It's All About Love Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
It's All About Love is the story of two lovers and their attempts to save their relationship in a near-future world on the brink of cosmic collapse. John, and world-famous ice skating star, Elena, are about to sign divorce papers when they realise that, in spite of everything happening around them, their love is worth fighting for. It's All About Love is a fresh take on modern love and future life as two lovers struggle in a conspiracy of epic proportions.
| Sean Penn | Marciello |
| Joaquin Phoenix | John |
| Claire Danes | Elena |
| Alun Armstrong | David |
| Harry Ditson | George |
| Douglas Henshall | Michael |
| Margo Martindale | Betsy |
| Geoffrey Hutchings | Mr. Morrison |
| Mark Strong | Arthur |
| Thomas Bo Larsen | Night Porter |
| Teddy Kempner | Brooklyn Receptionist |
| Indra Ové | Production Assistant |
| Georgi Staykov | Bookish Interpreter |
| Anna Wallander | Young Interpreter |
| Mariann Rudberg | Old Interpreter |
| Thomas Vinterberg |
5.40 out of 10 (3214 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Vinterberg shines as a director, fails as a writer
posted on 06 Aug 2009It's no surprise that this movie hasn't found a distributor yet. It was originally scheduled for a May 2002 international opening. That deadline passed, and it is now making its first international appearance at Sundance. After the Saturday evening screening, director Thomas Vinterberg took some questions, and the first question was something to the effect of "why would anybody give you so much money to develop such a clueless script?"That's harsh.To be fair, there were people in the audience who enjoyed the film as well. I admired some things about it, but in general it's a muddled mess of a script. Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes play a Polish couple who are in the process of divorcing. The year is 2021. Danes is a famous ice skater, currently working in New York. Phoenix is merely in NY for a two hour layover, hoping to get his final divorce papers signed by Danes. Danes doesn't show at the airport, and Phoenix gradually realizes that she is in some terrible peril. He decides to stay and help.The Danes/Phoenix love/reunion story plays out against a backdrop of cataclysmic meteorological change. Some days, all the water on the earth freezes for a couple of minutes. Some days in July, it snows over the entire earth. The laws of gravity no longer apply in Uganda, and Ugandans have to tether themselves to the earth. New Yorkers still have gravity, but all the unloved ones are dying off. The reasons for the epidemic are still unclear, but people have thus far concluded that "it's all about love". The result is that the dead bodies of lonely people fill the streets of New York, routinely ignored by blase commuters.Pretty much the way it was back in the 80's.Above the world, commenting on the action, flies Sean Penn, who used to be afraid of flying until his therapy and medication overcompensated,and made him afraid to stop flying.Sound strange? A bit hokey? Contrived? It is. And I can't tell you the hokiest stuff because to do so would require spoilers.Some of it is very effective. Vinterberg did a good job on the film's direction. The aesthetics are excellent, the mood of suspense is managed brilliantly in a few scenes, and the film looks much bigger than its $10 million budget. That's the good news. The bad news is that the script is a jumbled mess, and the actors' accents are confusingly inconsistent. In some scenes Danes and the miscast Phoenix speak accent-free, in their natural rhythms, using the phrases of native English speakers. In other scenes, their accents and phrases seem to be impersonating Boris and Natasha on Bullwinkle.Vinterberg seems to have been able to make the transition from Dogme 95 director to professional film director effortlessly. Unfortunately, he shows no signs of being able to create a coherent screenplay. I will be interested to see his next film, because this one has a lot of promise shining through the fog of its faults. Rumor has it that his next script will be written by Lars van Trier, whose writing is far better than his direction, so that may result in a fruitful collaboration for both of them.
