MovieChat Forums > It's All About Love (2003) Discussion > What's wrong with this film?

What's wrong with this film?


The director had too many scenarios going at one time.

Leave the flying Ugandans out of it. It was the most absurd. Why weren't the dogs, goats, chickens, etc, flying too. No animals were tethered. It made the concept weak. And it was unnecessary to the story.

The rest of the story was watchable, with the exception of Sean Penn. He was awful. It was painful to watch him deliver his rediculous lines in an amateurish accent. He reminded me of a drunk you can't shut up.

I loved the last 5 minutes. Joaquin Phoenix had my heart in his hands.

Vinterberg has talent, but this is not a showcase for it. Too scattershot, IMO.

I actually own this. I zoom through it to the parts I like. Admittedly it makes for a short viewing.

I buy all of Joaquin Phoenix's films. I promised myself I'd own them, good or bad.


"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

bump

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

[deleted]

I agree with most of what you wrote, except for the flying-Ugandans bit. I actually loved that part, but I have to say it touched me visually before anything else happened in my brain. It struck me with the way it looked in the same way music strikes you with the way it sounds--not with what it makes you think about. But when I finally started thinking about it, I managed to make sense of it in a way that I think agrees with the... (let's call it) logic of the movie--

-spoilers- [or something]



--the way I understood it, the crisis was in people's hearts/souls, not in those of animals... (I realize how moronic this sounds, but bear with me). So it makes sense that it's people who suffer from lack of love, first and foremost--as in dying on the streets of NYC, and losing connection with the Earth in Uganda--and not animals or other forms of life. Climate change comes a bit later (and yeah, I suppose that's bound to affect everything that moves). But going back to the Ugandans, if love (not love of God or life or nature or anything grand and abstract like that, but I mean actual, simple love between people) is what connects us to other people, humanity, life, things on this planet/this plane of existence, then lack of love equals losing all of those connections, hence the... disconnection from life--this life, not the next, not afterlife, not inner life... just life, here on Earth. Hence the loss of gravitation. Or to put it differently: if human and especially erotic love (as opposed to other kinds of love) means, above all, attachment to the loved one and, ultimately, to this world, then lack of that kind of love might mean a certain... de-tachment from it. Ahem. Yeah? Alright, it may not make much sense in the real world (or anywhere else outside my imagination, he he), but it's a beautiful metaphor all the same, IMO.

and of course, putting it into words can only ruin it, but I had to try :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

But, getting back to your comments, man, don't get me started on Sean Penn. WTF was he doing there? Why...? Who...? What...? I think this little appearance effectively ruined my impression of Penn as an actor :) In all fairness, it wasn't entirely his fault--whoever wrote that part should take the blame--but the way he delivered his lines, independently of how bad they were, got on my nerves so much that the next time I'll watch the movie I'll just do what you're doing, Irish, when I get to his scenes (fast-forward). It was painful... grrrrrr... uuugh. Anyway... back to coherent English: Penn's character seems like an afterthought, something added to the movie after getting feedback from confused viewers--what is he, the Greek chorus explaining what it all means? That whole part is lazy and way too explicit for my taste, it delivers way too many words for that kind of movie, and the words are spoken in a way that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

Still. The film has something. I bought it too - mostly because I couldn't see it otherwise, but also because of how horrified some reviewers sounded. I just had to have that! :)

reply

I understand what you mean. My problem with the flying Ugandans had more to do with the mechanics of the scene. The speakers were touching in their despair.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

Fair enough. I was too caught up in my little poetic episode to notice the mechanics of it :)

-let me see that bit again

(5 min later) Truth be told, despite my attempt at critical assessment, the very last shot of the film still gave me goosebumps...

reply

The last 5 minutes of the film is heart rending. Joaquin has a face for suffering. He's marvelous to watch.
When he carries his wife up the snowbank and discovers peak after snow covered peak, my heart sank with his.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

I actually meant the last few seconds of the film (the infamous flying-Ugandans shot :) but I agree that the previous bit is also very powerful, in a different way. These two final scenes make for a very striking ending, IMO.

reply

When I see people tethered to the ground, but the dogs and chickens have no problem with gravity, that's where I have to take issue. I understood the symbolism, but the physics escaped me. It didn't really bother me as I was watching. It dawned on me later.
The plane at the end was powerful too. You just knew it was headed for a crash.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

Maybe Ugandan dogs and chickens--unlike Ugandan people--still had enough love for one another for gravity to work. For them. Only.

