REALLY?
Anyone else thinking that this "movie" just sucks?
shareyup
shareSucks BIG time!
shareFrom all the accolades on the dvd cover, plus the inclusion of Gael Garcia Bernal, I thought this film was going to be worth watching--what a mistake. There really isn't much going on aside from some nice scenery and the cute faces of the two leads.
I kept hoping for some plot movement, but all we got was the two young people walking/hiking across the Georgian landscape with limited dialogue. Even when something finally happens it becomes irrelevant because there is no discussion or comprehension of what has occurred.
I should have stopped watching after the first 20 minutes or so but kept thinking that something interesting was sure to occur because of the dvd description (who writes these dvd descriptions anyway?).
If the director was so enamored of that particular landscape she should have made a documentary instead.
And all the pieces matter (The Wire)share
There is development on what occurred - it just isn't a verbal acknowledgement. His initial reaction was to push her in front of the gun before his rationality took over. Then, it lapses into silence. In those long takes where you can see them walking, they separate themselves from those in the first half - in the first portion, Alex and Nica can be seen walking fairly close together, whereas, for instance, the shot where they are silhouetted along the river, they are spaced very widely apart.
The tension doesn't come from overt displays of emotion - it's the way in which Alex slowly, indecisively reaches his hand out to touch the back of Nica's head, to re-establish the connection that was lost, and pulls back and pushes out again, only to be interrupted before he makes her aware of his movement. It is in the way Nica pulls closer to their guide and leaves Alex to walk alone.
And catharsis, or at the very least, a possible hope, comes first when she asks him for a Spanish verb to conjugate, in recreation of the scene before they encounter the strangers.
Everything in The Loneliest Planet is conveyed through subtext and visuals, rather than through traditional narrative filmmaking. I can understand why a lot of people hate it - the audience to which it appeals, I imagine, is quite limited, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to most people I know. I personally thought it was excellent, but then, this kind of thing really appeals to me. I guess it's all just a matter of what you're used to. And in that respect, there's few films that I think would make a better viewer litmus test than this one.
Nice post tsheridan and sentiments with which I agree.
The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.share
Yeah, I guess it was interesting in that minimalist way, although the material seemed to be about right for a short film.
-- SPOILER ALERT --
There definitely was a theme of forgiveness as a conscious choice. Also, I thought there was a moment -- actually several hours -- where she was wavering, wondering if this was even the type of man she could spend the rest of her life with, somebody whose instinct was to do what he did, and the comparison with Dato, who had been there to pick her up when she fell in the creek (how did that happen anyway? and what happened to the strong, capable person she was earlier? aaaanyway...), started to roll around in her head, I think. Almost a choice between the more primal male who was better able to protect a woman (not Dato himself, necessarily -- I don't think anything was going to happen between them, really -- but she was sort of window-shopping for a different type) and the more "evolved" male who was a great companion, but maybe not so good in an emergency. But then, any choice like that is also a choice about who you yourself are going to be. Which kind of woman are you -- the one who needs protecting, or the one who's not going to choose a man based on that? The minimal action in the film actually did convey a pretty complex interaction between the characters. I just don't think it was two hours' worth.
Also, to semi-echo some of Ebert's typically on-target criticism, the film makes that deadly mistake of assuming we should be interested in these people simply because of the mere fact of their relationship (you can do that in a certain kind of film as long as the story doesn't require more than superficiality of the couple), and I guess because of their physical attractiveness, the fact that they're Americans in a really foreign place, making an effort to learn some of the language, etc. But mostly they're just super-cute, especially with each other. Cute to the point of being really trivial and banal at times, which was so obvious to me that I actually thought it might've been intentional, especially in view of the scene where, after they sing the silly song about Don Gato, Dato actually starts talking about his wife and child and real life in a way that makes the typical conversation from the couple seem utterly twittish to the point of being almost embarrassing. But then, if that was intentional, how would that affect her choice? Is she turning back toward the twittish because she likes it better than the darker reality of life with tragedy and pain? But if she had decided instead to accept that weightier life, would that have meant she should've given in to Dato's advances? What is the film actually saying about her choice, and what's it saying about her fiance's? Is it his role just to be mopey and sorry after what he did, and that's it?
Not a terrible film -- I think I liked it a little better than Ebert -- but either confused or unfinished, and way too long for the material.