Did John kill Elena?
posted on 27 Jul 2009My second time watching the movie I picked up a lot more than I did the first time. The ending in particular seemed more tragic the second time through because I noticed that John may have been able to save Elena. Maybe not from the apocalypse, but from her disease of the heart. I might be seeing hints where none exist, however if you pay close attention to the acting and narrative in the film you may notice what I am talking about. Just another warning, this part contains huge spoilers. Read this after you see the movie!Evidence that John could have saved Elena:-When John first meets the clones, the one with the knife screams "You killed her!" This line caught my attention, since it could be foreshadowing that he does kill her later in the film. - Marciello (Sean Penn) says on the plane something along the lines of "John, you can save her. Kiss her John." Could this be hinting that kissing her would cure or ameliorate her heart problems? -Relating to the previous comment, notice that through their whole trek through the winter forest not once do they kiss. -After Michael leaves he dies very quickly in an extremely heavy blizzard. It is clear that what he really dies from is his heart problem. He is cut off from everyone he loves. Elena and John have abandoned him, he is rejected by the rest of his family, and he is feeling a horrible sense of guilt for his betrayal. After he dies we cut to a scene of Elena and John who are dancing on the ice. They are both happy, the scene is serene, and the weather is almost perfectly calm. The question then is, why didn't Elena and John both perish in the same storm that Michael died in? The reason may be that the storm and cold are somewhat subjective. In other words the storm may vary from person to person depending upon the condition of their heart. It may even be that those dead on the street experienced the storm and cold, while others around them were unaffected. -When they are dancing on the lake, notice that Elena is perfectly happy and energetic one moment, but as soon as John lets go of her she looks completely tired and exhausted (great acting by Claire!). She then kind of lags behind John all the time that they are walking. They start to become separated and as a result Elena's heart gets worse. This scene, if I am correct, is a sort of microcosm of the movie itself. They would have been perfectly happy if they would have just stayed there dancing and experiencing love for one another, but instead John decides that they need to start going somewhere. It is the embodiment of what Marciello says: "We should have just stayed by the lake in Poland".-We are at the scene were Elena is Dying. We think that she has died, but then John cries over her and finally kisses her forehead. She immediately wakes up and says "What is happening, John". It was heartbreaking to realize, but it seemed that her surprise was from her heart getting better! She is at the brink of death and the kiss on the forehead brings her back for a moment. John however does not realize this, and tries to comfort her. He props his head up and the connection between them is gone. When he resumes crying over her again she is already dead. Conclusion: Once you put together all these subtle hints you have a very interesting and very tragic ending. John might have been able to save her, but instead he weakened her heart by sending Michael away and continuing to travel when he should have been giving her love and affection. Even a simple kiss at the last moment might have revitalized her. Even if they were going to die no matter what, they would have been much better off spending their last few hours alive with each other, rather walking to nowhere. I see their trek through the winter forest as a metaphor for life. We embark upon our own journeys to find such things as fame, wealth, or status. We may get lost on the way or find that once we get there it is not important. We waste so much time trying to get to these places, but yet the time would be so much better spent with those we love. Maybe I am right about John killing Elena, maybe I am not. Watch the movie again and judge for yourself. If this movie completely confuses you, remember that it is not a movie that should be taken literally. It is a dream, and dreams tend to present information in a fragmented and cryptic manner. You may be confused simply because you do not have the right experiences or knowledge in life to interpret this dream. This is a brilliant movie, but to recognize it as thus you need to appreciate beauty, understand metaphor, recognize subtlety, and use whatever intelligence you have. In case you cannot do that though, ill just tell you right now that it's all about love.
I'd recommend it, NOT!
posted on 23 Jul 2009I think this movie was made so that when you want to recommend something to an enemy, you suggest this one. Absolutely dreadful! I was lured in by the cast list. Claire Danes, Juaquin Phoenix, Sean Penn. Wow! If this were their first film, each of them would never work again! I can forgive continuity errors, I can overlook bad acting, but the absence of a shred of a plot is beyond the pale. If you changed the music to 70's disco-funk and added a few sex scenes, It's All About Love could pass for soft-core porn. It's movies like this that make me want to pick up a good book and read it over three or four times just to cleanse my system. Flying Ugandans, ha!
beautiful elegy
posted on 27 Jun 2009This was one of the saddest and most heartbreaking movies I have ever watched. The tone, the colors, even the camera angles suggested an inevitable, sad ending to the world as we know it.Both Clare Danes and Joaquin Phoenix were brilliant as parties of a hopeless love affair, trapped between doomsday and bad guys. I guess it should be really difficult to ever make a movie again like this lamenting love, world and maybe "civilization".
