Reading the plot of the movie and watching some wonderful scenes in addition to knowing that Preisner is making the score and Sean Penn is in it , i was so much intrigued to watch this film ; what a pity and what a waste of so much potential by the director . It all begins quite interesting , but soon enough you realize that the director tries so hard to prove nothing, Hitchcock, Lynch, Trier, all mixed up . It's not lyrical but tries to be , it's not poetic but tries to be , it's not a thriller but tries to be , it's not a love story but tries to be ; in vain .
116 Reviews
A vapid meditation on simplistic love.
barryagilbert20 January 2003
I loved "The Celebration" and was very disappointed when I saw this at Sundance. In brief, this suffers from the same delusion as "Eyes Wide Shut": namely that implication = meaning. There is implied tension, implied sexuality and an implied conspiracy, none of which are delved into, and a barrage of imagery that is neither satisfactorily abstract nor clearly explicated. Joaquin Phoenix is too passive to be much of a lead and Claire Danes, while beautiful, lacks depth. The picture IS gorgeous, and kudos to the DP and design team.
The artistic revolution eats its children...
sarastro719 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have just watched "It's All About Love", and while I generally appreciate the recent Danish slew of art movies, this was one that just didn't do it for me. I was bored throughout most of it. Parts I got, other parts I was very confused by. The whole thing with the world freezing over because of lack of love is clear enough, and the point is well taken, although nothing much was done with this point besides simply stating it. No remedy was offered. There should have been a way out by letting John and Elena get back together again, rediscovering their love, but even though this happened, the world was (apparently) still doomed.
As for the Elena doppelgangers and their assassination - I just have no idea what that was about. None. Sure, some bad greedy people tried to exploit her by finding and training doppelgangers (they weren't actually clones, were they?), which contributed to the diluting of genuine human emotion and identity - but who was the assassin, why did he shoot the wrong Elenas, and why didn't it make any difference in the end that the real one escaped? And what about the first doppelganger, who didn't seem to be the same kind as the ones that were shot? These things I don't understand. And no, I didn't quite understand the thing about the flying Ugandans, either, although I suspect that the ability to fly symbolizes the ability to wonder and see the beauty of the world - which is the attitude that Sean Penn's character chiefly embodies. But he can't save the world, either. Do the flying Ugandans represent some last sliver of hope that love can be kept alive? After all, the shot of them flying only comes after the rest of the movie has ended... Well, I don't know. Even if this is the case, it feels hollow and inconsequential.
The movie struck me as artistically ambitious, but also artistically naive. It kept emphasizing obvious things, while at the same time introducing confusing things that didn't make sense. I was apprehensive while watching it, waiting for something interesting and fairly sensible to happen, but it never did. I was never surprised, because weirdness was something I was expecting. But I wanted some kind of possible explanation of the most grating weirdness, and I didn't get that.
(I will say, though, that unlike some commenters, I found the acting to be very good all-round, and I think the accents worked well. This just couldn't save the underwhelming impact of a strangely structured movie.)
European art movies often want to be art rather than entertainment, not realizing that they could and should be both at the same time. It seems more important for the film-makers to distance themselves from the Hollywood type of product than to create something that will feel good to the audience while also enlightening them artistically. I have to decry that attitude as stubborn, immature, puritanical, elitist and pseudo-intellectual - despite the fact that I like a great deal of these movies. The only thing they lack in order to be perfect is proper *entertainment value*, which is another area where "It's All About Love" falls grievous short. It's goddamn boring. The best art movies are the ones disguised as terrific romps - movies like Matrix, The Fifth Element, Fight Club, O Brother Where Art Thou. Great movies that can be watched over and over, giving their underlying messages the maximum opportunity to sink in. Also, a good movie must be upbeat. It is not an absolute rule, but it is a *generally* true one. People will eat up the message if they're enjoying watching it, and feel good at the end of it. I'm not saying tragedies are bad, but they are an art form that primarily belongs in the past. People need to be cheered up in this day and age. Otherwise the descent into the numbing apathy represented by the developing ice age in "It's All About Love" becomes the most obvious reaction. We don't want downers, we want uppers! If you, the artists, have something important to tell us, put it into an entertaining package! If you can't do that, maybe you haven't got what it takes to be an artist after all, because that's how the most effective art works! Y'all need to study your Shakespeare to see how it's done.
My rating for "It's All About Love": 5 out of 10. It's on to something, but ultimately it disappoints.
(Edit: It struck me later that one way in which this movie *does* make sense, is if the ice and cold represent love. It would jibe well with the movie's title, and we do see a glass of water freeze over when the characters make love. Based on the way Vinterberg uses symbols in his subsequent movie, "Dear Wendy", it makes sense that he would use artistic devices that reverse our usual perception. If this is the case for "It's All About Love", then the on-coming ice age actually represents a realm of love descending on the world. Would be nice if that were to be the case!)
As for the Elena doppelgangers and their assassination - I just have no idea what that was about. None. Sure, some bad greedy people tried to exploit her by finding and training doppelgangers (they weren't actually clones, were they?), which contributed to the diluting of genuine human emotion and identity - but who was the assassin, why did he shoot the wrong Elenas, and why didn't it make any difference in the end that the real one escaped? And what about the first doppelganger, who didn't seem to be the same kind as the ones that were shot? These things I don't understand. And no, I didn't quite understand the thing about the flying Ugandans, either, although I suspect that the ability to fly symbolizes the ability to wonder and see the beauty of the world - which is the attitude that Sean Penn's character chiefly embodies. But he can't save the world, either. Do the flying Ugandans represent some last sliver of hope that love can be kept alive? After all, the shot of them flying only comes after the rest of the movie has ended... Well, I don't know. Even if this is the case, it feels hollow and inconsequential.
The movie struck me as artistically ambitious, but also artistically naive. It kept emphasizing obvious things, while at the same time introducing confusing things that didn't make sense. I was apprehensive while watching it, waiting for something interesting and fairly sensible to happen, but it never did. I was never surprised, because weirdness was something I was expecting. But I wanted some kind of possible explanation of the most grating weirdness, and I didn't get that.
(I will say, though, that unlike some commenters, I found the acting to be very good all-round, and I think the accents worked well. This just couldn't save the underwhelming impact of a strangely structured movie.)