What can I say, I was never any good at physics. Can you tell? :-D

Agree with the plane observation. Except that I wished it'd crashed sooner... on account of its having Penn's character on board, he he. (Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

Btw, when I said the two final scenes of the movie were very powerful, I meant the scene on the mountain peak + the one with the flying Ugandans. I instantly forgot that the plane (and Penn) were wedged in between. Blocking out, I guess :)

Now back to what's right with this film: the music. Preisner is one of my favorite (film) composers. I see two names credited for the music, but I assume that bit at the end is by him.

And apropos of nothing, I love your sig--probably the best line in Quills.

reply

Thank you. I love the way the entire scene plays, but the delivery of that line is perfect. It described the Marquis perfectly.

You know....I think that time will be good to It's All About Love. It has more going for it than most people realize. It may become a cult film.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

reply

Quite possible... it has all the right ingredients for that. Including Thomas Bo Larsen (the Michael character in Festen) in a cameo role.

reply

felin1^

<--the way I understood it, the crisis was in people's hearts/souls, not in those of animals... (I realize how moronic this sounds, but bear with me). So it makes sense that it's people who suffer from lack of love, first and foremost--as in dying on the streets of NYC, and losing connection with the Earth in Uganda--and not animals or other forms of life. Climate change comes a bit later (and yeah, I suppose that's bound to affect everything that moves). But going back to the Ugandans, if love (not love of God or life or nature or anything grand and abstract like that, but I mean actual, simple love between people) is what connects us to other people, humanity, life, things on this planet/this plane of existence, then lack of love equals losing all of those connections, hence the... disconnection from life--this life, not the next, not afterlife, not inner life... just life, here on Earth. Hence the loss of gravitation. Or to put it differently: if human and especially erotic love (as opposed to other kinds of love) means, above all, attachment to the loved one and, ultimately, to this world, then lack of that kind of love might mean a certain... de-tachment from it. Ahem. Yeah? Alright, it may not make much sense in the real world (or anywhere else outside my imagination, he he), but it's a beautiful metaphor all the same, IMO>


Although I don't like the flying Ugandan piece in the movie much, yours is the best interpretation of it that I have read thus far and is very well-written :)

Questions though: Why do people in NYC 'disconnect' by dropping dead and people in Uganda do so by leaving the ground? Why should there be a difference?




"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

>Questions though: Why do people in NYC 'disconnect' by dropping dead and people in Uganda do so by leaving the ground? Why should there be a difference?<


thanks for the compliment, denise1234, and... good question. Frankly, I have no idea.

Well. Now that I think about it, I could come up with all kinds of theories (what kind of lack of love are we dealing with? simply the absence of it, or its replacement by something positively worse, like selfishness, or aggression, or-- Maybe that could explain the differences). But yeah, I really don't know if the screenwriter thought about it as much as we are right now (but then again, why should that matter?)...

reply

You are very welcome :)

Why should it matter?

I don't know.

I thought the 'flying Ugandans' was kind of a neat 'unique' addition, but it seemed to me a bit superfluous if I couldn't make a bit more sense out of it.

I *do* like aspects of a film to be 'mindful' and not just some filmmaker pretention.

However, your thoughtful analysis did help me with accepting the premise a bit more, as a viewer and as someone who appreciates other aspects of this film.


Cheers!