You've Got To Be Kidding Me
posted on 21 Jun 2009I just want to warn anyone thinking of buying or renting this movie. Don't waste your money. Buy or rent something worth watching instead. I rented this piece of junk thinking it was going to be good based on the actors in the movie. The main actors in the movie are much better in other works that they've done and I don't understand why they would want to act in this waste of time. I guess they need the money.I'm telling you, this movie makes no sense from beginning to end. When it was over I sat there thinking, "You've got to be kidding me" "That's it? That's the end?" "Where is the explanation of what the Hell was going on in this movie?" Now, I know that it's supposed to take place in the future, but it's only the year 2021. I don't think that in the next 10 to 12 years people are going to become so uncaring that they will walk over dead people in the street without even giving it a second thought. Nor do I think that even the dreaded "Global Warming" will cause people to start flying or fresh water in a glass to freeze to solid ice while the rest of the room is still warm.I've read some of the other reviews on this board about this movie and they've tried to sound professional and said things like "it's a beautiful poem" etc. but I'm telling you this movie is just plain dumb.You've been warned.
It's all about the DVD interview
posted on 15 Jun 2009Penn plays the director, Vinterberg, "soaring" after the success of his dogma efforts, unable to come back down to earth, "writing a report on the state of the world," doomed to crash, as this film did in the eyes of the critical establishment. Funny stuff. This film was MADE to fail.My feeling is that instead of setting the film in 2021, they should have worked on the script until then.The problem is not too much ambition or pretension. But not enough. Not enough effort, either. There is something in the idea of a pretentious romantic epic. But this is a bad seed.Back to the kennel for the DOGMAn.
It Is a Masterpiece
posted on 22 May 2009An interesting film with a lot of multicultural context in it: American, European, Slavic, very international. Perhaps as only a good Danish producer can make it. The movie is very well-made. Vinterberg is great, never regretted watching any of his works. Festen is above all, of course. Sean Penn is always great, too. His role is like a modern demiurg observing the world from above flying over it on the board of an airplane... Just like the rest of the actors in this movie. I kind of don't really like Claire Danes for her Juliette in Romeo+Juliette 1996 role... The skaters remind about Dega's dancers. But anyway I'd definitely recommend to those who've not seen it to add it to their "pending" list and devote some time to enjoying it. Even if it leaves a bit puzzled there is more to this film than any regular Hollywood movie. It is smart, with an idea about rapidly changing world affecting people's hearts. There is a bit exaggeration but isn't that unavoidable in making a movie impressive enough to reach its audience? There are interesting sceneries, music that fits into scenes it is chosen for. It is an absorbing and strange movie that should not leave you indifferent. It is fun ;) If someone is expecting another dogma #1 it's not quite what you are going to get but if you shift your expectations to something like You the Living type of movie that is odd but leaves a lot of space for thoughts and feelings you'll definitely find pleasure in It Is All about Love. The spectator has to learn not to get the answers in the movie like in most American best-sellers but to develop own ideas, be a thinking man, considerate and understanding, aware of realities of life and what's beyond them.
great expectations, majorambition, poor result
posted on 14 May 2009as a devoted fan of vinterbergs 'drengen der gik baglæns' and 'festen' (the celebration)i looked forward to this film with eegernes for about 4 years. Visually it is very nice - and it has got a certain mood to it - but in the end vinterberg starts to many stories without finishing them properly...
Another great film from a great dane
posted on 12 May 2009Before I went to see this film, I had read a lot of reviews that said that it wasn't good; it lacked a properly fleshed-out story, it was too superficial. After I saw it, I could understand why the reviewers felt like this, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. This film isn't supposed to be a credible social drama with a probable storyline and believable characters. The nature of this film is light, almost ethereal. From start to finish this is a fairytale, an intangible voyage through events and interactions with one overshadowing theme: It's all about love. I was reminded, when I saw this film, of the stories of Oscar Wilde, they too possess an immaterial, poignant view of the fleeting nature of love (or happiness for that matter).
