Melancholia

I saw Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" today. It was a very good film - both the beginning and the end are breathtaking, as are the cinematography and the special effects. In addition, the end is a complete and utter gut-punch. 

MILD SPOILERS BELOW...
though I don't spoil anything other than what was released before Cannes. 

My "quarrel" with the film (which is divided into two parts, each focusing on one of the sisters played by Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg) is that the first part is ever-so-dull. I do understand why it was there, and while important things happened, it was if von Trier didn't quite know what to do with the characters and the situations, and were basically using that part of the film to "figure stuff out" for himself. This meant that I, as a a member of the audience, were frequently confused as to what was going on, why, and how some things had occured (with some situations happening off-screen). 

I've seen three of Trier's other movies; Element of Crime, Antichrist and Dogville. I love them all. I also know that von Trier is a master in crafting compelling and interesting characters, then letting them play off each other, but at a certain point into Melancholia's first part, the thought that Melancholia could've easily carried an undertitle such as "the sad, pretentious drivel of a madman" occured to me. Yes, important things happened, and other things were set-up, but ultimately some of the important information and character development were way too subtle (for my tastes). Now, having talked the film (focusing mostly on the first part - more on that later) over with a couple of friends, I like that first part more than I did when I saw it, and I also think it may work better in rewatches. However, if you're planning to see this movie be aware that it uses quite some time to set up what is coming. 

The reason that me and my friends didn't focus much on the second part in our discussion is because we all agreed it was amazing. And I am serious - while I felt the first part of the film just went along, the second part is so pitch-perfect, so captivating, and the final 30 or 40 minutes is some of the best I have ever seen up on any kind of screen. Everything in the second part is brilliantly handled, with the end itself being a real gut-punch (as I've already mentioned). After the first part, I was ready to give this film 4 or 5 out of 10 - tipping slightly towards 6/10. But that second part bumps it all the way up to 10/10, while making me unsure if it is that good a film. I honestly don't know, though I suggest you watch it, because oh my, the second part is just superb.

Which leaves us with this;

The two parts of "Melancholia" feels like two different movies - one of which moves along at its own pace, and is frequently tedious and (quite frankly) dull, and one brilliant film where everyone involved delivers the best they can, and more. The fact that the two parts feel different is intentional (at least I believe so), and the mood is very well-defined in both.

Closing statements

 There is a very valid reason that the movie is called "Melancholia". This is not a happy film. It is a sombre look at people and their reactions. It moves on its own pace, it is sad and thoughtful, and very, very good. Watch it, discuss it, love it or hate it - no matter what you think, there isn't anything out there quite like this.