Saw that this had a pretty low rating but after watching the trailer, figured maybe it was unfairly judged and I'd give it a go.
I honestly don't think I have the artistic perspective or cerebral capacity to fully understand what the plot was, and the worst part is that I really can't be bothered to care to after watching it. It started off promising but never went anywhere satisfying. There are a few "ah-ha!" moments that didn't work because of the format of the film. It's very scattered. It probably makes complete sense to the writer but the viewer needs something to gnaw on, too. I can appreciate films taking liberties and trying something new but it just does not work here. It's not cohesive enough for the average viewer and I doubt there's enough for arthouse-lovers either. Some might classify it as style-over-substance or even pretentious but I feel like there is something here, it's just not fully realized.
The performances, particularly the ones given by the "teenagers" were actually very good and felt genuine, the camerawork was okay (except for the time they literally lost the actors walking, but maybe that was intentional), sound design and score was good, but it was ultimately a jumbled mess.
The biggest issue for me was: it was boring. It's shorter than most movies but still felt like a slog because I was left guessing until the credits rolled with only brief interludes of interesting characters that never meant much to me even though they're supposed to. If you are going to undertake something more freeform and have the capacity to make an otherwise fine movie from a technical standpoint, and hired a competent actress, why not invest in your main character? You know, the one that the entire movie revolves around and has to carry the audience's attention 'til the end? The way that the story is set up supposedly disallows this and it's a detriment to its ability to create any investment from the viewer.
My prediction was it was going to turn out to be a young author stricken by early-onset dementia or had some form of trauma-related amnesia triggered by something "mundane" on the streets of New York. There were even things that cemented my theories. I thought, surely, sticking with it would pay off in some way. But no, by the end, you're just left with a few decent puzzle pieces of filmmaking while some of the most important ones are lost, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Most viewers will find themselves asking for their time back, unfortunately. However, if you are someone who can simply enjoy any ride, maybe you'll get something out of this that the rest us couldn't.
I honestly don't think I have the artistic perspective or cerebral capacity to fully understand what the plot was, and the worst part is that I really can't be bothered to care to after watching it. It started off promising but never went anywhere satisfying. There are a few "ah-ha!" moments that didn't work because of the format of the film. It's very scattered. It probably makes complete sense to the writer but the viewer needs something to gnaw on, too. I can appreciate films taking liberties and trying something new but it just does not work here. It's not cohesive enough for the average viewer and I doubt there's enough for arthouse-lovers either. Some might classify it as style-over-substance or even pretentious but I feel like there is something here, it's just not fully realized.
The performances, particularly the ones given by the "teenagers" were actually very good and felt genuine, the camerawork was okay (except for the time they literally lost the actors walking, but maybe that was intentional), sound design and score was good, but it was ultimately a jumbled mess.
The biggest issue for me was: it was boring. It's shorter than most movies but still felt like a slog because I was left guessing until the credits rolled with only brief interludes of interesting characters that never meant much to me even though they're supposed to. If you are going to undertake something more freeform and have the capacity to make an otherwise fine movie from a technical standpoint, and hired a competent actress, why not invest in your main character? You know, the one that the entire movie revolves around and has to carry the audience's attention 'til the end? The way that the story is set up supposedly disallows this and it's a detriment to its ability to create any investment from the viewer.
My prediction was it was going to turn out to be a young author stricken by early-onset dementia or had some form of trauma-related amnesia triggered by something "mundane" on the streets of New York. There were even things that cemented my theories. I thought, surely, sticking with it would pay off in some way. But no, by the end, you're just left with a few decent puzzle pieces of filmmaking while some of the most important ones are lost, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Most viewers will find themselves asking for their time back, unfortunately. However, if you are someone who can simply enjoy any ride, maybe you'll get something out of this that the rest us couldn't.