Reviews

Well, I can't say I wasn't intrigued by Melancholia, and I can't say it's the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's very much not a masterpiece. If I had to describe the film's methodology, I'd say that it was made by a film student who had a great idea and way too much money to throw at it, with no editorial control. It's visually wonderful, with a prologue that runs like a music video, full of striking and portentous images, including CGI of the Earth being smashed into by a smaller planet, so it's no spoiler to say you know this movie is going to end badly. There's a rather big clue to this movie's biggest problem - the overblown ego of its writer and director - in that the movie is titled 'Lars Von Trier's Melancholia'.

The movie begins with Part 1, Justine. It all starts well - a little humour, interesting and realistic family and interpersonal relationships, the threads of various plot lines - but the humour is shortlived, the family relationships never clarified or expanded upon, and many interesting hints are never explored or resolved. Characters are introduced to be abandoned. We spend hours at Justine's wedding and at the end I couldn't say why we'd bothered. Everything of importance could have been much more effectively dealt with in a shorter timeframe. Part 2, Claire, is more gripping and actually has a plot, but it's not enough to redeem the waste of time that is Part 1. Add to this Von Trier's abuse of the viewer with torture by shaky-cam, a soundtrack that veered wildly from capturing every breath, snort or scratch to full-blown blasting of Wagner, and some scenes that were apparently meant to signify something but which don't ever clarify themselves, and you have a terribly frustrating two hours. I'd also like to note here that I've read a lot of the reviews and posts by people who loved this movie, and as far as I can see they didn't actually even follow the basic narrative - some are saying the tension at the wedding is because everyone knows Melancholia is on its way to smash them, but at this point no-one knows this yet. Justine doesn't, contrary to some claims, spot Melancholia as she goes into the reception - she spots Antares. Later, she notes it's gone - which is because Melancholia has moved in front of it. Frankly, I think if those who think it's so great can't even get the narrative correct, then I'm justified in disagreeing with their assessment of this film's quality.

If this were a film by a film student, you'd say 'Well, these are great ideas, and you've certainly got a lot to explore here, but you need to refine your focus, tighten your editing and think more clearly about what you're trying to tell us - and for God's sake quit with the shaky camera stuff', but coming from a director with this many films under his belt, it's a terrible mess of egotistic bombast - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The acting is competent, although I'm not sure why everyone thinks Dunst is great in this. Her performance is solid but not exemplary; she plays everything out very heavy-handedly, with no nuance or subtlety at all. Kiefer Sutherland and Charlotte Gainsbourg do very well, particularly Sutherland,who I think is the best performance in the movie. John Hurt makes his brief role look easy, Skarsgard Junior does a lovely puppy-dog husband, but the fact that Von Trier gets so much out of his actors doesn't redeem the rest of the movie.

I was disappointed by this film. It had so much potential. Dogville, while hardly anyone's idea of an enjoyable film, was a truly great work in terms of execution and effect - trim, sharp, cruel and deeply disturbing. By comparison Melancholia is a flabby, overblown thing. I am by no means averse to good art-house, but this is not good anything - it's a great idea ruined by the unlimited self-indulgence of its director. Watch it if you are interested in puzzling out Von Trier's meanings, or if you just generally like movies that leave you asking questions, but don't feel like you're missing out if you don't get to see it.

I'm going to try to be restrained in my praise of this film, but it's going to be hard, because I think it's about as close to perfect film-making as I've ever seen. I generally only write reviews for movies I've really loved, or really hated, and this movie I really loved.

This is a masterpiece.

I don't know where to begin, really. Leaving the cinema, I felt as though I'd had some kind of accident - a little as if I was in shock. I had a very strong physical reaction to this movie, in tandem with my emotional response, and in many scenes I felt my heart racing. This is powerful material and has been delivered with great skill. The pacing is perfect, moving slowly and quietly toward not one but several emotional climaxes, each greater than the last, allowing the audience to enter Curtis' world and share his emotions. The cinematography was beautiful, elegant, and achingly frightening at times; the dialogue was so real it hurt, and the soundtrack sinister and intense. Michael Shannon should win something for this role - he is Curtis completely and it's a complex and deeply sympathetic portrayal of the confusion of a good man, a complicated portrait of a man trying to BE a good man, in the face of his own fear. From the very beginning, the atmosphere is unsettled, and some of the dream sequences are heart-stoppingly frightening. The story is multi-layered, working with ideas of family, mental illness, responsibility, fear, the current feeling of the-end-is-nigh that everyone senses - when Curtis said, 'Is anyone seeing this?' I almost cried for him.

I have thought very hard about this film since I saw it two days ago and I simply cannot fault anything about it, not one thing. I know I'm going to see it many times. It left me shaken and moved and I cannot wait to see more from this writer/director. Hands down the movie of the century, so far.

I loved this film. I picked it from the list of what was on at our local cinema with almost no idea of what it was about, other than the description "quirky comedy", simply because I couldn't cope with a grim film that day, and I didn't want to see fluffy crap either. Turned out to be a great choice!

Has anyone else noticed just how very, very good an actor George Clooney is becoming? Even surrounded by other good actors giving great performances, George Clooney absolutely shines in this film. Clooney's Lyn Cassady is such a marvellous and fully-rounded creation that I found myself laughing at him, thinking him mad, thinking him sane, believing him, disbelieving him, and in the end, genuinely feeling for him - still not sure if he's entirely sane, but loving him anyway. George Clooney has been improving for years, but honestly, this performance is up there with the very best acting I've ever seen.

The film is a zesty romp that ranges from farce to buddy flick to moral lesson - all over the place - and holds it together perfectly. The moral compass of the film remains true throughout, without feeling heavy-handed. The pacing,for me, was exactly right - the narrative held together really well despite the frequent interjections of backstory. The structure and some of the more surreal passages reminded me of films like Being John Malkovich or Adaptation, but the performances by the leads in this film were so much more engaging that I felt a much greater emotional connection with the characters in this film than I have with characters in anything comparable I can think of.

This film was like one of those perfect novels that you simultaneously want to last forever, but can't wait to find out how it ends. Jeff Bridges gave an effortless but excellent performance as Bill Django,particularly in the latter parts of the film where he becomes less the remembered idol of Cassady and more the real man, with real history and issues of his own; and Ewan MacGregor as Bob Wilton gives a good performance too - a naive,likable journalist on a quest to win back his wife, ending up heading into Iraq and insane adventure with Cassady, ostensibly a waste contractor in search of a lucrative "reconstruction" work but in actuality a retired "warrior monk" with psychic powers. Kevin Spacey doesn't have much to work with but he's talented enough that he doesn't have to try hard to convince as Larry Hooper, the bad apple in the army's psychic barrel.

There was so much about this film to love, I could probably write an essay on it. Cinematography was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, the script so full of laugh-out-loud funny that I ended up crying with laughter. And it's a smart movie too - there's a lot of ethical, social and political points being made here. They aren't hit-you-over-the-head Now Hear This kind of morals or politics, but they are there - and why not make us think while we're laughing? There were some moments toward the climax where things get genuinely poignant, and the emotional charge mostly comes from Clooney's superb performance.

Damn, I loved this movie. I got more enjoyment from it than from the last 10 movies I've seen combined.

I could have said much more about the plot, but heck, I knew nothing about it when I saw it and frankly, I think I enjoyed it more for that. Go see it. It's awesome.

Only my reluctance to give anything a perfect ten out of ten stops me from rating this film ten. What an absolutely awesome flick! I just saw it with my husband and I can't think when I last saw a movie I enjoyed this much. It had the whole package - style, innovation, solid (and often sympathetic) characterisation, romance, martial arts, good guys, bad guys, comedy, great cinematography, pathos... Go see it now! God, I loved this movie. I thought hard trying to come up with a single criticism and this is the best I can do - on occasions the incongruous sound effects are more distracting than effective. That's it. There's nothing else wrong with this movie!