This film has a lot of great things going for it. There is an experimental element in the exposition of "parallel realities" that is a little annoying at first but becomes more effective as the film progresses. In fact, the film uses quite a few techniques that are unconventional, and for the most part they are effective. The central story is obviously a love story, and by now it isn't anything special on its own; you've probably seen this story before, and other reviewers have already covered much of the obvious influences already. The magic is in its execution, and that's where things both work wonderfully and fall apart.
As I said, many unconventional ways of presenting the story are used very effectively; I'd not rate the film so highly otherwise. The core of the film is solid. The three stars that I took away come from two major problems: an ambiguous ending and the use of obnoxiously annoying framing choices that every indie film hipster seems to be all about using nowadays.
I hate all film endings where the ending is ambiguous. I liken it to ripping the last few pages out of one's favorite novel. Movies where the loose ends are left untied leave me with that feeling you might get if handed a plate of delicious food and then having the plate unexpectedly taken away when you're only half done eating. There is nothing more to say about this problem; some people aren't bothered by it, but I see it as either laziness or being "artsy" to the detriment of your storytelling.
The far more serious problem is the one where the "rule of thirds" and other fundamental image composition guidelines are thrown out the window. There are some shots where this works well because the violation of the rule fits with that aspect of the narrative. However, there are far more instances where the framing choices just look plain stupid and make no sense. Leaving a lot of empty frame space behind and/or above the actor's head is a compositional no-no and should only be done in rare instances, but like many other smaller indie films released in the past couple of years, this one falls victim to the director trying too hard to be edgy and clever. It is the Tragedy of the Cinematic Hipster. They've randomly forgotten that the point is to tell a story and that producing a film for mass consumption isn't an artsy film school assignment. A story should work BECAUSE of the camera work, not IN SPITE of it. The overall film suffers a bit; it is distracting at best and obnoxious at worst.
If the director's future films spend less time trying to be so edgy, there is a lot of potential for amazing work, but it's too late to save Comet from the indie hipster disease. Still, it's definitely a film worth seeing, and after all of my whining, that's pretty impressive.
As I said, many unconventional ways of presenting the story are used very effectively; I'd not rate the film so highly otherwise. The core of the film is solid. The three stars that I took away come from two major problems: an ambiguous ending and the use of obnoxiously annoying framing choices that every indie film hipster seems to be all about using nowadays.
I hate all film endings where the ending is ambiguous. I liken it to ripping the last few pages out of one's favorite novel. Movies where the loose ends are left untied leave me with that feeling you might get if handed a plate of delicious food and then having the plate unexpectedly taken away when you're only half done eating. There is nothing more to say about this problem; some people aren't bothered by it, but I see it as either laziness or being "artsy" to the detriment of your storytelling.
The far more serious problem is the one where the "rule of thirds" and other fundamental image composition guidelines are thrown out the window. There are some shots where this works well because the violation of the rule fits with that aspect of the narrative. However, there are far more instances where the framing choices just look plain stupid and make no sense. Leaving a lot of empty frame space behind and/or above the actor's head is a compositional no-no and should only be done in rare instances, but like many other smaller indie films released in the past couple of years, this one falls victim to the director trying too hard to be edgy and clever. It is the Tragedy of the Cinematic Hipster. They've randomly forgotten that the point is to tell a story and that producing a film for mass consumption isn't an artsy film school assignment. A story should work BECAUSE of the camera work, not IN SPITE of it. The overall film suffers a bit; it is distracting at best and obnoxious at worst.
If the director's future films spend less time trying to be so edgy, there is a lot of potential for amazing work, but it's too late to save Comet from the indie hipster disease. Still, it's definitely a film worth seeing, and after all of my whining, that's pretty impressive.