European art movies often want to be art rather than entertainment, not realizing that they could and should be both at the same time. It seems more important for the film-makers to distance themselves from the Hollywood type of product than to create something that will feel good to the audience while also enlightening them artistically. I have to decry that attitude as stubborn, immature, puritanical, elitist and pseudo-intellectual - despite the fact that I like a great deal of these movies. The only thing they lack in order to be perfect is proper *entertainment value*, which is another area where "It's All About Love" falls grievous short. It's goddamn boring. The best art movies are the ones disguised as terrific romps - movies like Matrix, The Fifth Element, Fight Club, O Brother Where Art Thou. Great movies that can be watched over and over, giving their underlying messages the maximum opportunity to sink in. Also, a good movie must be upbeat. It is not an absolute rule, but it is a *generally* true one. People will eat up the message if they're enjoying watching it, and feel good at the end of it. I'm not saying tragedies are bad, but they are an art form that primarily belongs in the past. People need to be cheered up in this day and age. Otherwise the descent into the numbing apathy represented by the developing ice age in "It's All About Love" becomes the most obvious reaction. We don't want downers, we want uppers! If you, the artists, have something important to tell us, put it into an entertaining package! If you can't do that, maybe you haven't got what it takes to be an artist after all, because that's how the most effective art works! Y'all need to study your Shakespeare to see how it's done.
My rating for "It's All About Love": 5 out of 10. It's on to something, but ultimately it disappoints.
(Edit: It struck me later that one way in which this movie *does* make sense, is if the ice and cold represent love. It would jibe well with the movie's title, and we do see a glass of water freeze over when the characters make love. Based on the way Vinterberg uses symbols in his subsequent movie, "Dear Wendy", it makes sense that he would use artistic devices that reverse our usual perception. If this is the case for "It's All About Love", then the on-coming ice age actually represents a realm of love descending on the world. Would be nice if that were to be the case!)
And the Oscar for this year's strangest film goes to...
Freedomisanillusion20 October 2004
'It's All About Love' is a true oddity. It feels almost like someone recorded all the strange ideas that came into their head for a week, and chose a common topic, i.e. 'Love', and wrote a screenplay from their notes.
But that's not to say it's a bad movie.
In truth, I quite enjoyed it, although I came out of it feeling like I'd woken up from a dream, or possibly a nightmare.
It's quite unsettling.
The plot is both incredibly simple and incredibly complex:
John (Joaquin Phoenix) goes to New York to get a divorce from his famous figure skating wife, Elena (Claire Danes). While he's there, he notices that Elena seems to be in the middle of a vast conspiracy, and together they try to escape it, rediscovering their love at the same time.
The film is set in the near future, although it doesn't really need to be. I like the future in this film, because it's not radically different (except for flying Africans...go figure) but feels like twenty odd years from now. In the near future, people who are lonely or suffer a great loss will often drop dead. And the people of the near future merely walk over their bodies.
John and Elena are Polish, although they don't need to be. It adds certain poignancy, two foreigners not quite in place in a world that keeps putting them out of place.
Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes, while both very good (I think...it's hard to tell in a film as strange as this) could possibly have used some accent work. At times they speak with no accent at all, and it seems to distract.
On that note, I would like to point out how brilliant Claire Danes is. Ever since I saw Brokedown Palace, I have been astounded by her acting ability (although, that said, she doesn't do heart-wrenching crying very well). I won't spoil it, but under the circumstances of what happens to her character(s), she's incredible.
Also thrown into the mix is Sean Penn playing John's brother. I honestly couldn't see why he was in the movie, except maybe to oversee all the weather changes (think a far more subtle, low budget Day After Tomorrow with more meaning. For instance, it snows in New York in July, and there are days when all the fresh water freezes) I'm not saying it's a bad point, but another end that wasn't loose, but still needed tightening.
As I mentioned, the plot is incredibly complex. It twists a fair bit, until it seems to cut all things loose and start a new movie some twenty minutes before the ending. Still another way this movie unsettles me.
Visually, the film is stunning. It looks like a far more mainstream film than it obviously is. And while the film is beautiful, it still feels hard to watch, like there's something dreaded under the gloss.
If this reads as an ambiguous review, that's probably a good thing. I like this movie, quite a lot. But I also dislike it. It's easy to see why the DVD cost me $10.
I also like the fact that I own this movie before America even get an official release date. As an Australian, always open to release dates getting pushed back by three months, or movies being on DVD in America for about a year before we even get a theatrical release, this gives me a strange sense of superiority.
An incredibly strange movie and most certainly not everyone's cup of tea, I'll have to be careful of who I recommend this movie to. But see it yourself, as it's a movie that deserves an audience, just a very select one.
7/10
But that's not to say it's a bad movie.
In truth, I quite enjoyed it, although I came out of it feeling like I'd woken up from a dream, or possibly a nightmare.
It's quite unsettling.
The plot is both incredibly simple and incredibly complex:
John (Joaquin Phoenix) goes to New York to get a divorce from his famous figure skating wife, Elena (Claire Danes). While he's there, he notices that Elena seems to be in the middle of a vast conspiracy, and together they try to escape it, rediscovering their love at the same time.
The film is set in the near future, although it doesn't really need to be. I like the future in this film, because it's not radically different (except for flying Africans...go figure) but feels like twenty odd years from now. In the near future, people who are lonely or suffer a great loss will often drop dead. And the people of the near future merely walk over their bodies.
John and Elena are Polish, although they don't need to be. It adds certain poignancy, two foreigners not quite in place in a world that keeps putting them out of place.
Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes, while both very good (I think...it's hard to tell in a film as strange as this) could possibly have used some accent work. At times they speak with no accent at all, and it seems to distract.
On that note, I would like to point out how brilliant Claire Danes is. Ever since I saw Brokedown Palace, I have been astounded by her acting ability (although, that said, she doesn't do heart-wrenching crying very well). I won't spoil it, but under the circumstances of what happens to her character(s), she's incredible.
Also thrown into the mix is Sean Penn playing John's brother. I honestly couldn't see why he was in the movie, except maybe to oversee all the weather changes (think a far more subtle, low budget Day After Tomorrow with more meaning. For instance, it snows in New York in July, and there are days when all the fresh water freezes) I'm not saying it's a bad point, but another end that wasn't loose, but still needed tightening.