"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

--oh, what I meant by that question was, should that (i.e. the possibility that the screenwriter didn't think about it as much as we are right now) deter us from trying to figure it out for ourselves? Or should it not? In other words, let's say the flying Ugandans scene was nothing but a meaningless filmmaker pretension, yet we manage to find some meaning (or perhaps just beauty) in it. Does that justify its presence in the film? Does that make it meaningful, even if the meaning was not intended / foreseen / thought through by its creator?

just a rhetorical question, I guess.

reply

felin1^

I think that there can be ‘happy accidents’ in film: things or ideas or meanings that the filmmaker did not intend, but that viewers find in a movie. Sometimes I wonder if such ‘accidents’, although not intentional, are sub-tentional (I know – not a word); in other words, something that is akin to a subconscious addition, maybe not readily seen by the filmmaker due to the filmmaker being too close to the product, but that viewers spot because they are more novel to it and have more distance. 'New eyes' and all that...

Or, such an accident could be more in lines with a ‘spandrel’ – using this term rather liberally, a practical example could be the intersection of roof beams and eaves that results in a nesting spot for birds emerging – the nesting spot was not intentional on the part of the builder, but it emerges all the same.

I suppose there can be spandrels in movies, too: byproducts that arise, but that were, again, not intended.

Or, simple 'emergence' could occur, examples of which are often actually written into some stories/sci-fi movies, such as when independent intelligence emerges from machines as part of the storyline (e.g., 'The Terminator', 'The Matrix', or 'Tron').

Anyway…I think that in this particular movie, with so many strange happenings that were somewhat interrelated, that to throw in another ‘strange’ happening without relating it more to the movie themes is more distracting than meaningful, especially when it is introduced more than once or twice.

Also, I *can* appreciate cinematography that is no more than eye candy, but the 'flying Ugandans' were presented enough times, across contexts, to almost beg an expectation from the viewer.


However, all that being said, meaning (like beauty) can be in the mind (eye) of the beholder :)



"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

--all good points, denise1234. Thanks for the feedback.

reply

felin1^

Nice chatting with you, too :)

Your posts were thoughtful and really made me think :)

Cheers!



"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

It's pretty strange, but I admire the film's ambition. More directors should risk their careers on personal-projects.

reply

I personally think the Ugandans were flying because they were TOO full of love for the world. They don't live like people in the western world where people are leaving their families and living all over the place and not keeping in contact. These people TAKE CARE of their loved ones and revere their elders.

So that's what I think about the Ugandans...you can do some research about their culture if it helps, but you will find that they were really the perfect people to choose to "fly away" from this world that is devoid of love in most places.

BTW I am American and I can't wait to get the *ell out of here. This is the worst country I have ever been to and I've been to a lot. I can see us stepping over dead people on the street....it's even happening now. People don't want to get "involved". And that's another theme in the movie...about people just going with the status quo and not getting involved unless it involves them. I'm not saying all Americans are like this as another poster is saying. But what I AM saying is that in over 20 countries I have found that in the US we care the least about others. Sure I have met wonderful people here and lifelong friends; but it's the exception, not the rule.

reply

Did it snow on the Ugandans also? It looked pretty warm there. (I liked the movie)

reply

Aha. Interesting idea. (I mean your first 2 paragraphs).

How about this: if you're too attached to your loved ones, then something must detach you from them (and the world etc.) to balance things out. (Although that doesn't really go with the general idea of the movie. Oh well.)

reply

irishaspaddyspig^

Although I *do* like this film (the cinematography, the meat of the plot, the relationship between John and Elena), I do have to agree with your assessment about the flying Ugandans and Sean P. (less-than-noteworthy performance and a superfluousness character).


"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

"less than noteworthy performance".......You are too kind.

If I had the opportunity to cut just one part from this film, it would be Penn's.
He, quite literally, phoned in his performance.

I can live with the flying Ugandans.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"


reply

irishaspaddyspig^

"He, quite literally, phoned in his performance".

ROTFL!

After having read another poster's analysis of the 'flying Ugandans', I think I can now live with that part, too.

:)


"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply