tastella-297-435269 The dialogue is stilted, the acting is just awful, the back story is sketchy---especially frustrating in a film that hangs on its back story---and the "futuristic" props are so cheap as to be comical. The social-scientific concept of the movie sounds rather intriguing when read in summary on Wikipedia, but it's not fleshed out in the film. Worse yet, there's no connection established between that concept and the extra-terrestrial aspects of the story. Overall, this movie lacks a coherent plot, on top of stunningly poor execution. Indeed, the best thing about this film is the titles design. So watch those and move on---don't waste the next 80 minutes of your life.

jib122-1 I would like to suggest to those who comment on this film, of which there are many, that if one is to judge this movie as 'simplistic' or trite, then one has to answer a set of questions raised by the film - 1. What is the relation between embodiment and desire? Hartley raises this beautifully with the presentation of the girl, and intertwines it with the other themes (among many!) that I would like to point out. 2. What is the role of Christianity in this film? The word become flesh, the girl reading a study bible, the interviewer asking Jack if he is religious, and the idea of sacrifice and martyrdom all raise this issue in interesting and provocative ways. (this is especially interesting considering the film's conclusion and the question it raises about the possibility of a messiah in a capitalist context (i.e. where "value" only means monetary value))3. What is the relation between desire and the structures of society? Does desire resist that power structure, or is it rather created by that power structure? The film raises the question of whether or not the resistance that is possible is also "good for business," and suggests that desire is fully malleable by the power structure. BUT, it also opens the possibility for real resistance, without being overly optimistic about this. There are many many other interesting questions raised by this wonderful and thoughtful film, but these are just a few that immediately strike me as central, and which do not seem to play a role in the criticism of the film voiced by many of its detractors. It is important to develop the skill to enjoy many types of film - important insofar as it simply increases pleasure in watching film - and so it is best to be able to ignore problems with the low production value and bad acting and to enjoy it for its strengths, rather than focus on the negative and not enjoy one's time with the film. P.S. Anyone else wondering about the references to Homer's Odyssey in the film? So many questions . . .

Chris Bright In which Hartley continues his exploration of the Godard cookbook. In this case, "Alphaville", with side orders of "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and various Chris Marker 'photoroman' movies.The voice-over is not a cover for the failure to tell the story so much as a yarn-spinning technique along the lines of early Peter Greenaway or late Werner Herzog. There are some striking similarities with Herzog's recent "Wild Blue Yonder" (also billed as a science fiction fantasy).In some ways this seems as much an exercise as an attempt to entertain; as with Godard's work the film is shot on a shoestring, with the present made to stand in for the future - Hartley tries to see how much he can say with how little.Others have commented on the social satire; overlooked may have been the beautiful photography, the dreamlike atmosphere, the air of melancholy and loss, and the very effective music by Hartley himself (no longer trading under his "Ned Rifle" alias).I dare say many of us miss his "early, funny, films" but that's how it goes with New York filmmakers, I guess. Where those movies were snappy prose, this is a poem.

kerecsen Being a huge fan of the films that Hartley did in the 90's, I couldn't wait to see this movie at Sundance. In fact it was one of the two movies I absolutely had to see (the other one was Mirrormask).I can't say that I got what I expected. The movie proclaims itself to be a "Science fiction film by Hal Harley". It is neither science fiction (unless you count Kurt Vonnegut as science fiction), nor a typical Harley film. The special effects that you expect in a science fiction are nowhere to be found. In fact, big chunks of the movie aren't even in technicolor.The whole movie is shot with very long exposure times and frame rates reaching down to 5-10 fps, leading to a totally dreamlike look.But enough about technicalities... 'As I said the movie was a surprise but a very pleasant one. Harley uses his favorite themes of alienation (this time with actual aliens) and random, but very deep personal connections. He paints a weird but very familiar world of people treating sex as a means to getting what they want -- but with a quite interesting twist. Other current subjects, like civil liberties (ie: the lack thereof) and teenage crime are also treated to a round of deep black, dripping irony.All in all I would recommend the movie, but not as a mindless Friday-night excursion. I give it an A.