Don't watch. If you take anything from this review, know that most moviegoers that watch will regret giving this a chance. If you love plotless arthouse films with unreliable narrators, zero character arc, and fake characters who only serve as metaphors for a theme, then go ahead, watch, and rate 10. But everyone else will hate it.
Ostensibly, this movie is about a young woman who takes a road trip with her new boyfriend to his childhood home: a farm where his parents still live. But (and I wouldn't really call this a spoiler since you have to understand this early on to get some enjoyment) his parents aren't really his parents (not in one time period, at least), his girlfriend isn't really his girlfriend, and he isn't really himself. The events, mostly didn't happen. In that case, this movie isn't really about a girlfriend visiting parents, is it?
This movie is instead about getting older and feeling regret. Other spoiler-filled reviews will point that out. What you see on screen is a mixture of memories, hopes, dreams, and/or ideas. Why do we need 2 hours and 14 minutes to present these ideas? Only fans of experimental theater know why length seems to be equated with brilliance. Surely not every scene contributes further understanding to the main character's ideas. If, say, the ice cream scene was removed, the movie remains intact. It doesn't make you laugh, cry, scream, or even further your understanding of the character. It simply is.
Why a 1 then? A movie can be plotless and characterless, and still contain enough to make you think or feel, right? This one cannot. Unlike another awful art film The House that Jack Built, you don't get scenes that shock you or action that excites you. You get embarrassing mom stories, anti-climatic spooky basement scenes, rude high school girls, a mediocre dance sequence, and an award acceptance speech. It's a hodge podge of unnecessary details that if you asked this movie's biggest and smartest fans about, they would be unable to give you an answer. What's up with the brunette ice cream server's rash, for example? Every detail is a throwaway random bit that the movie tricks you into thinking is significant until it's off to the next scene.
For your average moviegoer, this is infuriating. While the opening scene makes you think that Jake simply has telepathy, and the next scene makes you think the house is somehow magic, the lucky ones will figure out halfway throughout the movie that none of the details are significant because we don't know if they signify a real event or a concept. Why is Jake afraid of the basement? Ooh, we get to find out now! Nope, we don't! Fooled ya. Onto the next scene! That's why this movie gets a 1. This movie where every scene is a metaphor for something that happened or *could* happen has been done over and over, and it's been done better than this.
This movie is an affront of the art of cinema, a blemish on the resume of the cast and crew, a waste of film and talent, and a 2-hour regret I'll carry to my grave.
Ostensibly, this movie is about a young woman who takes a road trip with her new boyfriend to his childhood home: a farm where his parents still live. But (and I wouldn't really call this a spoiler since you have to understand this early on to get some enjoyment) his parents aren't really his parents (not in one time period, at least), his girlfriend isn't really his girlfriend, and he isn't really himself. The events, mostly didn't happen. In that case, this movie isn't really about a girlfriend visiting parents, is it?
This movie is instead about getting older and feeling regret. Other spoiler-filled reviews will point that out. What you see on screen is a mixture of memories, hopes, dreams, and/or ideas. Why do we need 2 hours and 14 minutes to present these ideas? Only fans of experimental theater know why length seems to be equated with brilliance. Surely not every scene contributes further understanding to the main character's ideas. If, say, the ice cream scene was removed, the movie remains intact. It doesn't make you laugh, cry, scream, or even further your understanding of the character. It simply is.
Why a 1 then? A movie can be plotless and characterless, and still contain enough to make you think or feel, right? This one cannot. Unlike another awful art film The House that Jack Built, you don't get scenes that shock you or action that excites you. You get embarrassing mom stories, anti-climatic spooky basement scenes, rude high school girls, a mediocre dance sequence, and an award acceptance speech. It's a hodge podge of unnecessary details that if you asked this movie's biggest and smartest fans about, they would be unable to give you an answer. What's up with the brunette ice cream server's rash, for example? Every detail is a throwaway random bit that the movie tricks you into thinking is significant until it's off to the next scene.
For your average moviegoer, this is infuriating. While the opening scene makes you think that Jake simply has telepathy, and the next scene makes you think the house is somehow magic, the lucky ones will figure out halfway throughout the movie that none of the details are significant because we don't know if they signify a real event or a concept. Why is Jake afraid of the basement? Ooh, we get to find out now! Nope, we don't! Fooled ya. Onto the next scene! That's why this movie gets a 1. This movie where every scene is a metaphor for something that happened or *could* happen has been done over and over, and it's been done better than this.
This movie is an affront of the art of cinema, a blemish on the resume of the cast and crew, a waste of film and talent, and a 2-hour regret I'll carry to my grave.
