For starters, I was let down 15min into the movie because I found out that the main actor wasn't Keanu Reeves (ok, maybe that's just an emotional argument). Before that, I was wondering why Reeves' character wasn't as good as I expected from him and how he could've fallen into such a lame role.
But continuing with the rest of the movie: Photography sucks, everything is on the two bottom thirds of the screen, almost out of frame, which is terribly irritating. They were trying to be artsy, but it wasn't well executed (unlike "Her", which's Photography is also artsy, "hipster", but successfully centers on the appreciation of "the aesthetic"). Some effects were quite fake. Most of the effects were acceptable because that can happen when you lack a large budget or strong CGI tools, however, at some moments I don't know if they were going for "magical"? but it stopped at tacky, like it was edited by a 10-year-old. I saw it as unprofessional. User "Jody Bruchon" covers my points pretty well: "A story should work BECAUSE of the camera work, not IN SPITE of it."
Acting and script are unnatural as well: Transitions between ideas in the conversations are totally unnatural and fake. Half of the time Justin Long's acting was —as user "Grasswerks" states it— "garbage", and Emmy Rossum's was "as cute as her face = barely."
Hard to enjoy the potential and ideas of the movie when you're cringing because of all of these things.
But there are also good things this work: I like some dialogues, the concepts behind it are very well stated, quotable, which is the reason this movie is saved from being reviewed less than 5 stars. The plot and concept of it being "like a painting, without a beginning or an end" are pleasant. I don't think the ending should be taken that seriously, else you're stuck with that unsatisfying "what type of ambiguity is this?" I didn't have a problem with it and even thought the last 20 min were the most enjoyable of the whole piece.
It's a good movie to watch when you have some spare time and you're doing something parallel to watching it (i.e. it doesn't need your full attention; unless you want to suffer from the photography and acting).
But continuing with the rest of the movie: Photography sucks, everything is on the two bottom thirds of the screen, almost out of frame, which is terribly irritating. They were trying to be artsy, but it wasn't well executed (unlike "Her", which's Photography is also artsy, "hipster", but successfully centers on the appreciation of "the aesthetic"). Some effects were quite fake. Most of the effects were acceptable because that can happen when you lack a large budget or strong CGI tools, however, at some moments I don't know if they were going for "magical"? but it stopped at tacky, like it was edited by a 10-year-old. I saw it as unprofessional. User "Jody Bruchon" covers my points pretty well: "A story should work BECAUSE of the camera work, not IN SPITE of it."
Acting and script are unnatural as well: Transitions between ideas in the conversations are totally unnatural and fake. Half of the time Justin Long's acting was —as user "Grasswerks" states it— "garbage", and Emmy Rossum's was "as cute as her face = barely."
Hard to enjoy the potential and ideas of the movie when you're cringing because of all of these things.
But there are also good things this work: I like some dialogues, the concepts behind it are very well stated, quotable, which is the reason this movie is saved from being reviewed less than 5 stars. The plot and concept of it being "like a painting, without a beginning or an end" are pleasant. I don't think the ending should be taken that seriously, else you're stuck with that unsatisfying "what type of ambiguity is this?" I didn't have a problem with it and even thought the last 20 min were the most enjoyable of the whole piece.
It's a good movie to watch when you have some spare time and you're doing something parallel to watching it (i.e. it doesn't need your full attention; unless you want to suffer from the photography and acting).