The air of the film is amplified immensely by the beautiful images and the hauntingly sweet music by Zbiegniew Preisner (who has composed the music for many of Kieslowskis films). Especially the huge panoramas in connections with the planes are some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen on film. The film's use of close-ups takes a little getting used to, but is very effective at communicating the characters' emotions. Among the actors, I was especially impressed by Sean Penn, who provides a sort of philosophical voice-over to the entire film. Also Joaquin Phoenix was a positive surprise, he was much more toned down than I have seen him before. The cast that make up the tiny community around the main character Elena is eminently selected, with a wide range of memorable characters. The actors are some of the best supporting actors around. Thomas Vinterberg has made a film that is decidedly different from "Festen", but in my opinion almost as good. I can't wait to see what his next project will be.
waste of talent
posted on 22 Apr 2009My sister in-law rented this last night. Afterwards we were dumbstruck by the lack of plot, poor acting and pretensions of high art. I looked at my brother and law and said "how did they package this one ..let me guess "A taught psychological/sci fi thriller.etc.." He says "Hey how did you know." Nuff Said. Who thinks spaced-out bad dialog is great acting or has deep meaning. In order to care about the characters and their plight there needs to some background of both. This film has neither and fails miserably. There is a disturbing trend in Hollywood (or wherever movies are made) to produce this kind of drivel. How about a good story, a plot, dialogs, acting. I am not some prude either. I am an artist and a musician I'll get about as far out as you want. Either these people really think they are superior and have something to offer mankind or it's just the same old jones for the almighty dollar.
Surreal
posted on 05 Feb 2009This was an interesting movie because it started out in such a normal world and unfolded into something much more unpredictable. The title escapes me because I could not see or feel the love between the main characters. It seemed that Elena's husband stayed with her out of a feeling of duty rather than love. The sex seemed out of place between the two, but I reasoned it was a good release for all the stress they were under. Mr. Morrison's reasons for shooting the three Elenas was not clear either. If the point was to get rid of Elena, her brother, and her husband, why not just shoot them and be done with it? And Sean Penne up in the plane left me wondering, and, of course, the flying Ugandans. I watched this movie twice, something I have never done, trying to make sense of it. It doesn't make sense, but remains intriguing at some level. That's why I happened on this site and felt compelled to write. It was helpful that others had as much trouble tying up the loose ends as I did.
I got the Gladiator taste out of my mouth
posted on 29 Dec 2008I have never been a judge at a tasting, whether it be wine or chili or whatever. I do understand that it is necessary to eat something in between tastes, like crackers, to cleanse the palate - or so I have been told. I want to see Walk the Line, but I have a distinctive taste in my mouth in regard Joaquin Phoenix. I cannot get the part he played in The Gladiator out of focus.So, I came across this little film he did with Claire Danes and Sean Penn called It's All About Love. He plays a man (in 2021) who is on his way to get a divorce from his wife, an ice skater, and stumbles on mysterious happenings regarding her. He tries to save her in the midst of a world cataclysm. I don't know what kept me watching this movie until the end except to say that I had to see the ending. Suffice it to say that the vision of Phoenix in Gladiator is out of my head.I can now go see Walk the Line. I wish I didn't have to suffer through It's It's All About Love to get me there. Thomas Vinterberg may be a visionary director, but I don't get his vision.
