A great story INSIDE a not so great film


I was instantly reminded of Bladerunner, and I see many references to it in the images, the tone, the setting, the music – all without the facade of larger-than-life storytelling causing the dream state that makes Bladerunner iconic.

LOVELAND or EXPIRED (a bad title, because it is neither fully correct nor a genuine mis-lead) consists of the grit of reality, even if a bit into the future – not social realism, just the unwavering loss of hope, the emptiness of existence, in the big city or simply among other people. In this sense it is almost merciless – the only redemption that which is given freely from one human to another, posing as the singular meaning of life. And then even that is taken away. Maybe. Possibly, Unclear

I can’t really feel it. Wish I could.

The problem is not exactly the acting, or the lighting, or the directing. It’s the voice-over, or rather the dramatic necessity of the voice-over. However similar to the 1st theatrical version of Bladerunner, which worked to ease the audience into what was seen as a dark story, to lighten the mood in the tone of snub-nosed detectives of the 1930s – but LOVELAND without the voice-over would simply not work. There would be no heart, because that text causes our lead to be human – except that the voice-over monologue describes a character COMPLETELY different from the one of the lead – as the filmed lead never says or hints at brain activity at a level of poetry approaching that of the voice-over. Unfortunately and incredible.

I do however love the theme. How a person can literally adapt to a life without feeling, because their hormonal cause of deep emotion is taken from them, and then – if attraction causes them to produce these hormones again – begin to die. But even if the TAKE on the old story of the price of falling in love is actually quite good, it overstays its welcome – as if the director does not trust his audience with the material. Yet another script treatment – possibly to integrate the voice-over – would have made it a greater story and possibly a GREAT film.

And what happened to Hugo Weaving? That was abuse of an interesting role as well as actor. Nasty to just turn a good actor into function. And worse if it happens in the cutting room.

I would love to give it a 10.

But I have to give it 6.4. And if I think more about it, that grade will drop further. But it IS a good story – inside all of the noise, the pretentiousness, the director’s fear, the length without real payoff, as I am left to imagine what kind of film it COULD HAVE BEEN.

[where to watch]

Author: krabat

digter, forlægger, oversætter, admin på kunstnerhotellet menneske.dk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Note: Commenter is allowed to use '@User+blank' to automatically notify your reply to other commenter. e.g, if ABC is one of commenter of this post, then write '@ABC '(exclude ') will automatically send your comment to ABC. Using '@all ' to notify all previous commenters. Be sure that the value of User should exactly match with commenter's name (case sensitive).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.