As I mentioned, the plot is incredibly complex. It twists a fair bit, until it seems to cut all things loose and start a new movie some twenty minutes before the ending. Still another way this movie unsettles me.
Visually, the film is stunning. It looks like a far more mainstream film than it obviously is. And while the film is beautiful, it still feels hard to watch, like there's something dreaded under the gloss.
If this reads as an ambiguous review, that's probably a good thing. I like this movie, quite a lot. But I also dislike it. It's easy to see why the DVD cost me $10.
I also like the fact that I own this movie before America even get an official release date. As an Australian, always open to release dates getting pushed back by three months, or movies being on DVD in America for about a year before we even get a theatrical release, this gives me a strange sense of superiority.
An incredibly strange movie and most certainly not everyone's cup of tea, I'll have to be careful of who I recommend this movie to. But see it yourself, as it's a movie that deserves an audience, just a very select one.
7/10
all about stupid
zena-17 October 2007
This film is poor, unconvincing and boring. What a waste of good actors! What were they thinking to take part in this drivel? There are plot holes to drive a train through and contradictions such as "is there a telephone?" when he uses a cell phone in another scene. Among other inconsistencies there are poles who don't appear to speak Polish and a champion ice skater who smokes. Does the director really think that, in the future, smoking won't be a thing of the past?
Having said all that I can think of about this truly dreadful waste of time, I have to add that Joaquin Phoenix is one of my favorite actors and was the main reason I began to watch this garbage.
Having said all that I can think of about this truly dreadful waste of time, I have to add that Joaquin Phoenix is one of my favorite actors and was the main reason I began to watch this garbage.
weird, incomprehensible, nutty
eustfam29 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I went to watch the film because it had Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes, and Sean Penn in it. Lesson 1: I will never watch a film again just based on who the actors are--it is no guarantee that the film will be good.
Joaquin Phoenix' character is on the way to Canada but stops by New York to sign his divorce papers. First nutty scene: a dead man is being bounced back and forth on the last step of the escalator as Joaquin and entourage go down and Joaquin is told to "walk over the dead man"...just like that with a terse explanation that people fall dead of a broken heart--so that's where the title of the film comes in--it's all about love...i should have left the theater at this point but I thought i'd sit a while more to find out just what is love all about. My mistake...
This was the strangest film I have ever watched in my entire life--Elena clones (Claire Danes is Elena, the ice skating star), snow in New York, in July; snow in Africa; Africans flying literally and having to tie their feet with a piece of rope to keep them aground so to speak; and finally Sean Penn in a plane that can't land because of continuous snowing...
It is neither uplifting nor entertaining. Just painful and boring.
Joaquin Phoenix' character is on the way to Canada but stops by New York to sign his divorce papers. First nutty scene: a dead man is being bounced back and forth on the last step of the escalator as Joaquin and entourage go down and Joaquin is told to "walk over the dead man"...just like that with a terse explanation that people fall dead of a broken heart--so that's where the title of the film comes in--it's all about love...i should have left the theater at this point but I thought i'd sit a while more to find out just what is love all about. My mistake...
This was the strangest film I have ever watched in my entire life--Elena clones (Claire Danes is Elena, the ice skating star), snow in New York, in July; snow in Africa; Africans flying literally and having to tie their feet with a piece of rope to keep them aground so to speak; and finally Sean Penn in a plane that can't land because of continuous snowing...
It is neither uplifting nor entertaining. Just painful and boring.
Silly is the key word here!
samskara79 June 2013
This was so mediocre that I stopped watching after half an a hour of suffering. The movie is a collection of juvenile ideas that remind me of silly crap I would come up with back when I was a teenager and think it was ingenious but reflecting on it now only makes me cringe. Silly stuff like floating Ugandans and that TV report with that man saying something like "we are not angels we didn't choose to fly, we want to be on the ground just like you" with super dramatic music playing in the background was the epitome of stupid. Also that crap about everyone dying around because they lack love is equally retarded.
The plot is a joke and I figured most of it just from the half hour I saw (I actually was very surprised how accurate I was after checking IMDb, however, that had more to do with the laziness of the script writers than my "plot-guessing" abilities.)
To be avoided.
The plot is a joke and I figured most of it just from the half hour I saw (I actually was very surprised how accurate I was after checking IMDb, however, that had more to do with the laziness of the script writers than my "plot-guessing" abilities.)
To be avoided.
What the Ugandans and Sean Penne is all about
nzovu12 April 2006
Saw a re-run of this recently, followed by a Vinterberg interview, explaining some of the tough points to grasp: Sean Penn represents the detached modern human being who has given up earthly matters (like love) to be forever on the move. He is Modern Man: insightful, charming, reflective. always moving - but has lost his grounding. The Ugandans? Vinterberg is disgusted with modern man's ability to disregard the suffering of others (witness also the dead bodies that everyone just steps right over): The disconnection is so complete that, for all we know, all the poor Africans might as well be - yes, exactly, flying.
Better off dying before seeing this movie so the time isn't so seemingly eternal.
matthew-a-jones9 December 2005
Holy crap. I don't know where this came from, but I think that the actors and actresses were held at gunpoint to make this film - I can't possibly think that they voluntarily decided on this script.
I think the movie producer(s) decided that they wanted to make a movie about the end of the world, a person who couldn't get off airplanes, floating Ugandans, and clones, and then got with some script writers and was like: "let's see how we can make this work!" Watching this movie was like slitting my wrists while hanging from my toenails. The only reason I finished watching it, was because I was sure that they were going to make sense of it all, or at least explain what the hell Sean Penn was doing in the movie (his role made absolute zero sense).
Alas, they succeeded in stealing my $4.37 (or whatever it costs to rent from Blockbuster), without giving me an ounce of entertainment (save for one of the clones getting shot in the backside on the ice rink).
If you are interested in wasting a few hours of your time, I suggest getting into the long line at the Department of Transportation just for kicks before selecting this flick.
I think the movie producer(s) decided that they wanted to make a movie about the end of the world, a person who couldn't get off airplanes, floating Ugandans, and clones, and then got with some script writers and was like: "let's see how we can make this work!" Watching this movie was like slitting my wrists while hanging from my toenails. The only reason I finished watching it, was because I was sure that they were going to make sense of it all, or at least explain what the hell Sean Penn was doing in the movie (his role made absolute zero sense).
Alas, they succeeded in stealing my $4.37 (or whatever it costs to rent from Blockbuster), without giving me an ounce of entertainment (save for one of the clones getting shot in the backside on the ice rink).
If you are interested in wasting a few hours of your time, I suggest getting into the long line at the Department of Transportation just for kicks before selecting this flick.
Beautifully constructed, but why?
paul2001sw-112 February 2007
Lars von Trier, who invented the minimalist film movement Dogme, followed up his own Dogme film with a musical. It's a sign that the ideas of the movement sprung from a general interest in how films are made, rather than a commitment to minimalism per se; and the same thing can also be seen in Thomas Vinterberg's post-Dogme film 'It's All About Love', which does have a certain minimalist aesthetic, but which is made with all of the tools available to the modern film-maker that the Dogme movement so consciously abandoned. And in spite of it's dreadfully uninspiring title, it turns out to be an interesting movie: stylised, beautifully constructed, and engagingly mysterious. Vinterberg proves himself to be a master of mood, creating scenes of a tender, haunting beauty but backed by a vague sense of menace. But judged purely as a thriller, the film is less good, because the menace and mystery never coalesce into something more certain, what we have here is images of a storyline, but no real story: things happen in sequence, and sometimes we are allowed to understand why, but it's unclear that there is a larger whole waiting to be discovered. Instead, we are presented with the illusion of fragments, beautifully executed (and Claire Daines in particular plays her role well), but without any necessary (visible or invisible) connectedness. The overall result could not be called great; but it is ambitious, distinctive, and directed with no little skill.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
HeywoodPoole2 April 2003
Dumb, boring, pretentious and incomprehensible. It was so bad I laughed out load several times. The last shot is so incongruous and is the perfect icing on the cake for one of the worst movies of all time. Too bad I loved "Festen". Talented guy, dumb move. Better luck next time.
A film that really is 'about love' than just a cheesy portrayal
Chris_Docker25 February 2004
If Dogville shows the new directions taken by Director Lars von Trier since Dogme, It's All About Love shows the very different creativity of Dogme co-founder Thomas Vinterberg.
John (Joaquin Phoenix) is planning to meet his wife Elena between flights in order to have divorce papers signed. Their marriage has broken down some years ago. It is as if their 'calendars are written in different languages.' Things are not what they seem. And things don't go as planned.
It's All About Love is set in the near future but defies the sci-fi or any other genre tag. Attention is focussed on the title, what love is really about. What happens when a relationship ends? When you still love' someone but no longer want to be part of each other's world? When the other person seems like almost another person to the one you knew? It's All about Love looks at parallel emotional dislocation and its extension into the physical world, a world near the brink of cosmic collapse. It contains images of stunning beauty and is also jarring and artistically innovative. It's probably also the quirkiest movie since David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.
John (Joaquin Phoenix) is planning to meet his wife Elena between flights in order to have divorce papers signed. Their marriage has broken down some years ago. It is as if their 'calendars are written in different languages.' Things are not what they seem. And things don't go as planned.
It's All About Love is set in the near future but defies the sci-fi or any other genre tag. Attention is focussed on the title, what love is really about. What happens when a relationship ends? When you still love' someone but no longer want to be part of each other's world? When the other person seems like almost another person to the one you knew? It's All about Love looks at parallel emotional dislocation and its extension into the physical world, a world near the brink of cosmic collapse. It contains images of stunning beauty and is also jarring and artistically innovative. It's probably also the quirkiest movie since David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.
A promising debut... if it was...
peterlind22 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
NOTE: This commentary may contain spoilers, if you haven't even seen the trailer for the movie.
It's All About Love seems strangely like a very talented filmmaker's first ambitious try to make a 'real movie'. If I knew nothing about Thomas Vinterberg, I would say, that he has a promising future... However, he has already made 3 impressing movies, so this one seems like a strange step backwards. In many ways it reminded me of Donnie Darko, both in structure and subject - and presumably in the creators' wish to entertain, while telling the audience, exactly what is wrong with this world.
And that might be "It's All About Love"'s problem, it is too exact. There is thick obvious symbolisms, as we in the first minutes are told that people drop dead on the streets, because of something with their hearts. Human beings /people are no longer important in this world, they are only regarded as means for other people to increase their income. Yes I understand that, and I totally agree with Vinterberg and Rukov in their view of the corporate world. But thats about it - there are nothing more, no conflicts, no drama, no personal involvement from any of the characters, even the two main characters, John and Elena, never get down and personal - they too seem cold and forlorn in this doomed world, so what's the point ? Maybe it's me, maybe I am too cynical, maybe it is too long time ago I've felt love inside, but I had expected something more, something a bit more engaging, enraging - something along the lines of Terry Gilliam's Brazil - something like Kubricks 2001 - something that I could discuss with friends for the next couple of years...
But instead I get this half-a-movie. It is indeed very promising. Vinterberg seems a big Hitchcock fan - The movie is somewhat reminiscent of North by Northwest (which has a strange coldness and don't-case-ness in all its actors, that Vinterberg seems to have recreated here) - He is also a big Kubrick fan, there is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this movie, apart from the sexual fantasies. And he has some very creative ideas all by himself, but they aren't really used for much more than showing the audience that he has some very creative ideas.
I've been told that Mogens Rukov (cowriter, and professor of screenwriting at the National Filmschool of Denmark, doesn't like completed movies. He prefers an unfinished story, that he himself can edit and change into something better. Maybe It's All About Love is a bit more Rukov than Vinterberg. Because, in spite of my general disappointment of this movie, it inspired me. It made me want to write another story about the coldness of this world. If that was the premise of the movie, then it most certainly has succeeded, if it was meant to entertain, and provoke, then it has not.
I still hope that Vinterberg will go on and make movies that we don't expect, but I also hope that he'll remember to make them entertaining.
-Peter Lind
It's All About Love seems strangely like a very talented filmmaker's first ambitious try to make a 'real movie'. If I knew nothing about Thomas Vinterberg, I would say, that he has a promising future... However, he has already made 3 impressing movies, so this one seems like a strange step backwards. In many ways it reminded me of Donnie Darko, both in structure and subject - and presumably in the creators' wish to entertain, while telling the audience, exactly what is wrong with this world.
