Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Absolutely the worst movie.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

I first learned of this film after stumbling across its soundtrack. Upon learning that it's a piece of science fiction, I decided to give the film a try.Bad news first: the film is long. It runs for a good two-and-a-half hours, but incredibly, it's only the short version; the rough cut was originally eight hours long, and the director's preferred version is 280 minutes. Even at 150 minutes, this film feels long and it drags at times.That doesn't mean it's a total bore. The film is pretty evenly split in half (for the theatrical cut anyway; the director's cut is supposedly arranged as a three-part trilogy). The first half is easily the most interesting and thrilling, as it follows this woman all across Europe and Asia and everywhere else, investigating some shady people and mysterious devices and roaming around some strange post-modern futuristic settings. It comes off much like a sci-fi film noir, somewhat akin to Brazil, but nowhere near as goofy. In the film's last half, with a great catastrophe befalling the Earth, the characters wind up holing themselves up somewhere in Australia, where they bum around for the remainder of the picture. I found this part far less interesting, but it offers a few interesting ideas (including one key aspect that echoes Inception a lot). Altogether, I'd say that it's an interesting film with lots of interesting ideas and plot points, but it achieves the type of pacing that straddles the threshold of being fascinating and unfascinating.If anything in the above paragraph indicates anything, it's that the story itself is pretty sound and full of neat ideas. It's populated by interesting characters. I really don't have many complaints about the story, other than it felt like it trailed off in the end.This film looks neat, with quality photography and editing. Acting is swell: I did get a kick out of watching William Hurt, Sam Niell, and Solveig Dommartin in their roles (and Max Von Sydow makes an appearance toward the end). Writing is alright. This production does its best to use then-modern sets, props, and costumes for a futuristic look, but with mixed results. Frankly, parts of the film look cheap and cheesy, in a manner no different than Paul Verhoeven's films. Still, it gets the job done. Music is pretty cool.It's an interesting film and I'm glad I saw it. It is a shame that this film was a commercial and critical failure on its release, because it's not that bad at all.3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Many say that the 4.5 hour version is much better than the 2.5 hour. I guess there were even eight-hour and twenty-hour versions.The 2.5 version hobbles along after the first hour. I can't imagine more than this. I didn't sense any great examination of the human condition. It was pretentious and self-serving. (I have a crappy job where the time crawls by and I'd gladly go there vs. another minute of this.)Closely following that was the illogic in many elements of the story. The bank robbers wanted the girl to carry the money to France. Why?The good guy steals SOME of the money?The bank robbers finally come back for their money. I GUESS they got it all. Very forgiving bank robbers.Basically my problem is that the money was stolen and stolen and stolen and there was plenty left over.And the film was way too forgiving of this girl. She runs all over the world to get her money back and for the love of this guy. I found it silly.And the bank robber gladly shows up in the 2nd hour to help this girl? I guess French bank robbers are pansies.The zapping of all the electrical devices was lifted directly from Escape from L.A. I was surprised how short-sighted the technology of it all was for being made in '91.Then they lost me when he met up with his parents. I didn't see the great psychological discussions that everyone else did.And why did he travel the world with that stupid camera? If the point was to see if the mother could see with this camera, then go outside for ten minutes and film a bush. Or the house cat. But NOOOO. We have to take two years to do that? After the ten minutes and it works, then put the camera in front of the Travel Channel.I'm sorry. My bad. Then there would be no movie and no room for bad overacting.

Let me make this short and straight. Just avoid it, I mean it. I was somehow dragged into watching this and this was a real torture. How can you rate this as Sci-Fi. Even 50 years ago people could do much better effects. Don't tell me this is a style thing. If so, then call this as crap fiction, not science fiction. There was no story and the whole movie so boring. Even if you are forced to watch it, avoid the long version by all means for your own mental health. I don't troll movies but this one really deserves a good kick so that people that doesn't have the slightest clue about technology does not attempt to produce yet another garbage like this.

after great movies like Wings of Desire and Goalkeeper's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, for instance, Wenders decided to TRASH his whole reputation with a god-awful, cornball, cheesy, Sprockets, ridiculous (f)artsy nonsense.The dramatic premise of a satellite threatening the world is upended by a ridiculously implausible and synthetic scenario. Nothing in this movie feels real or possible, and the Euro-trash clichés, effete noir ideas, and absurd storyline makes it a risible piece of bad art.It feels like a very long bad 1980s music video for Madonna or Dick Tracy movie, with Euro-Sprockets coming at you from every direction.Only the music is good.