"I'm going to tell you about the last seven days of my life"
posted on 29 Dec 2008When a film begins with a statement like this from the main character, it usually means that a biopic about a terminally ill patient is coming or that the director wants to make it clear that you're in for a downer. In IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE it is clearly the second alternative. One has the feeling that Thomas Vinterberg and writer Mogens Rukov had in mind to make some visceral musings on the future of the planet given the current state of abuse of the environment and human relations, but the result is a convoluted mess of an admixture of infantile script and plodding camera work and silly character non-development that is more of a bore than a sociological/psychological/environmentalist wake-up call.Year: 2021 though costumes, cars, technology are very much 2005. The TV Big Brother (newscasters) are calmly reporting that Uganda is freezing, that countries in Africa are loosing gravitational pull, and everywhere in the world people are dying in the streets (merely stepped over by pedestrians) from a disease of the heart: the heart ailment etiology is apparently the lack of love and caring and commitment and relationships that have become extinct in this purely industrial society.Enter John Marchevski (Joaquin Phoenix) returning to New York for a quick stopover to have his divorce papers signed by his estranged star ice skater wife Elena (Claire Danes). But when he arrives in New York he is picked up by men who claim he must go to see Elena as she has a premiere that evening and couldn't meet him at the airport. Reluctantly John goes along with this (largely abetted by encouragement from his brother Marciello -Sean Penn - who maintains telephone conversation with him while flying in a weird jet (despite his past fear of flying).To make it brief, Elena has been cloned by the agents who manage her star career and have tied this into her family including her father David (Alun Armstrong) and brother Michael (Douglas Henshall). Elena senses all is not right, pleads with John to help her and eventually they escape on the run from the 'bad guys'. Oddly it begins snowing in July, John and Elena discover her clones skating and watch them murdered, and suddenly we're in a vast tundra of frozen land with John and Elena dancing while Michael informs them the 'association' had him sell them out in order for him to survive and Marciello just keeps writing about the world and chatting from his big impaired jet plane trapped in the sky for lack of landing fields and the Africans float up into the air etc etc etc. Yes, it really is that silly.There are some interesting panoramas courtesy of cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle and there remains the underlying suspicion that perhaps the film has something to say but just can't decide how to say it. The use of Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes, and Sean Penn is a waste of talent and it remains a serious question as to why they signed on to be a part of this film. Maybe the good parts are on the cutting room floor...Grady Harp
A vapid meditation on simplistic love.
posted on 19 Dec 2008I loved "The Celebration" and was very disappointed when I saw this at Sundance. In brief, this suffers from the same delusion as "Eyes Wide Shut": namely that implication = meaning. There is implied tension, implied sexuality and an implied conspiracy, none of which are delved into, and a barrage of imagery that is neither satisfactorily abstract nor clearly explicated. Joaquin Phoenix is too passive to be much of a lead and Claire Danes, while beautiful, lacks depth. The picture IS gorgeous, and kudos to the DP and design team.
What is it all about?
posted on 24 Oct 2008Joaquin Phoenix , Claire Danes , Douglas Henshall and Alun Armstrong give very good performances. However it's all style and no substance! What was it all about? Surely, I would not be lost if it was all about love! The film's style promises a lot but delivers very little. What was Sean Penn blabbering on about? Who was he talking to on the phone? Was there any one at the other end of the line? Where exactly was he heading and why? What was his contribution to the movie talent? It all starts up very interestingly and maintain interest throughout but, that's about all. You just keep on waiting till the last moment for it all to be revealed. Perhaps I am not clever enough for this kind of movies!
an odd love story
posted on 14 Sep 2008This was one of the worst movies I have seen in a loonng while. I would recommend this movie, to not even my worst enemy. The director and producer, should be banned, from making any more movies in the future. I came here SPECIFICALLY to find out what other movies the director and producer made, so as to avoid them like the plague in the future. I am not a dullard or moron, that can't seem to see below the surface, at a more complex or eccentric plot, or undertone. In fact I'm quite the contrary. I dabble quite a lot in film, both American and foreign, and pay close attention to what they were trying to say, often watching the film over and over, to make sure I didn't miss anything, or over analyze something. There was nothing to analyze here. It was pure trash, and have seen better attempts at film from amateur college hopefuls. Don't waste your time.
Poles or Russians ????
posted on 31 Aug 2008Once again in American movie Poles speak with Russian accent, they have Russian names ....Like : "Elena", In Poland there is no single girl with that name. We have Agnieszka, Ewa, Monika, Kinga, Katarzyna, Natalia, Ewelina ... but "Elena" ??? No.It's really annoying ! I mean .. it's like compare an American with German. Dear Americans, try to remember : Poles are NOT Russians. Russians are completely different nation ... and one of the greatest enemy of Poland.Why Americans are so ignorant ???