And that might be "It's All About Love"'s problem, it is too exact. There is thick obvious symbolisms, as we in the first minutes are told that people drop dead on the streets, because of something with their hearts. Human beings /people are no longer important in this world, they are only regarded as means for other people to increase their income. Yes I understand that, and I totally agree with Vinterberg and Rukov in their view of the corporate world. But thats about it - there are nothing more, no conflicts, no drama, no personal involvement from any of the characters, even the two main characters, John and Elena, never get down and personal - they too seem cold and forlorn in this doomed world, so what's the point ? Maybe it's me, maybe I am too cynical, maybe it is too long time ago I've felt love inside, but I had expected something more, something a bit more engaging, enraging - something along the lines of Terry Gilliam's Brazil - something like Kubricks 2001 - something that I could discuss with friends for the next couple of years...
But instead I get this half-a-movie. It is indeed very promising. Vinterberg seems a big Hitchcock fan - The movie is somewhat reminiscent of North by Northwest (which has a strange coldness and don't-case-ness in all its actors, that Vinterberg seems to have recreated here) - He is also a big Kubrick fan, there is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this movie, apart from the sexual fantasies. And he has some very creative ideas all by himself, but they aren't really used for much more than showing the audience that he has some very creative ideas.
I've been told that Mogens Rukov (cowriter, and professor of screenwriting at the National Filmschool of Denmark, doesn't like completed movies. He prefers an unfinished story, that he himself can edit and change into something better. Maybe It's All About Love is a bit more Rukov than Vinterberg. Because, in spite of my general disappointment of this movie, it inspired me. It made me want to write another story about the coldness of this world. If that was the premise of the movie, then it most certainly has succeeded, if it was meant to entertain, and provoke, then it has not.
I still hope that Vinterberg will go on and make movies that we don't expect, but I also hope that he'll remember to make them entertaining.
-Peter Lind
Dreadful and pretentious
BuckminsterFievre5 May 2007
First, the good news. The photography and lighting are lush and beautiful. I can see why Anthony Dod Mantle got the nod for Last King of Scotland.
Otherwise, by the time the credits rolled, not only didn't I care about these characters ... I wanted to see them dead. I didn't care if they were shot, frozen to death, or died of lung cancer from the non-stop smoking.
Not bad enough? Sean Penn's part seems like it was tacked on as an afterthought. We're supposed to believe this story unfolds nearly two decades in the future ... but oddly, all the cars and clothes look like it's 2003. We're supposed to believe there are a number of clones of Claire Danes's character ... but they barely look like her. There's a global catastrophe afoot ... but it's mostly a big yawn.
In short, the entire undertaking is confused and pointless. I want these 104 minutes of my life back.
Otherwise, by the time the credits rolled, not only didn't I care about these characters ... I wanted to see them dead. I didn't care if they were shot, frozen to death, or died of lung cancer from the non-stop smoking.
Not bad enough? Sean Penn's part seems like it was tacked on as an afterthought. We're supposed to believe this story unfolds nearly two decades in the future ... but oddly, all the cars and clothes look like it's 2003. We're supposed to believe there are a number of clones of Claire Danes's character ... but they barely look like her. There's a global catastrophe afoot ... but it's mostly a big yawn.
In short, the entire undertaking is confused and pointless. I want these 104 minutes of my life back.
Single & Single meets Lost in Translation
hshowe29 December 2005
The one movie I've seen in the last 2 years that doesn't actually telegraph what's happening 2 frames ahead. i took the wrong fork in the mystery, got surprised, loved the production values, enjoyed some great music, the best mood music with ice since Smilla's sense of snow, and a video store find turned out to be the best in 4 rentals.
This movie got slammed by a lot of critics, who seemed to resist what the director was trying to present. life is a well choreographed, visually designed mystery with randomness thrown in. The terrestrial back story to the anomie in the societal makeup brings the character;s focus and hope in clearer definition.
is the headline craziness in this film any weirder than what's actually in the headlines today? There is a post-Katrina resonance to the topography agitating for notice in the periphery, and i actually wondered if it was written by Philip K Dick, there is a first-The Matrix freshness here that backs up our suspicions, that nightmare incidence of a look over your shoulder, when not only is something there, but it's not good, and you can actually see all the way down its gaping maw.
see it.
This movie got slammed by a lot of critics, who seemed to resist what the director was trying to present. life is a well choreographed, visually designed mystery with randomness thrown in. The terrestrial back story to the anomie in the societal makeup brings the character;s focus and hope in clearer definition.
is the headline craziness in this film any weirder than what's actually in the headlines today? There is a post-Katrina resonance to the topography agitating for notice in the periphery, and i actually wondered if it was written by Philip K Dick, there is a first-The Matrix freshness here that backs up our suspicions, that nightmare incidence of a look over your shoulder, when not only is something there, but it's not good, and you can actually see all the way down its gaping maw.
see it.
Don't bother with this movie
flicbuff31 May 2006
This is a really rotten movie. The other reviewer is being much too lenient. There aren't just loose ends in this movie, there are loose screws for which the concepts of completely unexplained flying Ugandans and days when all and I mean all fresh water suddenly freezes qualify (question: does it also happen when it's just been put in your stomach?) The presence of the otherwise excellent actors here is truly puzzling although Sean Penn is extraneous to the movie and does forget to put on a Polish accent. In sum, the plot is nonsensical, sort of like watching just one episode only of "Lost". For you who have not yet utterly wasted your time on this, Don't.
A very strange and hard to follow film.
bizzjohn31 December 2005
I like weird movies that are hard to follow...as long as they make some sense and have some logic for their own created worlds at least. I've grown up with studying David Lynch films. I know surreal. However this movie, "It's All About Love" is one of the strangest and hard to comprehend movies I've ever seen. Its jumps ahead with its story with amazing lack of clarity and explanations, all the while assuming the viewer knows everything thats going on up to that point. I assure you most viewers will be basically lost from start to finish and long after. I like the two lead actors. I like the look of the film. Its the plot that needs a lot of fixing up. That said, I still found it a very interesting movie and while I was struggling hard to comprehend what in the blazes was going on in the movie, it did keep my attention. I was hoping for some bizarre, weird, or even sad ending to at least marginally give me a clue as to what I was struggling to understand, but alas in the end, I was left with total dumbfounded gawking that it ended where it did, and had no idea why...Still, somehow, I kinda liked it.
