highway020

This comment is really the only sensible thing there is to say about this movie. As a film lover, I didn't even think it was funny. It was fascinatingly bad though, even the credits roll was bad. Really. As for the acting, script, direction, photography, sfx, etc; don't worry, there none of it involved- here my opinion differs with that of the credits roll. The only thing well done, was the stop-motion animation. As for lovers of cheesier and more synthetic than cheezepops: it's a gem. Best consumed under the influence of mind-expanding substances that take off the sharp edges. Oh, and the lifetime achievement for worst haircut is won by Lori Baker

I don't know what to think of this movie. I really don't.

When people mention the characters and their lives being so 'real' in the movie, or on the other hand commenting on it being not realistic: forget it. It's a movie! It's directed, edited, lit, there's a cinematographer, there's a script: it's not real! Believable it is, for sure, and that's what counts. But it's not a documentary, although the use of video (not film) and lighting make it feel like one every now and then.

I believe this is a movie that should be appreciated for what it is. It's just not the kind of movie that impresses with grand acting or surprising plot twists. And I believe that the most commented very kept down acting, 'dull' dialogs, simple plot in a slow pace, 'bad lighting', etc. are conscious choices of the director. But the score is puzzling and truly annoying at times. It's a small, humble mood film, with nice cinematography and an interesting story line and ditto direction, editing and acting. I doubt, however, this is a groundbreaking film. Many more movies like this - common people with ordinary lives and a not so ordinary event/action - have been made and this one doesn't stick out.

All in all: I don't really know what to make of this film. It's not the worst movie ever - that will be Glitter for yet another century or so - and I moderately enjoyed it, but it's not groundbreaking nor impressive either. After seeing the movie I was left with the impression that Soderbergh wanted to make a art-house movie like he was a starting director on a tight budget or a die-hard independent film maker that works 'from reality'. The problem is, he isn't. And that leaves the movie lingering between a whodunit, a portrait, interesting, pretentiously artsy, humble and trivial.