I watched this movie/documentary on the back of excellent reviews, and the caliber of the director and producer. The subject matter was interesting, asking the web community to capture events happening in their life or around them, on one day - thereby trying to capture globally the essence of living. However it seems the scope of the subject was too large, and difficult to condense and organise. As a result there is no plot, and only a loose structure around the time of the day, i.e. rising of the sun, breakfast, lunch... with all sorts of jumps to different subjects/locations/genres. That is OK if you want to sit through a random mish-mash of amateur clips, but I wondered what was the added value from 90 min of me surfing on YouTube. The answer is editorial choice - it's all in the art of sampling, compiling and presenting. To be fair, some parts were slick, but I wasn't sure about the sudden jumps throughout, with no apparent link. Was the style meant to be impartial and objective / shocking, to drive a point home / partisan, representing a sanitised view of the world (big sponsor backing through LG, who won't like a depressing story even if that was the reality of the user videos)? In the end, I felt the movie was trying to be all things to everyone. It seems this explains the popularity. But I failed to connect with the movie. Worse still, I felt really nauseous from the jerky camera movements. I went to the cinema to be entertained, not to induce vomitting. If you must watch this film, do it from a small screen. I wouldn't pay any money to watch it in the cinema - it's pointless.
Review of Life in a Day