No Payoff in a Long Journey
imdb-150598 August 2006
So many critics of It's All About Love have discussed the obvious. The script has issues etc... What I found most bothersome was that after all the main characters go through; there is no real pay-off for you the viewer staying with the story. You get to a point where you wonder what is the plot? Is it really that the husband must save his wife? What is her specific danger? When things do unfurl, those answers only spur more questions. I'm not kidding. This was annoying but I stayed with the story assuming and hoping the new questions would have suitable answers. They never come.
Modern day movie viewers don't expect directors to fill in all the blanks anymore, but in this case I can't think of one that was filled in. Therefore I had no way of cross referencing for my own answers.
To this end I can't recommend the film despite its artistic value. And yes the dialogue was not written well especially for Sean Penn's character. If you have a movie rental plan then sure give this a shot out of curiosity, otherwise it may be OK for a couple to watch that is patient with weak story lines.
The pacing is perhaps the only thing I could identify in keeping with modern movie-making. You get weak character development at best. One character is a brother to the female lead and it means nothing to reveal it late. It has ZERO bearing to reveal his motivation by being a brother. This is not a spoiler as it really has no impact. I say this to make the point... the film maker seemed to be reaching for any twist he could create for some suspense in this would be dramatic suspense film. The saving grace is the actors in this film whom dutifully portray people in difficult circumstances with bad dialogue in which to communicate their plight which turns out to be almost trivial until we get our only plot twist near the end which again goes un-answered. If you can deal with questions upon questions, then this is a ground-breaking film. You get served up with yet another "why?" question at the near end when you witness the fate of the main characters. And you'll have at least three questions "why?" when it happens.
While the story was inoffensive it simply didn't deliver on any other level except your hope and cinematography.
Calling this film It's All About Love may be fitting but hardly appropriate.
Modern day movie viewers don't expect directors to fill in all the blanks anymore, but in this case I can't think of one that was filled in. Therefore I had no way of cross referencing for my own answers.
To this end I can't recommend the film despite its artistic value. And yes the dialogue was not written well especially for Sean Penn's character. If you have a movie rental plan then sure give this a shot out of curiosity, otherwise it may be OK for a couple to watch that is patient with weak story lines.
The pacing is perhaps the only thing I could identify in keeping with modern movie-making. You get weak character development at best. One character is a brother to the female lead and it means nothing to reveal it late. It has ZERO bearing to reveal his motivation by being a brother. This is not a spoiler as it really has no impact. I say this to make the point... the film maker seemed to be reaching for any twist he could create for some suspense in this would be dramatic suspense film. The saving grace is the actors in this film whom dutifully portray people in difficult circumstances with bad dialogue in which to communicate their plight which turns out to be almost trivial until we get our only plot twist near the end which again goes un-answered. If you can deal with questions upon questions, then this is a ground-breaking film. You get served up with yet another "why?" question at the near end when you witness the fate of the main characters. And you'll have at least three questions "why?" when it happens.
While the story was inoffensive it simply didn't deliver on any other level except your hope and cinematography.
Calling this film It's All About Love may be fitting but hardly appropriate.
A Ballerina Dancing in Snow
RainStar_Anahita2 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
We all want love after all. We want family bounds and people to rely on, friends who support us and stick with us when we are in trouble.
This was all about love. The separation was a disease and Eleana (Clair Danes) who worked hard to gain a successful career as a ballerina, got weaker and weaker as the result of not having the love she desired in her life, the love of being a white bride, purity, youth and togetherness with someone she loved.... May be she realised it when it was too late, when she was no longer wanted by the media, corporations who made money out of her talent; when she felt she was missing that long wanted link, to be attached to someone she loved.
When John (Joaquin Phoenix)came back to get his divorce paper signed, it was too late, her heart already was weak, the disease was in an advanced stage. She tried to cure it, she tried to quit her job, but the people who used her including her brother betrayed her behind her back.
So from Eleana's point of view, all she wanted was her life and happiness back. From David and Arthur's point of views, it was all about making money, no matter how many lives would be ruined; they were using people as their business tools. But from John's point of view, it was all about love. You could see in his eyes when he was watching Eleana that how he cared and how he longed for her, and that was the reason he left, because he loved her and he wanted her happiness and success. And finally that was the reason he got involved in the end.
The Ugandans were symbolic to my view, something in John's imagination... He saw them on television screens and when he was dying. He saw them attaching themselves near each other to the place they were born so that they stay as a family and not to separate, to keep love! The fact that John's brother lived in aeroplanes and always in the sky showed the result of this family dis-attachment and confirmed that even when people leave each other, they still think about each other all the time, in their isolation and they still try to make sense by keeping contact...
At the end... we hear John's brother (Sean Penn) trying to communicate with John .... "You are probably somewhere in snow... you are probably somewhere sleeping." So deep inside family members have this connection and that is why by separating families and disconnecting people from love, the world is going to be a very cold place to be and people finish their lives in isolation and from a cold heart somewhere and this would become so natural that no one will care after all.
This also proved that even when these four family members tried to get together at one point, they did not really make it and that killed John and Eleana. In distance Michael, Eleana's brother died in storm and John's brother was in a plane that could not land anywhere at all as everywhere was snowing... so he was going to die as well...
Love is something that has to bound all of us humans together and if we are not connected, sooner or later, the life stops metaphorically and in this film symbolically.
This was all about love. The separation was a disease and Eleana (Clair Danes) who worked hard to gain a successful career as a ballerina, got weaker and weaker as the result of not having the love she desired in her life, the love of being a white bride, purity, youth and togetherness with someone she loved.... May be she realised it when it was too late, when she was no longer wanted by the media, corporations who made money out of her talent; when she felt she was missing that long wanted link, to be attached to someone she loved.
When John (Joaquin Phoenix)came back to get his divorce paper signed, it was too late, her heart already was weak, the disease was in an advanced stage. She tried to cure it, she tried to quit her job, but the people who used her including her brother betrayed her behind her back.
