3 Backyards

I found this beautifully crafted movie a welcome relief from most of what's out there these days, both from big Hollywood blockbusters and pretentious, shticky indie films.

I was amazed at the depth and power of these very small stories. For me, it's all about the power of film working on every level, like a perfectly orchestrated piece of art. I thought about it for days after seeing it.

There is just something so haunting and beautiful about 3 Backyards, like a poem or a short story. And technically it's just a wonder. The word "impeccable" keeps coming to mind: impeccably acted, impeccably shot, impeccably scored, impeccably directed.

It's a very grownup, sophisticated movie. It reminded me a lot of a 70s movie.

Definitely one of my favorites of the last few years. I hope it gets seen beyond New York City.

... but, obviously, not everyone's.

If you appreciate excellent acting, beautiful cinematography and don't need to be spoon-fed a message or hung up on plot, this may be a film for you.

It is daringly ambitious in that the dialog is almost non-existent, leaving the entire weight of the film in the hands of the actors and the camera and the soundtrack — and, of course, the director. All succeed marvelously as three day-in-a-life stories are laid out, each with nervous overtones and unique tension.

Searching for a unifying theme is a Rorschach test; you will make of it what you will. The inability of people to communicate on a personal level — or any level at all, for that matter — can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, as you will see. I thought Edie Falco's acting was a bit blunt, but Elias Koteas's performance is marvelous. Embeth Davidtz conveys the most amount of mystery with the fewest amount of words — acting at its finest.

It is a wonderfully modern, realistic film, with the majority of the spoken words coming over a phone and conclusions largely unresolved. Still, I was engaged for every one of its 88 minutes. It's been a long time since a film held me so tightly.

I will never receive a sufficient explanation as to what ties together these three very boring and time-consuming vignettes. For example A man observes a woman trying to get a job in a café. He watches her as she unsuccessfully attempts to do so. This man who was previously indifferent to his own wife is now suddenly absorbed with overwhelming sympathy for a person he has known for exactly 3 minutes. He then proceeds to traipse through a very dangerous and substandard neighborhood looking for her. Are we supposed to buy this notion?

A neighbor jumps at the opportunity to take a mysterious Hollywood personality for a ride to catch the ferry. An unforeseen interruption of her day is insignificant compared with the possibility of ingratiating herself with the new VIP in the village. She is spurned. She then is transformed into a rock!

Utterly contrived and unbelievable.

This is a dreadful film, a terribly dreadful film. I alert all those who may read these reviews to avoid it if you're looking for a productive way to spend a couple of hours. A total waste of time.

It is said that "Seinfeld" was a show about nothing. This is a movie about nothing.

Another way to look at this movie is to see it as three separate short films. I have seen several hour-long shows on TV which consisted of several short films, some of which looked good enough to be Oscar-nominated. Each of these films might have been that good. It appears all three of the main characters lives in the same suburban neighborhood.

Whether you enjoy this movie or not depends on how open you are to independent films that have artistic value. I can be, though whether I would be depends on what they are like. This movie happens to be accessible to me, with plot lines I can get interested in. Still, this seems to be nothing more than a day in the life of three people in one town. For two of the people, it is not a typical day. And for those two people, I find myself quite interested in seeing what the result will be. But I get to the end and find myself not quite satisfied. I have to be content with the journey, and not having paid, I can be satisfied just with a a part of what I just saw. I enjoyed Christina's story the most but am not quite sure what it was.

I did see at least three really good acting performances, though all the leading actors did well too. Edie Falco reminded me of Ellen DeGeneres, though not quite that perky The short hair helped. Then there is the waitress with the attitude at the diner. But the standout performer may just have been the woman in the blue dress.

Is it worth it? Maybe.

Three separate stories that never intersect and never really align to explain why these stories are in the same film. Sure, you can say that the main characters all have "challenging days" and "learn a lot about themselves", but that does not help this movie FEEL like a movie. Rather it feels like three short films strung together with flute music. We never learn enough about these characters to really care about them.

Yes, some of the photography was beautifully done but much of it seemed self-serving as if the Director made this movie to amuse himself. 10 minutes in, you are already tired of the slow zooms and fades that are "played with" throughout the movie - something you might expect from a 20 year old, student filmmaker. It is almost as if, after the shooting was over, it became obvious that there was nothing compelling on the celluloid so it became necessary to distract the viewer with optical effects.

Critical reviews have been positive though - I can't help to think these reviewers are just so sick of main stream Hollywood, they find it necessary to prop up every art house film that takes a chance.

The actors do what they can with very little to work with, but their efforts can't save it. There is very little here.