robert-temple-1 This is another masterpiece from the indomitable Wim Wenders. However, it is only a classic, not a hyper-classic like 'Paris, Texas' (1984) or 'Don't Come Knocking' (2005). Those two films engaged the viewer in desperate anguish and overwhelming emotion from the very first moments and sustained it throughout, whereas in this film, the emotional intensity and involvement only grab the viewer in the last third of the story. This is partly because the film was written and filmed so quickly, with no time for deep maturation of plot structure in order to discover subtler ways to pull the viewer in earlier. The title is ironical and comes from a song by Leonard Cohen, which is used near the end to the usual Wenders devastating effect. He has always been a master at punching us in the solar plexus with his sophisticated use of the best music. Here, as in the succeeding film 'Don't Come Knocking', the searing cinematography of Franz Lustig shows us surfaces beneath which we immediately plunge. The centrepiece of this film is the amazing Michelle Williams. In her, Wenders combines his recurring 'child motif' with his recurring 'angel motif', since Williams plays a character, Lana, who is primarily two things: (1) a 'former child', and (2) currently a working angel. Just as Wenders is probably the only mainstream director who has ever shown a man defecating on screen, in 'Kings of the Road' (1976), so here he may be the only one who has truly shown the intimate moments of silent prayer. And we are not talking of 'The Song of Bernadette' or any sentimental religious picture here, with its simulated devotions and piety, we are talking the real thing. Throughout the film, Williams is shown in extreme closeup whispering her ongoing dialogue with God, saying things like 'Thank you for this day, thank you for this room.' She asks for his blessings and in emergencies even his help. Williams has such extremely unusual personal qualities that she pulls this off completely. She looks like what she is off screen, a reader, a thinker, a collector of first editions. (I'm sure we must bid against each other on Ebay all the time.) Wenders has as usual used his stunning genius for casting to get the perfect match. He has also found another one of his brilliant character actors, always there but always overlooked for years, in John Diehl, to play the paranoid lost uncle, Paul. This is not at all a political film, it is as usual with Wenders a spiritual journey and a revelation of the bleakness at the empty heart of part of the American Dream. What could be emptier than Trona, California, shown here in all its barren devastation, and yet that empty place is where it all comes together, where the richness and redemption of the spirit take place in surroundings so desolate that it can only be The Material World which is being transcended right before our eyes. The ostensible subject of this film is post-September 11 America. But that is only an excuse for the true subject: the human spirit struggling against emptiness, fear, delusion, and loss to achieve some peace, some acceptance, some love and some fulfillment. There is nothing affected about Wim Wenders. He courageously attempts to say the deepest things in the deepest way that the screen allows. It is true that the character Paul is one of the most extreme characters imaginable, a man driven mad by dioxin poisoning and helicopter crashes as a special forces sergeant in Viet Nam. He has taken refuge in reenacting the lost War (which he insists obstinately 'we won') by trying to fight the new enemy, terrorism. He is a one-man surveillance vigilante in a van, who is determined to find the enemy this time and save his country. But it is all a pathetic delusion, and he is slowly and gently brought down from his 'high' into the truth about things by his patient 20 year-old niece whom he has not seen since she was a baby. Eventually, with infinite acceptance and caring, this crazed uncle achieves a grounding in reality after his years of torment, and comes to see the world with the unblinking eyes of Franz Lustig and the sad and tolerant vision of the child-angel. This film is another one of those Wenders miracles.