So from Eleana's point of view, all she wanted was her life and happiness back. From David and Arthur's point of views, it was all about making money, no matter how many lives would be ruined; they were using people as their business tools. But from John's point of view, it was all about love. You could see in his eyes when he was watching Eleana that how he cared and how he longed for her, and that was the reason he left, because he loved her and he wanted her happiness and success. And finally that was the reason he got involved in the end.
The Ugandans were symbolic to my view, something in John's imagination... He saw them on television screens and when he was dying. He saw them attaching themselves near each other to the place they were born so that they stay as a family and not to separate, to keep love! The fact that John's brother lived in aeroplanes and always in the sky showed the result of this family dis-attachment and confirmed that even when people leave each other, they still think about each other all the time, in their isolation and they still try to make sense by keeping contact...
At the end... we hear John's brother (Sean Penn) trying to communicate with John .... "You are probably somewhere in snow... you are probably somewhere sleeping." So deep inside family members have this connection and that is why by separating families and disconnecting people from love, the world is going to be a very cold place to be and people finish their lives in isolation and from a cold heart somewhere and this would become so natural that no one will care after all.
This also proved that even when these four family members tried to get together at one point, they did not really make it and that killed John and Eleana. In distance Michael, Eleana's brother died in storm and John's brother was in a plane that could not land anywhere at all as everywhere was snowing... so he was going to die as well...
Love is something that has to bound all of us humans together and if we are not connected, sooner or later, the life stops metaphorically and in this film symbolically.
This movie was awful, disjointed, painfully slow and incredibly pointless
pwiniarz10 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I watched it and I could not make sense of any of it. He wants a divorce, she is career driven and does not want to be "replaced" but wants to stay married and committed to this man and wants to escape with him??? So confusing and all over the board! There is no point to this movie. It was written in 2 1/2 yrs? If that is true, the author never went back to review where his story was going before committing to a forward plot line! When he did, an eraser was not an option, but trying to explain it with another confusing plot twist was. Not worth the cellulose it was filmed on or the paper the script was printed on. The movie Sahara had better continuity and believability! Do not waste your time, enough people have already.
It's all about delusions of grandeur
MikkelD11 July 2003
It is truly amazing how Thomas Vinterberg can go from a great film such as Festen to such a horrible piece of "wannabe-Kubrick"-crap.. Visually, this movie is very very beautiful. Great camerawork and great cinematography but the story and the acting is absolutely terrible. Joaquin Phoenix delivers a very superficial performance as if he never really had the time to get into his character (or maybe he just didn't understand it...). The plot (Elena-clones) is simply ridiculous and it's all so far out that you never really get to care about the characters or the development of the storyline.
The flying people of Uganda are cool though... And I love the idea that Penn has gotten an "anti-flying-fear-overdose" which means that he can only fly... However, his character is as absurd as the rest of the movie.
Vinterberg has gotten delusions of grandeur and has created a confusing and unimportant movie..
The flying people of Uganda are cool though... And I love the idea that Penn has gotten an "anti-flying-fear-overdose" which means that he can only fly... However, his character is as absurd as the rest of the movie.
Vinterberg has gotten delusions of grandeur and has created a confusing and unimportant movie..
How not to write, act, direct... score is nice, pretty too
rlindsl4 September 2005
If it is all about love, then where is the love of the audience? There are two stories here co-joined in the most hideous and thoughtless of manners. In the first plot line we have a figure skater held captive by her family and forced to skate in spite of a heart condition that she doesn't know about
And then the estranged husband returns to get divorce papers signed, and he helps her to escape (which is what I should have done myself 10 minutes into it!) There's more extra crap in this plot line that doesn't develop either.
Plot line #2, the planet has lost gravity, selected people only, (except they float up so they got thems the antigravity- you tards!) in Uganda. (where are physicists without borders?) People die because their hearts are lonely. It snows in July in NYC. "You see peoples' hearts reflect the chaos of the world around them." which must have seemed profound when written under the influence of (?)Vodka, X, Blow, D-all-of-the-above. Modern polish existential drop-out curse the society's heartlessness, the planet is dying can't you see. All we need is love.
How did Claire and Joaquin get themselves into this? Is it sheer pride that makes these two think that they make this poop shine? It's a job? The skinny Penn brother has a remarkably stupid role with accent to go with it.
This is to movies what spam is to E-mail, keep it out of your in-box.
Plot line #2, the planet has lost gravity, selected people only, (except they float up so they got thems the antigravity- you tards!) in Uganda. (where are physicists without borders?) People die because their hearts are lonely. It snows in July in NYC. "You see peoples' hearts reflect the chaos of the world around them." which must have seemed profound when written under the influence of (?)Vodka, X, Blow, D-all-of-the-above. Modern polish existential drop-out curse the society's heartlessness, the planet is dying can't you see. All we need is love.
How did Claire and Joaquin get themselves into this? Is it sheer pride that makes these two think that they make this poop shine? It's a job? The skinny Penn brother has a remarkably stupid role with accent to go with it.
This is to movies what spam is to E-mail, keep it out of your in-box.
Did John kill Elena?
bitterbufallo23 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My second time watching the movie I picked up a lot more than I did the first time. The ending in particular seemed more tragic the second time through because I noticed that John may have been able to save Elena. Maybe not from the apocalypse, but from her disease of the heart. I might be seeing hints where none exist, however if you pay close attention to the acting and narrative in the film you may notice what I am talking about.
Just another warning, this part contains huge spoilers. Read this after you see the movie!
Evidence that John could have saved Elena:
-When John first meets the clones, the one with the knife screams "You killed her!" This line caught my attention, since it could be foreshadowing that he does kill her later in the film.
-After Michael leaves he dies very quickly in an extremely heavy blizzard. It is clear that what he really dies from is his heart problem. He is cut off from everyone he loves. Elena and John have abandoned him, he is rejected by the rest of his family, and he is feeling a horrible sense of guilt for his betrayal. After he dies we cut to a scene of Elena and John who are dancing on the ice. They are both happy, the scene is serene, and the weather is almost perfectly calm. The question then is, why didn't Elena and John both perish in the same storm that Michael died in? The reason may be that the storm and cold are somewhat subjective. In other words the storm may vary from person to person depending upon the condition of their heart. It may even be that those dead on the street experienced the storm and cold, while others around them were unaffected.
