The End of Time

Funny how it's about time; all it did was waste mine. There is no plot or purpose: you are left wondering what in good heck you just watched. You know those people who throw a paint covered paint brush at a blank canvas and what ever random splatter it creates becomes a million dollar painting? Those people like this movie. Please, I urge you, do not waste your time. Not much to comment on since literally nothing happens.

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.

This Canadian-made documentary explores the subject of time on a theoretical level. The camera does most of the work in various locations including an engineering/science laboratory in Switzerland, lava flows in Hawaii, abandoned neighbourhoods and buildings in Detroit, and a Hindu funeral near the sight of Buddha's enlightenment.

The camera work and accompanying music are beautiful and moving. Some of the ideas expressed are interesting as well. However, the film is not interesting enough to justify its near two-hour length. Near the end, it was difficult to remain attentive (and awake).

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.

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.