|
Edited on Sun Oct-31-10 07:22 AM by northernlights
at home. I agree with (was it Sanity Claws? too lazy to look for earlier thread on this) that this is best viewed at home, but for different reasons. Given it's length, slow pace and intimacy, it would have been best watched at home, in a private setting, hunkered down and comfy.
I think it was an accurate representation as far as it goes...since most of it is based on reported and documented NDEs. And I think the closing insight nailed it. I don't think it would conflict with anybody's experiences of what our understanding of it would be.
I don't think it was his best directorial effort. Good, but I felt the representation of psychic experiences was overdone/overacted. Another reason it would work better on the small screen. I realize it's hard to represent what's going on in somebody's mind, but both actor and director fell back on the Hollywood interpretations instead of working a little harder to move past that. At least for me, when I have clairvoyant, clairaudient or other experiences, it's gentler, more subtle, more like a photograph emerging from nothing in a darkroom.
But again, that may have been rectified, or at least toned down, on a small screen instead the big one.
I don't feel that any of the key character's stories were left undone. It was left to your imagination, and for me it filled in pretty quickly. What horrible thing could a father do to a daughter that would follow him into his hereafter, that would leave her so humiliated/ashamed that she wouldn't want to see again a guy she had *just* started dating for fear he knew? Fill in the blank. That storyline thread is done.
I'm still working in my mind with the subtext. Wherever you go, there you are comes to me, through not loud and clear. It looked typically Hollywood and it wasn't until I woke up this morning that I got it. I like that aspect.
|