-When they are dancing on the lake, notice that Elena is perfectly happy and energetic one moment, but as soon as John lets go of her she looks completely tired and exhausted (great acting by Claire!). She then kind of lags behind John all the time that they are walking. They start to become separated and as a result Elena's heart gets worse. This scene, if I am correct, is a sort of microcosm of the movie itself. They would have been perfectly happy if they would have just stayed there dancing and experiencing love for one another, but instead John decides that they need to start going somewhere. It is the embodiment of what Marciello says: "We should have just stayed by the lake in Poland".
-We are at the scene were Elena is Dying. We think that she has died, but then John cries over her and finally kisses her forehead. She immediately wakes up and says "What is happening, John". It was heartbreaking to realize, but it seemed that her surprise was from her heart getting better! She is at the brink of death and the kiss on the forehead brings her back for a moment. John however does not realize this, and tries to comfort her. He props his head up and the connection between them is gone. When he resumes crying over her again she is already dead.
Conclusion: Once you put together all these subtle hints you have a very interesting and very tragic ending. John might have been able to save her, but instead he weakened her heart by sending Michael away and continuing to travel when he should have been giving her love and affection. Even a simple kiss at the last moment might have revitalized her.
Even if they were going to die no matter what, they would have been much better off spending their last few hours alive with each other, rather walking to nowhere.
I see their trek through the winter forest as a metaphor for life. We embark upon our own journeys to find such things as fame, wealth, or status. We may get lost on the way or find that once we get there it is not important. We waste so much time trying to get to these places, but yet the time would be so much better spent with those we love.
Maybe I am right about John killing Elena, maybe I am not. Watch the movie again and judge for yourself.
If this movie completely confuses you, remember that it is not a movie that should be taken literally. It is a dream, and dreams tend to present information in a fragmented and cryptic manner. You may be confused simply because you do not have the right experiences or knowledge in life to interpret this dream. This is a brilliant movie, but to recognize it as thus you need to appreciate beauty, understand metaphor, recognize subtlety, and use whatever intelligence you have. In case you cannot do that though, ill just tell you right now that it's all about love.
Just another warning, this part contains huge spoilers. Read this after you see the movie!
Evidence that John could have saved Elena:
-When John first meets the clones, the one with the knife screams "You killed her!" This line caught my attention, since it could be foreshadowing that he does kill her later in the film.
- Marciello (Sean Penn) says on the plane something along the lines of "John, you can save her. Kiss her John." Could this be hinting that kissing her would cure or ameliorate her heart problems? -Relating to the previous comment, notice that through their whole trek through the winter forest not once do they kiss.
-After Michael leaves he dies very quickly in an extremely heavy blizzard. It is clear that what he really dies from is his heart problem. He is cut off from everyone he loves. Elena and John have abandoned him, he is rejected by the rest of his family, and he is feeling a horrible sense of guilt for his betrayal. After he dies we cut to a scene of Elena and John who are dancing on the ice. They are both happy, the scene is serene, and the weather is almost perfectly calm. The question then is, why didn't Elena and John both perish in the same storm that Michael died in? The reason may be that the storm and cold are somewhat subjective. In other words the storm may vary from person to person depending upon the condition of their heart. It may even be that those dead on the street experienced the storm and cold, while others around them were unaffected.
-When they are dancing on the lake, notice that Elena is perfectly happy and energetic one moment, but as soon as John lets go of her she looks completely tired and exhausted (great acting by Claire!). She then kind of lags behind John all the time that they are walking. They start to become separated and as a result Elena's heart gets worse. This scene, if I am correct, is a sort of microcosm of the movie itself. They would have been perfectly happy if they would have just stayed there dancing and experiencing love for one another, but instead John decides that they need to start going somewhere. It is the embodiment of what Marciello says: "We should have just stayed by the lake in Poland".
-We are at the scene were Elena is Dying. We think that she has died, but then John cries over her and finally kisses her forehead. She immediately wakes up and says "What is happening, John". It was heartbreaking to realize, but it seemed that her surprise was from her heart getting better! She is at the brink of death and the kiss on the forehead brings her back for a moment. John however does not realize this, and tries to comfort her. He props his head up and the connection between them is gone. When he resumes crying over her again she is already dead.
Conclusion: Once you put together all these subtle hints you have a very interesting and very tragic ending. John might have been able to save her, but instead he weakened her heart by sending Michael away and continuing to travel when he should have been giving her love and affection. Even a simple kiss at the last moment might have revitalized her.
Even if they were going to die no matter what, they would have been much better off spending their last few hours alive with each other, rather walking to nowhere.
I see their trek through the winter forest as a metaphor for life. We embark upon our own journeys to find such things as fame, wealth, or status. We may get lost on the way or find that once we get there it is not important. We waste so much time trying to get to these places, but yet the time would be so much better spent with those we love.
Maybe I am right about John killing Elena, maybe I am not. Watch the movie again and judge for yourself.
If this movie completely confuses you, remember that it is not a movie that should be taken literally. It is a dream, and dreams tend to present information in a fragmented and cryptic manner. You may be confused simply because you do not have the right experiences or knowledge in life to interpret this dream. This is a brilliant movie, but to recognize it as thus you need to appreciate beauty, understand metaphor, recognize subtlety, and use whatever intelligence you have. In case you cannot do that though, ill just tell you right now that it's all about love.
A beautiful love story set in a troubled future
lvp974930 January 2006
It's 2021 and earth is in trouble, experiencing weather anomalies and a reduction in the force of gravity. People are literally dropping dead in the streets from a "heart disease" that is the result of loneliness or the absence of friends and loved ones. John (Joaquin Phoenix) is meeting with his estranged wife, Elena (a famous figure skater) to get their divorce papers signed. He soon realizes that something is wrong; his wife is in danger. Johns goes into protector mode and as the two of them elude those who would harm her, their love is beautifully rekindled.
I loved this movie even though it made me sad. I don't think one viewing is enough since some of its subtleties escaped me. But I got the gist (it really is all about love) and will not minding watching it a few more times to figure it out. The performances of Claire and Joaquin make that worthwhile and rewarding.
I loved this movie even though it made me sad. I don't think one viewing is enough since some of its subtleties escaped me. But I got the gist (it really is all about love) and will not minding watching it a few more times to figure it out. The performances of Claire and Joaquin make that worthwhile and rewarding.
awful
moviesinparis2 July 2003
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