It's all about..... nothing much really.
posted on 04 Jul 2008Set in some sort of extreme global-warming future where the world seems to be on the brink of collapse, John (Joaquin Phoenix) and his wife Elena (Claire Danes) are in the midst of a divorce. It seems the pressures of Elena's celebrity status have taken its toll on the couple. You see, Elena is a world-famous figure skater; apparently the people of the future are light-years ahead of us and have seen the benefits and 'coolness' of figure skating..... whatever. As John goes to see Elena and have the divorce papers signed though, the couples romance is rekindled; but it couldn't have happened at a worse time. Strange things are going on in Elena's life; and John is inevitably sucked into her melo-drama as he discovers that her wishes for retirement are being met in the oddest way by her managers. Because Elena is their livelihood, they are letting her retire... but are replacing her with... her. They have made three Elena clones to take her place while she and John are whisked off to live in seclusion in their mother-country, Russia.This film is a disappointment on all levels. Not even the presence of my favorite actor of all time, Joaquin Phoenix, can convince me to say any kind words about this film! Both Phoenix and Danes give unoriginal and cardboard performances; but while Phoenix (c'mon, I cant completely bag my favorite actor!) tries hard to work with the flighty material given to him, Danes just plods along and makes an already painful film that little bit more unbearable. Her on again/off again Russian accent, the over-acting in some scenes.... come to think of it, the under-acting in the scenes she manages to not over-act in.... all make this film that little bit more horrible.Sean Penn also stars as John's brother traveling on an airplane across the world, writing some book about the state of the world, with his mobile phone glued to his ear while he makes phone call after phone call to his brother talking about how much he (John) and Elena need to be together. While Penn's name may act as pulling power for some naive viewers, his role is miniature and completely unnecessary. In fact, his character's presence is never explained. He's just... there. The futuristic world isn't very futuristic. Sure, the weather is hectic (snow storms in New York's July), people randomly die on the street and are ignored by passers-by, and figure skating is a cool sport... but otherwise, New York and the world looks pretty much like it does now. The story is vague; perhaps trying to be art-house, chic.... but in reality, its painful to watch and uninteresting. save yourself the turmoil. Hire one of Phoenix's better performances; I highly recommend Quills or Buffalo Soldiers. And, like Danes and Phoenix have tried to do, lets distance ourselves from this futuristic flop.
I saw A Forreign affair before this, or Two Brothers and a Bride which cost a thirtieth of what this film cost. No stars; a quantumly better film.
posted on 28 Jun 2008Some films are too weird to critique. Cosmic weirdness. I couldn't even tell what there were attempting. Probably would have helped to commit fully to a thematic structure, and not pretend to tell a cohesive story. A shot for AH. Shawn Pen doing a cameo like Dustin Hofman in his worst roles. I Can't imagine that the thing just didn't cut together. Mind blowing to seen the script. Snow. The stuff in Uganda. The end of the world. Ice skating. A family like the Firm. Lots of crying. Six Elenas. Pople saying too much. People being callous. Interesting stuff for eight years. Atracted lots of stars. I saw A Forreign affair before this, or Two Brothers and a Bride which cost a thirtieth of what this film cost. No stars; a quantumly better film.
