Reviews

One would say that if the novelist is more intelligent than the novel, he should change job. That might be a true and wise statement. I've seen that Mamoru Oshii, the director, also doesn't know what this movie really is about. This is misleading. It is not that the movie is too deep or mysterious, but it is rather stupid. Disappointing? Depends on your expectations. A lazy movie? Yes, for sure. But why? Hold your sorry ass. Just because you got nothing out of this movie it doesn't mean it's deep. But because people like what is positive, I shall start with the positive things, those being of course, and as a matter of fact, the art direction and sound direction. Yes, very well made drawings indeed, and quite fine animations, with landscapes and scenes that touch what I would define as "art", as "metaphisic". Yes, a trascendental world, the dream as a mean to escape reality, a parallel world that is not tangible but that derives from the tangible world. Trying to reach a true essence, the platonic idea of "art", as far as a japanese animation goes. About the sounds . . . good sounds. And good background noises, good music, at least, fitting. This said. I will make 2 examples that might seem misleading and out of context, and then I shall reconnect myself to the movie itself. Now, take a painting. This movie looks like an animated painting, after all. Such painting is made by John Constable, he was english. Let's say he painted this in 1821, why did he paint this? To make you feel something. Some feeling. That feeling being nostalgia, or serenity, perhaps boredom - but in a good way, that kind of sweet boring sensation you feel when you lay on the grass, gazing upon the sky, some clouds here and there, and the singing of birds lighting a path to your thougths. Ah, what a swell sensation. But no. Such painting will work only on plebeians that are too busy scratching their asses. This because the painting FORCES you to feel nostalgia, it's not natural, it's mindbloggingly obvious and, as said, forced. It wants you to lead there, to those feelings. But how can one feel such sensations when being forced to? Not a good painting in my humble opinion. Not to shield my ass, but it really is subjective here. I only feel anger when looking at it, knowing this. At least in that, feeling anger, Constable did it. Well done. Now, a second example. Take another painting. Well this painting was made by Giorgio de Chirico, say, it was made in 1916, and Le Muse Inquietanti's the name. This is much more related to the movie itself, but after this second example, I'll put all the things together. So, looking at it, you can see the atmosphere is a blocked one. The time is suspended, no one moves, nothing moves, no one makes a noise, and there are no noises. It's a square - one you would expect in a city -, and it's located in Ferrara. That castle is the Estense family's one. Behind it, a factory. The floor's perspective is comparable to the one's of a stage, a theatre's one. There's a quick contrast between modernity (the factory) and the castle, which, one would say, stands for long gone times. Weird figures - mannequins -, decapitated, testimony an ironic rite. It's an absurd lithurgy, and magical too, that translates to a feeling of anxiety, of uncertain decision, that remains suspended on a thin rope of intellectual irony. An unexploded drama. Instead of this gay banter, I feel like the artist put all sort of weird and out of context things to cover up the futile nature of the painting. "I'll put all sorta nonsense here, to fake its depth and mystery. You don't get it? Too bad, you're too stupid. . . or the work too deep". That's what I feel. It's a lazy way of creating a work. A lack of depth coped on weird and nonsense things, that in reality, have nothing to do - with anything. And the viewer is confused, I hope. These two examples apply to the movie. This movie wants to have free interpretation, but forces you to interpret it in a free way because it lacks plot and content overall - it wants to be subjective, but it has to be. Forcing this, it becomes objective. Talking about its interpretation. Come on, even the director doesn't know what this is about. In my opinion a project to be considered complete has to have no superficial elements, and somewhere it wants to go. This movie goes NOWHERE. There is no point for which this movie strives: it is a mess. The sequence of scenes remotely makes sense, but it is filled with fake symbolism. It is comparable to saying that everything in the world is subjective, but then you give a logic explanation to this. That's an objective thing you're saying, a fact. Your fact. Which is ironic. Of course, contradicting yourself in the most pitiful way possible. So, to put some order to things, this movie, lacking content, forces the viewer to interpret it freely, contradicting itself. Then, again, a lot of things make no sense. And not because I or you are too stupid to get it. "Yeah man you don't get it, these infinite fishermen are throwing their stuff to these imaginary fish because the author is protesting against modern society because . . . " No. Again, it's a lazy thing to do: throwing some random bullshit into the movie to make it not deeper, but more confusing, nonsense. NOT EVEN THE AUTHOR knows what the movie is about. This movie TRULY is just an art showcase. That's I think it's BAD, as in a 3 out of 10.