MovieChat Forums > Ai no mukidashi (2009) Discussion > This film was RUBBISH

This film was RUBBISH

posted 14 years ago by oliveroliveroliver2000
45 replies | jump to latest

If you want a succinct review of this film it is quite easy; this film literally lacks everything you would normally appreciate and enjoy. I'm quite serious, this film does most things bad and everything else below average.

The acting from some of the actors was so bad calling it amaturish is to compliment it. So much so you really are unable to experiance any connection with the charaters(!), I've never had that before in any film I've ever watched. The acting and scene execution being so poor that you are unable to identify and so emotionally connect or sympathise with them.
The story is completely unrealistic, often nonsensical and unbelieveable. It is a mad pastiche of unlinked elements thrown together by a pop and movie culture obsessive, which rambles (for four ****ing hours!) with no definite direction or artistic and poetic meaning. This also extends to the characters and to many of the scenes, both of which, at times, are totally unbelieveable and often surreal and cunfusing.
All of this could theoretically be excused or explained by humour, and a cute or endearing ideosnycratic quality to the aformentioned and film in general. It has none of those. The humour is limited, and the idiosyncrasies or quirky quality consists of a confused story and scene play nethier of which are enjoyable or endearing.
It really is like watching a group of high school students with filming equipment having a laugh, which by the end you feel they're having at your expense.

[–] johanforsberg82 14 years ago

Seriously?

You didn´t like it because it wasnt realistic enough? Jesus. Thats like saying Final Fantasy is a bad video game because you are sure Chocobos arent real.

There is no point for people reading your opinion since you obviously doesnt appreciate this type of movie. Im surprised you even saw it and stayed the 4 hours.

[–] my_boomstick 14 years ago

This movie was GREAT.

Go screw yourself troll.

[–] Killingforcompany 14 years ago

this was one of the most original and not to mention enjoyable films i have seen in quite sometime.

[–] Ivria 14 years ago

I have to say that I feel that oliver2000 articulated their point quite well and that film discussions are always hard with such diverging opinions.

I didn't like this film, yet I wanted to, and by looking at its positive reception I feel as if I should have.
So why didn't I? (Spoilers, etc.)

Okay, let's start by looking at the positives:
- Good soundtrack
- I enjoy films with a surreal edge to them
- It was a fresh look at both popular culture and contemporary issues in Japan
- It was amusing, in parts.

While this is all very positive, somehow the whole film seemed to fall flat.
I think that this was due (in part) to the film's sense of confusion as to what its direction or purpose was supposed to be.
As a result it felt to me as such:
The actors weren't strong enough to pull off the film's eccentricities > The humour wasn't strong enough to detract from the resulting awkwardness > The content wasn't strong enough to justify the duration of said awkwardness (and so on and so forth).

Whilst I embraced some aspects of the film, there is no excuse for leaving a film with a partial theme of 'love' devoid of both credible emotion and character development.
No, it isn't that I didn't understand the characters, it's just that the forms of 'love' expressed felt to me very.. Hollywoodesque?
I.e. the depiction of love at first sight/ without a vaguely rational explanatory connection.
Let's not forget the ending- Well, luckily the sect did something right... right? Goodbye past sexual preference and hello saccharine conclusion.
It felt a little to me like Hollywood on an acid trip but, rather disappointingly, that wasn't a good thing.

I don't know.. I've seen 'wacky' films done well and 'wacky' films done for the sake of being so. For me this film fell into the latter.

Thoughts?

[–] TheOneRock 14 years ago

Like you, I had also originally thought the actors were simply bad at acting, until the scene at the beach where Yoko recited Corinthians 13. It moved me and gave me a wake up call at the same time, to look back at the intentions of this movie. Looking back, its easy to see that most of the scenes in the first half of the movie just weren't meant to be taken so seriously.

Why? Because that's exactly how Yu originally felt about his life. He wasn't taking anything seriously. He was just a kid trying to find ways to get his dad's attention.

If you wanted serious acting, you could find it in the serious scenes where they are intended to be.

If Love Exposure had followed the typical flow of movies aimed at the mainstream audience, it would have lost its feel of "the need to find a sense of purpose" that you mentioned.

On the same note, that's what Yu struggled with his whole life. He had no real purpose in life until he found Yoko.

There were pros and cons to the movie. To you, the pros and cons add and take from the whole movie in general.

To me, instead of the pros and cons adding to or taking away from the whole movie in general, the pro/s and/or con/s only served their purpose only in their immediate scene to provide me the necessary feelings to experience what the characters were going through at that exact moment.

It was brilliant because instead of the director simply displaying us a story in an understandable manner that hopefully keeps our interest, it felt more like we experienced the uncertainty and chaos of life that these characters went through.

And love? If we go by what Corinthians 13 said, then they ARE in love.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] illogyst 14 years ago

to OP:

someone give this kid his four hours back. maybe he stops bit-
ching around about a movie he obviously just didn't get *shrug*

"best/worst-movie-ever"-idiots don't deserve to watch movies at all ...

[–] reinardian 14 years ago

This reminded me of my mother who thought that "Before Sunrise" was a *beep* movie (after watching it together). I told her that I loved the film, the conversation is witty and you can really feel the "connection" between Hawke and Delphy. She told me she hated it because all they did in the movie was talk.

Can't blame the OP for not connecting with the movie.

I adore Love Exposure though. One of those rare movies that you wish would not end. After 4 hours, I still wish they showed a bit more, (badly put) a happy ending shot of Yu and Yoko (and not just the final scene).

