IMDb RATING
4.1/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
A poetic road trip through Pulitzer prize-winning CK Williams' life.A poetic road trip through Pulitzer prize-winning CK Williams' life.A poetic road trip through Pulitzer prize-winning CK Williams' life.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Kimber King
- Woman in window
- (as Kimberly Harsch)
Featured reviews
Rarely do I review films that I give so few stars. I don't like to write negative stuff. But I'm about to do just that. I watched the film, basically because of the cast which has more than one star actor in it, and also because it's based on poetry and I'm a poet/writer. Unfortunately, despite the all-star cast, the film didn't work. Or, perhaps it worked as well as it could given what the writer/director were trying to do which was bring to life some poems of C.K. Williams. Because of the actors, and some of the photography, the film was easy to look at. In fact, if less good-looking actors had been in it, I probably would have turned it off after ten minutes. Because ultimately, even if one liked the visuals and enjoyed hearing some of Williams' poetry, it was boring. It's not as short as it is (73 minutes) for no reason. I think one has to really enjoy the artiness of the film in order to enjoy the film. If not, there's not a heck of a lot to keep one watching.
This film tells the life story of the poet CK Williams, through the use of his poems.
I had high hopes for this film because there are three stars that I like in it. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough material to fill up the already short screen time. It tells several excerpts of Williams's life, and none of these events have dramatic turns. In fact, the events told are so plain that they are not even interesting. Watching Williams watching TV about a nuclear disaster, without any follow up or response, hardly qualifies as interesting. Either Williams had a very uneventful life, or the research into his life when making this film was inadequate. "Tar" is a film that goes nowhere, which is a pity as there is great star power.
I had high hopes for this film because there are three stars that I like in it. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough material to fill up the already short screen time. It tells several excerpts of Williams's life, and none of these events have dramatic turns. In fact, the events told are so plain that they are not even interesting. Watching Williams watching TV about a nuclear disaster, without any follow up or response, hardly qualifies as interesting. Either Williams had a very uneventful life, or the research into his life when making this film was inadequate. "Tar" is a film that goes nowhere, which is a pity as there is great star power.
This is a prime example of a film that will either alienate or entrance...or possibly both at the same time. My suggestion for best getting something out of this collage of words and images is to just abandon all preconceptions and allow it to seduce you.
First simply savor the absolutely stunning beauty of the photography...the incandescence of the closeups and exquisite portraits of potentially mundane locals are among the most beautiful images that I have ever seen...
And as the visual glow seduces you ...let the deceptively simple words gradually intertwine with the photography till the entire film becomes a rather entrancing collage of one creative human's voyage through life.
I am saddened that so few audiences seem willing to give up a few moments of their lives to open themselves to one of the loveliest and most perceptive little films in recent memory...
Give it (and yourself) a chance.
First simply savor the absolutely stunning beauty of the photography...the incandescence of the closeups and exquisite portraits of potentially mundane locals are among the most beautiful images that I have ever seen...
And as the visual glow seduces you ...let the deceptively simple words gradually intertwine with the photography till the entire film becomes a rather entrancing collage of one creative human's voyage through life.
I am saddened that so few audiences seem willing to give up a few moments of their lives to open themselves to one of the loveliest and most perceptive little films in recent memory...
Give it (and yourself) a chance.
A boring movie that the creators thought would be cool, just because of the cool actors. The movie sounds like and endless poem, which many times repeats itself. There's basically no story, everything moves extremely slowly and the music makes it sad for no apparent reason. Of course it's one of those movies, many people would say it's artistic, therefore you should watch it. I'd say, don't watch it.
When i read the reviews (on rotten tomatoes also) i thought i didn't need to write my own, but i think that the audience had it all backwards. They kept on writing stuff like »came here because of Mila Kunis and was disappointed«. Don't you see that these actors are the very reason this film fails so badly? To be honest, what could you expect?
Mila and James (and even Jessica, damn it) are impersonating the hollow shells they are, so you can't even call this pretentious, it's honest to their characters, it's shallow, it's all for show. And the looks are not deceiving, the aesthetics of the movie are nice, but don't expect people to follow this for 90 minutes if you have no substance, no story, no narrative. Works for a video-clip, doesn't make for good feature length.
Poor film class students, just imagine what you could have achieved with such a high profile cast in the 70s. Mind you, they probably wouldn't have let you produce a mindless piece like this, back then.
If this film were about me i wouldn't be flattered. Or maybe i didn't get it: Was the author known to bore people to death? I don't know the poems of the writer as of yet, but a quick look on youtube tells me his ted speech is going to be more rewarding than this ordeal of a movie. So it had a positive outcome. It enticed me to research the author. I do hope he's better!
Mila and James (and even Jessica, damn it) are impersonating the hollow shells they are, so you can't even call this pretentious, it's honest to their characters, it's shallow, it's all for show. And the looks are not deceiving, the aesthetics of the movie are nice, but don't expect people to follow this for 90 minutes if you have no substance, no story, no narrative. Works for a video-clip, doesn't make for good feature length.
Poor film class students, just imagine what you could have achieved with such a high profile cast in the 70s. Mind you, they probably wouldn't have let you produce a mindless piece like this, back then.
If this film were about me i wouldn't be flattered. Or maybe i didn't get it: Was the author known to bore people to death? I don't know the poems of the writer as of yet, but a quick look on youtube tells me his ted speech is going to be more rewarding than this ordeal of a movie. So it had a positive outcome. It enticed me to research the author. I do hope he's better!
Did you know
- TriviaIt's the second time James Franco, Mila Kunis, Zach Braff, Bruce Campbell and Mia Serafino play together in a movie. They last worked together in Le Monde fantastique d'Oz (2013).
- How long is The Color of Time?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $199
- Runtime
- 1h 13m(73 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content