jmbellin

Lars Von Triers always presents interesting, often compelling twisted dramas. There are usually little comic moments scattered about as well. So if you're willing to give yourself over to his vision for a couple of hours, it is quite rewarding, even if those couple of hours leave you a bit disturbed. But hey, that's part of what makes great movie-going, isn't it?

This film's title, and I'm giving nothing away as it has been part of every interview, is both the mental state the lead characters are going through in this film, as well as the name of a planet which may or may not be hurdling toward the earth the night of Justine's wedding, Kirsten Dunst's character. It is also a part of the mental state of the Director of the film. His last two films (Anti-Christ the one previous to this), in particular, have been ones which have been outward expressions of that state.

In any event, while Melancholia is available currently (as I write this) On Demand on cable TV, see this in the theater if you can. The visuals are marvelous and a large screen experience allows you to be enveloped in these larger than life images.

Regarding the performances, while it's an all-star cast, including velvet voice himself, Kiefer Sutherland, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard, Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, Udo Kier (of the Warhol/Morrisey films), many are rather throwaway roles for them. Here, it is really Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Sutherland's film.

Kirsten Dunst's performance is the celebrated one, as she won Best Actress at Cannes. While she gives an extremely raw and brave performance, and she does show off a range and complexity of emotions, Gainsbourg gives a quieter but more well-conceived performance. Dunst, for me, doesn't pull it all-together in as coherent a way. She doesn't give the character an arc I can believe in the way the best acting performances do. There is no doubt that this film shows Dunst to be an actress who is willing to bare her body and soul for the sake of a film (and there is little of her body that is not bared here), but her acting seems, at times,more of an acting exercise in emotions. So I liked her performance, but didn't love it. In the end, Gainsbourg's was the more interesting performance. It had more nuance and I believed her arc much more. And while Dunst has a natural beauty about her which is stunning, Gainsbourg has a understated beauty it may take a few more looks to appreciate. On the surface, she is certainly a plain Jane next to Dunst, but she has the ability to pull you quietly into her character.

Sutherland was all right, nothing special. I think he was put in there for box office purposes rather than being the best actor possible for the role. I really didn't buy his performance that much. Vocally, he has a rather limited range. Emotionally, his range is limited as well. He's like a volume knob than only stops at 1, 5, or 10. He still sounds like his character on 24.

Melancholia is both enthralling and a bit frustrating. Worth seeing, but not always totally satisfying. Fascinating at times, not quite believable at others (There are a couple of plot point holes I won't go into here.). Is is a very unusual 2 plus hours in the theater. Overall, if you're a Von Triers fan, see it!

This is a fairly straight forward telling of the story by the Coen Brothers. And that's what makes it a bit on the disappointing side. There was certainly the Coen humor present and a few interesting visual twists, but for the most part, this lacked the Coen Brothers typical M.O. of taking material and twisting it inside out, whether it be their own or not (No Country For Old Men). In the past, there have always been cinematic and story-telling surprises around every corner. Not here. For much of the movie, this could have been done by any decent story-teller of a director. I expect more from the Coens. It was almost coasting for them. My wife, in agreement, said that it seemed as though they were fulfilling a contractual commitment to a studio.