I must choose more wisely ... what to see ... this one was unbearable. The most unbearable in a very very - very long time.
"Noé promised the investors to produce an alternative Version should the final movie be longer than 140 minutes. He solved this problem by simply removing the seventh movie reel. During the removed 17 minutes, nothing essential for the movie's story happens, as he said".
I must have seen the uncut version. It was 160 minutes long. Two hours 40 unbearable minutes. There were a few good ideas and a floating camera, about enough for a half decent movie, but after the first 10 minutes of us floating aimlessly around, it just keeps going on and on and on and on. As the director says, nothing essential happens during the seventh reel. Nothing essential barely happens at all. Seriously, was it not possible to cut the scenes down AT ALL?
We see a graphic accident, I don't mind that at all - shocking and very unpleasant - but after the fifth time, sixth, seventh, I have no idea how many times we saw that same thing, the shock, the screaming, over and over again throughout the movie. Then some more floating and spinning camera. A LOT of spinning and floating cameras, floating over the city, diving into some object, blending lights, over and over ... And the accident again. What kind of storytelling is this?
I guess there are some pretentious ideas behind all this, but there is no freaking need to keep on going for ever just because the camera floats so beautifully. I was going to rate it 2 or 3 out of 10 just because of the unusual pictures - never mind the plot - but then halfway through I got so insanely bored by this kind of "storytelling", it was just painful. A few of the actors were pretty wooden as well.
I refuse to rate this higher than 2 out of 10. I don't care what all of you say ...
"Noé promised the investors to produce an alternative Version should the final movie be longer than 140 minutes. He solved this problem by simply removing the seventh movie reel. During the removed 17 minutes, nothing essential for the movie's story happens, as he said".
I must have seen the uncut version. It was 160 minutes long. Two hours 40 unbearable minutes. There were a few good ideas and a floating camera, about enough for a half decent movie, but after the first 10 minutes of us floating aimlessly around, it just keeps going on and on and on and on. As the director says, nothing essential happens during the seventh reel. Nothing essential barely happens at all. Seriously, was it not possible to cut the scenes down AT ALL?
We see a graphic accident, I don't mind that at all - shocking and very unpleasant - but after the fifth time, sixth, seventh, I have no idea how many times we saw that same thing, the shock, the screaming, over and over again throughout the movie. Then some more floating and spinning camera. A LOT of spinning and floating cameras, floating over the city, diving into some object, blending lights, over and over ... And the accident again. What kind of storytelling is this?
I guess there are some pretentious ideas behind all this, but there is no freaking need to keep on going for ever just because the camera floats so beautifully. I was going to rate it 2 or 3 out of 10 just because of the unusual pictures - never mind the plot - but then halfway through I got so insanely bored by this kind of "storytelling", it was just painful. A few of the actors were pretty wooden as well.
I refuse to rate this higher than 2 out of 10. I don't care what all of you say ...