MovieChat Forums > Les derniers jours du monde (2009) Discussion > Movie presented in Locarno

Movie presented in Locarno

posted 15 years ago by paubrunet
5 replies | jump to latest

The expectation for the movie was high, with a lot of posters hanging on the walls and a worldwide premiere. The title was a hint of a sci-fi movie.
All these expectations were not met by the movie at all.

The main problem is the total lack of a plot, a story-line, something linear that can be followed through 130 minutes. The movie follows the life of a man during a week, traveling through France, Spain and Taiwan. What a coincidence that these three countries have paid for the movie, and that many scenes look like documentary about these countries.

At the beginning, the movie looks like a romantic comedy, the main character cheating on several women. Then it turns to thriller, with the arrival of disappearing of a mysterious woman. Then it has a hint of catastrophic sci-fi, with an unknown virus spreading worldwide. Then it's action, the man walking, running, biking with no direction. Then, and mostly, it's porno: the virus looks nothing more than an excuse to show nude corpse everywhere (why does everyone has to die nude?).

What is the main character looking for? Why does he leave for Spain? Is it because of his daughter, who then never appears back in the movie? Is it for her beloved one, who suddenly disappears as well? Is there any explanation to anything that happens?

Summing up, the main impression is that the directors worked with no plot at all and were just adding scene after scene as the days went by, making the characters move from one town to the other with no link or valid explanation of their actions, reducing to nude scenes when they had nothing better to narrate.

As if this was not enough, the (missing) script has many narrative errors. For instance, the character goes walking during one day from France to Bilbao, then biking to Saragossa, but passing by Catalunya, walking again, and then taking a train from there to Toulouse. Geographically, this does not make sense at all.

The movie is disappointing because the production looks expensive and the beginning (the first 30 minutes) looks promising, but it soon becomes weird and bizarre and there is no story or anything to learn from watching it.

[–] doomgen_29 15 years ago

"but it soon becomes weird and bizarre and there is no story or anything to learn from watching it."

Yes, that's what we call art, it's not supposed to teach you anything, if you want to learn something, open a book or go back to school. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you must realise that not all movies are supposed to look like predigested simplistic Hollywood crap. The Larrieu brothers are children on the "Nouvel vague", so the movie is supposed to be absurd, ironic, and crazy, it's intended to be closer to abstraction rather than representative art. It's a wonderful movie, to bad you didn't get it, give it another go some other day, maybe.

[–] paubrunet 15 years ago

ok! two opinions...time to time for this movie. I'm not always looking for "predigest simplistic Hollywood" but the Larrieu film it's not art, either cinema. But, everybody is free to love or hate it, isn't it? Moreover, this kind of artist always are looking for the polemic publicity, they love it!

[–] doomgen_29 15 years ago

"but the Larrieu film it's not art, either cinema."

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, I get the fact that you didn't like the movie, and that's fine, but what do you know about what is or isn't art ?! Does art have to be either painted, sculpted or written in a book ? If this movie isn't art, then one has to assume that no movie that has ever been shot is art, that cinema and art are incompatible. A belief that anyone is entitled to have, yes, but that I will never share. This movie is full of vibrant ambiguous emotions, full of life, sensuality, intelligence and personality, so if this is not enough to qualify it as art...

[–] Malickfan86 15 years ago

If you're so dead set on insisting that this film is art, then do you mind telling us what the point of it was? Surely all great art has a purpose. I, on the other hand, am closer in agreement with the original poster. The film wanders, is way too long, and makes me wonder why the hell I should care. The directors described it as a love story, but why was it a love story for a cheap hooker who looks like a man and has no redeeming qualities?

"We played with life and lost." - Jules et Jim, François Truffaut.

[–] zvelf-1 14 years ago

The purpose of the movie is to inquire how one navigates freedom and fidelity when the world is ending. The characters in the movie - from those with lead roles to those appearing only for a few seconds - all have different responses. The filmmakers don't really judge whether they embrace nihilism or hedonism, selfishness or compassion. But what one does get out of the movie is some idea of how to answer that old adage, if you only have one day to live, what would you do with it?