I Don't Go To Art Galleries For Movies

Rating: Null/10 (9 February 2007)

This is truly a sumptuous feast for the eyes. Stunning vision, followed closely by another. BUT! It is not a movie. There is no true coherent plot. There is no true beginning, middle, or end. It is a visionary assault of beautiful images.
My point is, so is a really great art gallery. That is the place where this work belongs. It is misplaced as a cinema piece.
I don't go to the movies to be immersed in stunning tableaux, I need a plot of some sort. A movie needs to tell a story. This left me confused, angry, but dreamy eyed. There are some truly breathtaking images throughout. But I didn't know if the 3 stories were related to one couple or not. Pieces of one story would follow into the next and I would think, "Oh, this must be the same guy." A tattoo carries over from story 2 into story 3. A nickname for a character in story one is used in story 2. At the same time though, there are character transitions between the stories that would make it impossible for one character to be the same person in the next. It all gave me a headache!
I admonish the people who tried to pull the wool over my eyes, presenting me this horrible excuse of an art show as a movie. I want my money and my time back!