As one who is purported to be a breaker of styles and conventions this movie was shot pretty conventionally with lots of sex. I wasn't too impressed with this effort. Some shots, as Larry Clark says, are there for realistic purposes but I just found it to be sensationalistic and unnecessary.

The cinematography was great that is probably due to the Ed Lachman. The blue and red tinge really added to their respective scenes. Probably use of tungsten for outdoors and daylight inside.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I could swear Larry Clark is moving from realism to symbolism. In one scene he has the family gather together on the front steps. Your good Ole' American suburban family, full of deceit and infidelity but putting up a great face none the less. It seemed like a tableau.