huh_oh_i_c Perhaps the most significant thing about this film is the majority of the critical reception in America: While objectively speaking the film is not very critical of America, while it is one of the most balanced 9/11 films, it has been treated like the plague. This indicates the heavy self-censorship American media have imposed on themselves and ... reflects John Diels character Uncle Pauls paranoia nicely. Accurately. From the book "Vernon God Little" to "Land of Plenty", American reviewers, pundits, and 'intellectuals' are as sensitive as an eyeball to sand towards foreign commentary and critique of their society.I downloaded this movie by accident, looking for the similarly titled BBC drama "In a Land of Plenty". Upon seeing that Michelle Williams was in it, I decided not to delete it right away. Halfway through the pic I thought to look it up here, and learned then that Wim Wenders was directing it. And now you'll expect me to say that it was one these serendipitously great finds, a gem unknown, a great movie. Hmmm I can't, since I thought the film a tat too depressing for that.The character of Uncle Paul is all too paranoid, too realistic for my taste. I really don't think that this character is grossly distorted. The greatness about this character is threefold: a) As a viewer you're left unsure whether he's really mentally ill or not, b) he's surely representative of a part of the American population (hopefully not a large part, but I fear yes) and c) he's been greatly portrayed by Diehl. I detest him as much as J.R. Ewing was detested.As Europeans, we are used to think of Americans/Republicans as the winners, who despite their lack of intelligence, still manage to rule the world/the USA, who are winning because they all (more or less) have the white picket fence thing going on. This movie shows that not all right-wingers are indeed winners, that there are very sad and depressing people among them. It hits home that Po' White Trash is not a thing of the past. I mean, DUDE! This guy is a sad, sad figure.Of course the character of Lana is much more appealing and attractive, and I watched Michelle with open mouth every time she graced the screen with her deceptively natural acting.The only criticism I have of the film is in its end dialog: Paul asks why people cheered on 9/11. When Lana says "Because they hate us" it isn't made clear why the world hates America. Wenders either chickens out or loves his adopted country too much. Or, maybe he does indeed see both sides. The people of the world hate America, because Americans always side with the dictators and the oppressors: Pinochet, Videla of Argentina, the Israelis (and not with the Jews: in WWII they denied several Jewish requests for the bombing of concentration camps), Mubarak, Marcos of the Philipines, Apartheid etc. Aside from one time when it didn't, in Kosovo, Americans have always sided with torturing dictators to oppress the poor. We don't hate you because of your freedom. If we did that, we all attack Sweden and Holland. Smoke out Amsterdam (pun intended). We hate you because you could help us win our freedom with relative ease, but you choose not do so. Because otherwise you have to pay 2 cents more on the gallon for gasoline, god forbid!!

Furuya Shiro The heaviest line for me was "We won", Paul, A veteran from Vietnamise War told his niece Lana about the Vietnamese War. I can not be objective to the Vietnamese War, as it was the events in my adolescent and youth ages. As an Asian youth, I was heavily empathized in the Liberation Front side. But I can understand the mentality of the American ex-soldier saying "We won". It makes sense he wants to think the death of his comrades and his after effects agony of the Agent Pink are meaningful and valuable.When I went to New York in 2003, I saw a man a bit older than I on the 5th avenue driving an electric wheelchair with American flag attached to it. I thought he must be in the Vietnamese War generation. I can understand the mentality of Paul rising up to protect America after the 9.11 incident. Though everybody can tell Paul's belief and behavior are ridiculous, it is the USA whose government is behaving on the same mentality. This is not as innocent as Paul.Lana is a woman as her mother says she has inherited all good aspects from her parents. I felt refreshed and relieved by that Lana and the pastor are described as they are affirmatively. The scene Lana prays looks positive and affirmative. I think this movie portrays the most persuading message among those movies based on the 9.11 incident.

ft-5 I think with 10/10 this movie is actually rated too high normally i'd give it a 8 or 9/10. But let me tell you why i didn't: At the time when this movie came to the cinemas in Germany, the anti-American atmosphere that broke off in the after-math of the decision of the German chancellor Schroeder, that German troops won't take part in the Iraq War (a good decision as far as I'm concerned), reached a peak. People arguing against that, often stressed the historical role of the American liberators of Germany and stuff. That's all true but it doesn't say much to somebody like me, who's in his twenties. Nevertheless I think there are reasons to have a more complex picture of America. And this movie actually tries to show something of this as well. It also tells an American story and analyzes the American society from the point of somebody (Wim Wenders) who went to America to find something better than in Germany. He found it. Then became realistic about it, and found that there isn't a perfect place on earth, and America definitely isn't. And so this is also a movie of a personal picture of America after 09/11. And at this very special moment it was also a very political movie in Germany, even if I have to confess few people saw it like this...