Not bad, but eventually too many twists and new directions

Rating: 6/10 (18 April 2017)

"Memento" is an American 110-minute movie from 2000, so not too long anymore until this one has its 20th anniversary. And a lot of its popularity such a long time later is of course because the director is Christopher Nolan from the UK, the man that many consider the most gifted filmmaker of our days, even if he still hasn't managed to get a Best Director nomination at the Oscars. But he received a nomination for his writing here as he also came up with the script together with his brother Jonathan. Nolan was only around the age of 30, maybe even under when he made this movie and it also has as many plot twists and moments that f*ck with your brain as many of his later works. So his style is easily identifiable in here. The one lead actor here is Guy Pearce and it is probably still the most known work of his career, even if he has appeared in several Best Picture winners. The supporting cast includes also several well-known names, maybe back then more than today, but still very recognizable, also several familiar faces from the small screen.
So this one here is the story of a man who severely suffers from short term memory loss since the day his wife got murdered. There are situations when we know just as much as he does, but the longer the film goes the more we actually find out about his illness, his background and his motivations. And also about the ways in which he manages to help himself, especially when it comes to remembering things. His body is a sheet of paper basically. So yeah, I do believe that this film has some good moments, maybe even one or two great moments. But I still must say that Nolan occasionally went over the top here in terms of trying to make this movie as smart and mind-blowing as possible. It's of course a fine line, but back then he may not yet have had the talent to deliver really convincingly and walk that fine line from start to finish. This becomes especially visible in the second half of the film. I definitely enjoyed it more in the first 45 minutes. Acting is okay by everybody, but there is also nobody who really stands out, including Pearce. This is absolutely a writer's piece. What else can I say? Oh yeah. I did not really like the fact that it wasn't chronological. But that is very frequently the case for me and just subjective approach. I don't think it is subjective though when I say that this film overall is not as creative and memorable as it turned out in Nolan's head himself. Making an argument that I and other people who don't like it that much have just not understood it is not valid. There are flaws and weaknesses here that are occasionally pretty grave. So I am still relatively generous with my 3 stars out of 5 I would say. It is a joke that it is apparently according to IMDb voters one of the best 50 (not just 250, which would already be very exaggerated) films of all time. I do recommend it, but just cautiously. Definitely one of my least favorite Nolan works (maybe my actual least favorite from his full features). Don't expect too much or you will be majorly disappointed.