Eros (*1/2)
review by Jon
Waterman
In Greek mythology, Eros is the God of Love. In film history, “Eros” is
the collaboration of three top directors as they take on the
broad themes of love, sex and relationships. Each director
brings to the table their own unique style and flair as well
as a story completely unrelated to the other two. All of it
is loosely taped together through the use of digitally slowed
down shots (why?) of a Kama Sutra looking book with uninteresting
music behind it. Get ready to test your patience for pretentiousness
and art house masturbation.
“The Hand” starts us off and tries to turn us
on. Kar Wai Wong (writer/director “2046” “In
the Mood for Love”) once again proves that I just may
be the dumbest film critic out there (aside from Harry Knowles,
of course). I just can not figure out his motivations. The
cinematography (by Christopher Doyle) always tends to linger
on shots that no one else in their right mind would even think
to take. But they are always beautifully done, brilliantly
lit, and surprisingly effective. However, even this film, with
one-third the length, feels drawn out. I think we’re
seeing just about the same amount of story, too. You can expect
a lot of spots without dialogue and a timeline as straight
as Liberace. “The Hand” gets you excited for a
little while, but ultimately can’t provide a happy ending.
Steven Soderbergh takes his turn next with “Equilibrium,” which
puts us in a state of anything but. The man behind such films
as “Traffic” and “Out of Sight” among
many others in the relatively short career somehow is able
to try something completely different. Shot with a mix of black & white
and color, it seems to be trying for a 1950s noir look without
the story to really back it up. What we get is Robert Downey
Jr. talking to Alan Arkin’s psychiatrist about his troubles
at work and this dream about a woman he can’t get out
of his married mind. The dialogue is occasionally hypnotic
and overall pretty interesting, but Arkin’s character
is just too quirky for no good reason. Maybe if the whole voyeuristic,
pervert shrink with his own problems sideline came to some
sort of fruition…. A few less shots of paper airplanes
being sent out the window couldn’t hurt either.
The oldest director of the three gives us the most contemporary
story. Michelangelo Antonioni (“Blow-Up,” “L’Avventura”)
co-writes with frequent collaborator Tonino Guerra to give
us the most straight-forward and most unfortunately dull story
of them all. This is not a good way to close out a picture.
I’m positive the film is dubbed in Italian and given
subtitles. However, it almost seems like they were originally
speaking English. ¿Como? There’s really not much
to say about this third piece, except it felt unnatural and
dragged. Not even the beautiful countryside could pique my
interest.
Some may have trouble with the fact that there is no interconnection
between the three stories. That’s understandable. I personally
didn’t mind it. The bigger problem is that they throw
in those digitally slowed illustrations for an exorbitantly
long time, completely throwing off the rhythm. There’s
no real reason for the three to be grouped together in the
first place. They don’t progress in intensity. They give
different perspectives, but it feels like that’s more
through the visual style than the storytelling. With such broad
themes, I can’t help but think they were given too much
free reign. If you want to see different directors handling
the same topic, then watch “Four Rooms.” “Eros” is
little more than a collection of throw away short films by
big name directors.
respond to jon@filmbrats.com
|