What about those flying Ugandans?
posted on 24 Aug 2009I don't think I really spoil the film, considering the flying Ugandans are my only direct reference. But just in case...My comments are more general and hopefully helpful if you're thinking about seeing the film. If you're looking for fast-paced action, this is too leisurely and curious a pace. If you're not in the mood to be intrigued without explanation, then save this one for when you are! I don't know you, so I don't know if you'll like it! I can't even say (for myself) but to have you read my thoughts... I think I liked it.What got me here, writing to you, is those darned flying Ugandans! Being just a tad OCD, I couldn't not read all the comments in hopes of finding some kind of insight on this film and it's peculiar end image....I do recommend you read the director's explanation of this film at www.cinema.com (Also quoted in one of the comments.) This is a helpful view to keep in mind! I can't say I'm a film buff nor am I as well-read as some of the others who've commented. Just as well, here's my 2¢...THE ACCENT: As far as I understand, the characters portrayed by Phoenix and Danes are supposed to be Polish. The accent thing is mildly annoying. Only that it caused some struggle in me to understand if the characters were Polish, Russian or Americanized Polish, etc.THE ACTING: Moderate. Difficult to accuse the actors, script, director, etc. It seems to vary with how it's received. And given the bizarre nature of the film, no one character struck me as having been BADLY acted.VISUAL ART: Definitely! Beautiful and well crafted. Tone, rhythm, perspective, harmony... Very detailed and constructive.DIALOGUE: I tend to agree that the dialogue was weak. Mostly because I felt I had to focus so much and barely comprehend! What intrigued me most was how much attention I'd compelled in hopes of discovering... something!FIGURE SKATING: I'm a fan. But the entourage is exaggerated. It is an international sport. And it doesn't seem to really be of consequence whether or not it's ever going to be that big of a sport! It's just the way the movie goes. So go with it! Otherwise, the lack of athleticism displayed or "who'd ever care about figure skating" will really get you going!GENRE: Certainly, I found myself trying to fit the film, as it unfolded, into a genre I already understood. And I was thwarted at every turn! It seemed a journey that was purely in my mind as well as an emotional exploratory. And I think the idea of printing a dream fits best.MY THOUGHTS: This film really gets under your skin, yea or nay! Whether you hate it or love it or somewhere in between, that fact that you've gone so far as to read this comment already invokes some kind of meaning. (Providing you've also seen it!) I saw this last night on the Sundance channel. I'd like to see it again to find my opinion. But for now, it seems the most settling explanation is that I've just viewed someone else's dream.Dreams often don't make sense to the dreamer, but do have some kind of plot as you are dreaming it! No character is immutable. So the weakness of character may be just that... an ever-changing character to suit the moment? And dreams are often of the subconscious and/or unconscious. Things we have a opinion, concern or feelings about but not yet thought-out. So the anachronistic view feels like fragments of ideas trying to become something effable.I like that it is provoking... thoughts, emotions, etc. Definitely an interesting topic of conversation on many levels. What you think, feel and say are personally revealing, if you explore it like a dream. And fun to share, especially about those silly scenes and the ideas that just can't be helped.... The best part is how heartily I can laugh at the silly scenes and the collective "WHAT?" that we all share. I feel the need to know! So, those discontinuous points and lapse in plausibility or plain nonsense did bug me. WHY? WHY? WHY? But again, as a dream, I guess we should be asking ourselves why we have these questions, eh?All in all, I can't say I'm coming up with much I didn't like. It was darned weird! But I didn't feel like it was a waste of time. I could have switched the channel or turned it off, but didn't. The weirdness level was entertaining in itself! Like enjoying your own dream then finding disappointment that you've awaken, ...just because! And reading about it was even more fun! The best part is all the intrigue about those flying Ugandans!!! I'll buy it as a dream. If anyone has insights about the flying Ugandans, please feel free to share!But based in reality, I can't help but wonder why the laws of gravity only affect the people of Uganda and not the objects and animals. Why the Ugandans? Where were the Chinese folks in the world of 2021? What happens when the never-landing plane flies over this selective zero-g area? Every other nonsensical is quite viable in dream-state. But those (tethered) flying Ugandans...what does that mean?@!#@# Freud? Jung? Anyone?How about: Inability to see the global impact via prevention of floating or flying in dream-state? ...Or those wanting to see truth but are somehow tied to a fictitious or contrived alternate reality? Or perhaps, it's the "exit button" in the dream-state? Any takers? =o)I give it 7 out of 10 because I liked it more than I disliked it. A curious nature will tend to like it. If you want an explanation or simple summary you'll likely NOT like it!