Touches You

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The average viewer will no doubt be baffled and often confused by such a film as this. It functions like a David Lynch movie but has the tone of a quirky indie comedy as directed and written by a hybrid of a former Scientologist, a surrealist pioneer, an avant garde filmmaker, and Tim and Eric. It's...really, really, really weird and breaks every possible cinematic convention in a thrilling way. Few films are as fresh and as funny as this feat of satirical cinema that seems to take place in multiple dimensions. This is the type of film in which the accompaniment of a chart would be of great use for anyone attempting to figure out the events that had just occurred before their now- squinting or boggling eyes. Scenes are repeated with different styles/dialogue, the main character has a doppelganger, characters occasionally speak in tongues that are seemingly just gibberish, some moments include actors acting extremely alien, while in others their mannerisms are uncomfortably realistic, etc. The film works mainly as a comedic and upbeat version of "Mulholland Dr."

This is a very, very, very strange film--so strange that it clearly is an acquired taste and a film that won't appeal to most viewers. My feeling is that I liked a lot of the strange things that Steven Soderbergh did in this film but after a while it just became too much of a chore to watch. To me, it's a film with some wonderful ideas...too many.When the film begins, Soderbergh addresses the audience in a VERY funny intro. He insists that EVERY SINGLE person on the planet MUST see the movie and if they don't understand it, they must go back to the theaters and pay full price to see it again and again until they do! I was excited by this clever start.As for the rest of the film, it's a mixed bag of weirdness--all cloaked in a strange and enigmatic plot involving 'Eventualism'. This is a weird Scientology-like cult that describes itself as neither a religion nor philosophy but a 'state of mind'! But the film isn't just a take off on Scientology (I would have loved that) but is just filled with weirdness just for the sake of weirdness. Bland conversations between the main character and his wife consist of phrases like 'generic greeting' when the husband enters the house and 'imminent sustenance' when he smells dinner. Some other times, folks burst through the fourth wall and say things to either the filmmakers or audience. None of it is consistent...just weird and disjoint.Overall, a film with some funny and inventive moments which don't add up to an enjoyable whole. Too bad. I really think had Soderbergh used SOME of these weird gimmicks the film would have worked better than using them all. Or, if he'd simply parodied Scientology (such as in "Bowfinger") it would have worked. Instead, it's an odd and frustrating film.By the way, if you do decide to watch, expect to be offended here and there with characters (non-graphically) masturbating, using colorful language and the like.

From the prologue I instantly thought I understood the tone that Steven Soderbergh- writer, director, cinematographer, possible pornographer, and double-actor on Schizopolis- was going for: pure absurdism, not just with how the prologue is worded (as the most important film experience of all time, the "full completed version"), but how he goes between all the different lenses like a young film student checking out the gears on a Bolex. But it's always a tricky thing going into a Soderbergh "experiment", and that it could be a mish-mash like Full Frontal (I've yet to see Bubble). And, in all truth, it is a mish-mash. It tells a coherent story only in that there's maybe two (or three) stories that seem to make any sense, but is scattered around scenes and freewheeling camera moves and editing tricks and music that come closest to that oft-mentioned critic term "off-beat". And a lot of the time it seems to be so personal to Soderbergh (real life ex-wife playing ex-wife, plus what may be his real kid playing Brantley's daughter), and so unconscionably irreverent, that it dares to run off the tracks any minute.But it's this fully realized move to just be silly and strange, to make just random moments of wild satire (Rhode Island sold as a shopping mall, "Well, at least we didn't sell it to the f***ing Japanese", and a man randomly getting caught up in a straight jacket by fellows from a mental hospital), more well-rounded jabs at the drudgery and pointless meandering of everyday white-collar work life (is there a spy, or a mole, who cares if there's masturbation?), and statements just abstracted as if done sort of by a spontaneous idea in the editing room (title cards quoting a page in the script?), that makes it such a daring work of ludicrous intentions. This isn't a filmmaker trying to make an innovative and possibly important film like Traffic, or even a fun mainstream romp like Ocean's Eleven. In fact, it's seeing the opening prologue, and seeing how the style takes off right away (the title for the film on the shirt of a naked guy running away!) it sets off wonderful irony at every turn.Not that Soderbergh isn't being self-indulgent. In fact, I'm sure that's why there's something of an honesty to his going head-long into his own personal crises of dealing with a relationship or marriage, and throwing caution to the wind by making the emotional problems actually quite real while obfuscating them with some truly goofy vignettes. It's almost like directorial therapy: let the actors improvise, let it all be loose, and even have a truly warped storyline involving an exterminator, really an actor looking for motivation and a written scene (ha), yet having in many instances moments of confession. Even if one might not know some of the circumstances surrounding Soderbergh's first marriage (it's detailed in the book Rebels on the Backlot), it feels like it's coming from the heart a good lot of the time, which uplifts the comedy. A running gag late in the film, as certain scenes from earlier with the perfectly dead-pan Soderbergh and Brantley are repeated, has Soderbergh being dubbed over in Japanese, French, and Italian, though in scenes that involve break-ups, awkward sexual tension, and a reconciliation.This is not to say that Soderbergh isn't also more devilish than he's ever since been with his innuendo- make that outright hilariously immature sexual comedy- and it's amazing to see Soderbergh read a 'love letter' he's written to his "Attractive Woman #2", describing his profession of emotions in very graphic ways. And if Soderbergh does some strange things to surprise as the only time he's starred, let alone acted, in one of his films (the scene where he's in the bathroom making faces at the mirror is one of those pure moments in absurd cinema that speaks to the success of paying homage to Richard Lester movies), his going for broke stylistically pays off too. Or doesn't, depending on how one can take the mix and match of film stocks used from grainy 16mm to the usual 35mm, jagged hand-held racing after the exterminator man beating up on a man and woman, extreme fast-motion film-speed, perfectly composed images like a boy in right field missing a baseball, and even documentary style in the scenes with T. Azimuth Schwitters. On top of the dialog being continuously crazy and self-conscious (what's that film crew following along?), it's possibly the best, or at least most fun, that Soderbergh has to offer as an independent filmmaker.So see it at your own risk, definitely check out the trailer beforehand to get an idea of what's at hand (if the poster wasn't sign enough what a tailspin one can expect to get into), and if one is already a fan, if only in the guilty pleasure sort of way as I know I am, do check out the Criteron DVD for Soderbergh "interviewing" Soderbergh commentary, including the story how the deal for David Lean to direct two years after his death fell through (damn Showtime channel)!

I had passed over this title at the rental place several times and the week I decided to get through the entire Bergman Scenes from a Marriage TV version, I figured I'd need something lighter to turn off my brain for a while (I don't actually watch television). The box looked like perhaps it might be good, sadly, it was not, and after 45 minutes or so, I found my mind wandering.Just because a film juxtaposes bizarre images and ironic situations with ironic reactions does not mean that the film is saying anything concrete or penetrating any depths of human understanding.For example, one listens to the music which is a sort of modern counterpoint as it begins, which, as a musician, caught my attention. Sadly, the counterpoint that could have been interesting relied on that over used cliché, a female making noises of "enthusiasm" which can be found in lots of commercial piped music you find on your commercial radio stations today. It is not edgy. Nor is this movie.They try to do a similar thing with the film itself, make a counterpoint of irony and situations, however, it fails. One reason is that they are trying to make the film seem like a vignette film visually and with the pacing, yet it is not. They do not compensate this lack of cohesion, which is fine, with anything substantial to make the format work.I'm going to go read a book instead.