I bumped into Love Exposure while researching on Sakura Ando (who was totally naked) in Ain't No Tomorrows.

[–] Armond_Black 14 years ago

Nothing wrong with an epic live action anime, this movie just kind of suffers when it switches from blazing to slow burn and it's got these charicatures instead of real people to focus on.

[–] chilone (17281) 7 years ago

I don't think it "suffers" at all.

[–] troika19 13 years ago

I'm well into the films "serious" stage and it feels like nothing more then an angry Christian's rant to me.

[–] moustache12 13 years ago

I thought this was a long film but I still enjoyed it. I admired the main actor who can play his different roles so well. What went through my mind is how well written it was, and how complex and its uncomplicated way of telling the story. The art direction was kitch in its typical Japanese fashion but its what appeals to me...and I am sure someone like Quentin Tarantino would have seen this film a few times over. I gave this an 8/10.

[–] chainedtofayt 13 years ago

I do think that this film was rubbish. He cut out 2 hours from the whole thing! Plus he doesn't wanna release the rest! I need to see the director's cut!

[–] sanctumsilentium 8 years ago

That is your very sad misfortune.

[–] lyx-1 13 years ago

I am definitely one of the VERY FEW who agree with you. This is a very shallow film attempting to be "deep" in its "subversion" - the religious blasphemy, the hentai, etc. It started out with promise, and I thought the wanton lover's acting as the fallen woman was very good, and the subject seems to go into the idea of degradation, a believable descent of the priest/father into carnal desires.

However, from the point where Yu convinced himself to sin for his father's love, it started becoming an absurd caricature. I usually love life's absurdities as captured on film, eg. Guillaume's "Brazil", but this is a cartoon version that demands our sympathy yet at the same time, is so devoid of substance - it is just forcing us to suspend our disbelief for little payoff.

The incredulity continues to the end, and the lack of some meaning out of the entire experience makes it feel like a particularly bad binge on junk food of the pretentious Tarantino variety.

[–] chilone (17281) 7 years ago

[quote] it is just forcing us to suspend our disbelief for little payoff.[i/quote]

Therein lies your misunderstanding. The movie never asks for or presumes any belief in the first place.

[–] bgirl-in_motion 13 years ago

You just can't enjoy and understand this movie.
That's it :P

[–] Gooeey 13 years ago

The acting from some of the actors was so bad calling it amaturish is to compliment it.

I guess since I don't speak the language, it impacts my ability to fully gauge their acting, but I found it quite good.

The acting from some of the actors was so bad calling it amaturish is to compliment it. So much so you really are unable to experiance any connection with the charaters(!), I've never had that before in any film I've ever watched. The acting and scene execution being so poor that you are unable to identify and so emotionally connect or sympathise with them.

I felt absolutely compelled by all 3 of the main characters, especially the two romantic interests. I notice you didn't talk about the writing, I thought it was very clever (even came out well on translation) and it is part which engrossed me in their respective stories. Can't agree that there was any flaw that I could see in the execution.

The story is completely unrealistic, often nonsensical and unbelieveable.

If you had removed the 'completely' bit and pointed out which bits in particular, I might agree. I thought the boys relationship with his father, his motivations and his deterioration were very believable. Clearly taking snapshots up womens skirts with martial arts, this woman street fighting all these men, and the main villain character escaping justice for her crimes are very unrealistic. There are some borderline aspects, like the girl mistaking the other for Mrs Scorpion, but given she didn't see her face very frequently and later on detected it when the real Mrs Scorpion appeared I thought it had a degree of credibility; this was a teen girl who longed for love and was willing to take it on blind faith.

It is a mad pastiche of unlinked elements thrown together by a pop and movie culture obsessive, which rambles (for four ****ing hours!) with no definite direction or artistic and poetic meaning.

I'll agree with you on one thing... it is 4 hours long, although I'd dispute the ****ing bit. I rewound parts over and over just to absorb it all. Took me at least 6 hours to get through and I didn't complain for a second! It's a shame the director had to cut it down from 6 hours, I loved it all. I'm not sure what parts you are speaking of in this film that are unlinked. Everything was linked. I can't think of a thing that was just thrown in at random... it's almost like you are describing a Michele Soavi film, but this is certainly not. And it did have a 'poetic' meaning; maybe not one I am equipped to fully examine here on this board, but I do detect several underlying messages.

This also extends to the characters and to many of the scenes, both of which, at times, are totally unbelieveable and often surreal and cunfusing.

I found almost nothing in this film surreal, eccentric... yes, but not particularly surreal. Maybe some of the specifics about the cult and the porn industry, which are an eccentric sort of reality, but not anything substantial which stretches the boundaries of reality. The only thing that was surreal to me was the girl standing in front of the other in the gymnasium during the shooting. It was difficult to gauge the reality of that scene a bit.

All of this could theoretically be excused or explained by humour, and a cute or endearing ideosnycratic quality to the aformentioned and film in general. It has none of those. The humour is limited, and the idiosyncrasies or quirky quality consists of a confused story and scene play nethier of which are enjoyable or endearing.

Which important part of the film was all that confusing?

It really is like watching a group of high school students with filming equipment having a laugh, which by the end you feel they're having at your expense.

Using 'your' sounds like you're speaking on my behalf. You are certainly not. I feel very priveledged to have been given the chance to see this film, and thankful for all involved, it has enriched my life a little more and I will cherish it. Wouldn't ask for my money or time back, in fact I think I got the experience all to cheaply. They should charge me more next time. Also, the film was underdone, but that is the directors intended aesthetic. I wouldn't call it 'a group of high school students with filming equipment having a laugh'.