too powerful for most, spoilers (Part 1)

Rating: Null/10 (13 January 2004)

I wasn't going to comment on this movie, but after reading all the negative reviews and not seeing any refutes to what they've said, I'd like to add my cheap change to the table. It's hard to say why this movie is good, which is why I think there are so few positive reviews, yet the rating is so high. The movie hits me close to home, yet I cannot quite explain this through the movie without first explaining myself.
First, I'd like to say that this is probably my favorite movie. I'm not a film student or anything but I do watch quite a lot of them. Most of the movies that I like are something I can reflect upon later on. Rushmore, Buffalo '66, Magnolia, Thin Red Line, etc. I also only care about the characters. I'm majoring in philosophy, in fact, I sort of breathe philosophy (my distaste for its professional field grows each day), and for this reason, most movies that try to be profound through some weird plot (Donnie Darko, Fight Club), while they seem cool as I watch them, in the future, they crumble. The only thing in the end, for me, that is left are the characters. Are they memorable? Can I relate to them? Can I take something away from them? Are they even human?
I've read so many reviews here that said this movie had no plot. I've seen it twice now (even though I watch a lot of movies, I very rarely watch the same ones twice), and I did not even realize it had no plot. It seems so silly to me now, thinking about it. A plot would have ruined this masterpiece. Ruined.
The fact (or rather my opinion) is that this movie is not for everyone. And I mean this, not in that "I'm superior to you all" way, but in a very simple, very literal sense. This movie is like a set of pictures from your past. Most people outside of your life will not understand those happy birthday parties (outside of the obvious) and those gloomy snapshots you may have taken of the sunset. I'm not sure how well this analogy works. I don't realy take pictures. The point is that, it's not a philosophical work at all. I cannot really justify it outside of my own preference. The acting, camera work, etc. that's all well done, yes, but why this movie is great, and not just good, is hard to say without going inside of myself. This is why I think positive reviews are sparse. It hits you, but you're not sure how to describe it. Being a philosopher, I feel extremely silly of course, claiming this movie is great, and justifying it with "because I said so." This is why I've earlier mentioned, it's not for everyone. It definitely is not for virtually all women out there. I was very surprised to find out a woman directed this because it's a male film (similar to Habla Con Ella). Then again, the director of the latter picture usually makes films about women.
Let me clarify some of this. First, yes, the supporting actress is a little weak. I've read a review that called the movie pseudo-profound or self-delusional. That's a bit of a stretch. It IS profound from Murray's perspective. It's less at a couple of scenes in the film from Scarlett's. The weakness is due to her... well, talking about "deep" things in a really informal way. For instance, when she says she's not sure who she is and what she should do in life and all that, it sounds more like a PMS symptom than a deep reflective conclusion you may get from existential characters in Camus' books, or in some passages, Nietzsche himself. For me, there IS no point to life. Which is why I've enjoyed the apathy of Murray. The big empty nothingness that I feel quite daily, which goes away when you go clubbing, like they did, and comes back at the end of the night. Or even, during a quite moment, as it did during the movie when one scene was switched to a totally different one of Scarlett sitting alone on a bench, Murray walking up to her, sitting down, taking her cigarette, and her putting her head on his shoulder. Scene ends. Remarkable. (And again, because this subject is so deep, and extremely hard to depict in philosophical terms, let alone, everyday language, it is best left unsaid, as it was in Murray's case. Once you start talking, one sentence comments completely ruin it. It turns into a Disney melodrama, where you learn a life lesson at every corner. I cringed both times I watched it when Murray had that awful comment about how the more you know who you are and what you want the less things affect you. If the writer wanted to bring this notion in - it came out of no where, and it was poorly constructed - she should've done it better).
Whether the director truly intended that which I described here's no longer important. I did think that maybe I was taking this "relating" notion too far and being too sentimental, but upon watching the movie once more, I'm now quite certain, this is not a fluke. Why do I live and smile in life if there is no purpose to any of it? That's really the crux of this picture. It certainly doesn't try to answer it. It simply shows that this is what happens when you lose grasp upon the world. Murray, of course, was shown in a very general mid-life crisis form, whereas I am speaking philosophically and drawing conclusions and stating premises that might be completely different from that character's. I don't deny this. I'm simply trying to help those people, who may be on a similar level as me, to understand that they may enjoy this film quite immensely if they give it a shot.