That was an excellent one.

An absolute waste of money

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The Saddest Music in the World (2003) Funny musical, Depressed, lovelorn, and rich, She hosts a contest. Ingenious concept by Loved author Ishiguro. Mostly black and white, Prosthetic legs filled with beer, Crazy characters. Maddin's faded and grainy world, Rhapsody or creepy? Somonka is a form of poetry that is essentially two tanka poems, the second stanza a response to the first. Each stanza follows a 5-7-5-7-7 syllable pattern. Traditionally, each is a love letter. This form usually demands two authors, but it is possible to have a poet take on two personas. My somonka will be a love/hate letter to a film? #Somonka #PoemReview

What makes this movie such a wretched experience to sit through is that the director obviously hates music, or at least hates the musicians and music lovers who people the profession. Why else would he keep interrupting perfectly good musical performances with buzzers, inane, insipid voiceovers, and stupid visuals -- and a plot that moves, well, nowhere? If you happen to like music, as I do, and not just think of it as a background part of your life, you're sure to be thoroughly annoyed by this idiotic outing. There ARE good Canadian movies out there, but this isn't one of them. One of the two stars I've given it is for the interesting use of faux disintegrating film black-and-white images throughout (if it were furniture, we'd called it stressed), but that by no means could save this dud.

I'll be honest, I loved this movie. That being said, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone or even anyone but a few arcane film technique fetishists. The movie has the feel of a lost classic, but it's so damn goofy that it's hard to figure out where it's coming from much less where it's trying to take you. People who watch expressionist films will understand the technique of "just going with it" and seeing how you feel at the end.Maybe that's Maddlin's flaw? He forgets that modern audiences are always checking in with themselves and questioning the images they see always ready to click away from content they dislike. My friend walked out of "Coffee and Cigarettes" after the second episode, he'd given it a fair shake and didn't see any chance of it improving. But it did. Oh man it did. He would have been rewarded if he would have just went with it for a bit.So admittedly, I was confused and alienated by big stretches of The Saddest Music In The World. It's true the characters are too ridiculous to care about much and the dissociative camera work does as much to take you out of the scene as put you in. And the brilliant Two-stripped color scenes are so bright and vibrant that the mono-tinted and black and white scenes that follow them don't have much punch. On the whole it pastiche's together more styles than a single movie should: expressionism, musical, silent, early talkie, early color, comedy, even some very documentary looking montages recalling the earliest documentaries. And the sound was as poorly mixed as any major film release i've ever seen. The film's message is obscured in it's own aesthetics so thoroughly that one can scarcely get a footing on anything like meaning or message.I could go on and on about the flaws of this movie. As for it's graces? its genuinely funny in parts, original in others, it feels like an old distressed classic which is fun for buffs like me. But all this is cursory.So why the hell did I like this movie so much? I liked it an awful lot. I liked it because it's messed up and it's messy. It seemed to be having fun throughout most of it and if you give yourself over to: stop asking sensible questions and try to have some fun, because really-if you do that you'll have a blast at this movie.

Like one of the Canadian commentators who wrote about this film, I think it presents a valid argument for a "0" (where "0" equals caca) rating. I don't need to restate the "plot" here and I can't put in any spoilers because the whole thing is spoiled.Maddin thinks that putting Vaseline on a camera lens makes things look retro. Bob Guccione thinks that Vaseline on a camera lens makes naked girls in white stockings look sexy. Maddin thinks that set designs that include a lot of "M" based shapes will make people think of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis." People writing about this film applaud its bow to expressionism. Well, expressionism was better done by the expressionists; the same director who made "Metropolis" spent most of his career making stinkers like "Rancho Notorious," and imitating early cinema "looks" is only interesting for so long. One could only wish it was actually shot on the old nitrate stock so that it could be badly stored.The actors do what passes as acting, in a sort of an imitation of an imitation of grand guignol. The two female leads have interesting faces, but do nothing that resembles acting. Isabella Rossellini demonstrates one thing: she actually looks sort of like her better-looking mom, and that she chooses vehicles like the tiresome movies made by her dad, which today I find painful to watch.The DVD contains three shorts that are much more amusing than the film they accompany (especially "Sissy Boy Slap Fest"), and the two "about the film" features have a "look-at-me-I'm-wonderful" air about them, narrated by some idiot who obviously would like to do a one-man "evening with Vincent Price" show in a bathhouse.Gee: did I like this movie? I was prepared to; I thought the premise was interesting and the thought of Rossellini as a concupiscent double amputee might be funny, but the product ends up looking like something made up by stoned frat boys who think they're really, really, really witty.Yeah: if you like this movie you probably also think Baz Lurhman is a genius, too. Pass the sedatives, please.