So I finally got around to watching what the critics universally regarded as a 'Top 5 Film of the 2000s' last night.
And what a load of tosh that was.
It was the equivalent of going to an art gallery, looking at a fairly average but alright photo for 2 hours whilst constantly rereading the pretentious blurb next to it without anything ever making any sense.
I think I get what it was about, but man... I hate films which ask really interesting questions and have a great premise and then go 'Ahhhh, it's up to YOU to take out of it what you will'
Is she having an affair? Who made the tape? Was what he did that different to what we all did as a kid? Was there ever a tape? Is it even relevant?
Well, yeah. I get that you're asking me that Haneke, but call me dull and uneducated if you like - which I'm sure you would having watched the first 20 minutes of the hour long dull-as interview after the film's end - but isn't that YOUR role as the director to tell a story?
I dunno, I was bitterly disappointed in it. Great premise, a few decent scenes, some interesting ideas but ultimately a whole lot of very slow, averagely shot* nothingness. I didn't expect a huge pay off, a car chase or a Shamalaman style twist... just some closure or at least a point to it all.
And I don't buy the theory that 'there being no point to it all' IS the point.
Discuss. I'm a dullard, right?
* does the phrase 'technically marvelous', which was attributed to almost every review, merely mean 'nice grade of film' as there wasn't one inventive shot in there barring the suicide scene or a shot where the camera moved