4:44 Last Day on Earth (film)

[Neil]

A look at what would happen if everyone knew the world was ending.

[EvilNed]

Love the premise. But the trailer doesn't really reel me in.

[Neil]

There's no explanation for the reason?

[Sammich]

1. It is an IFC production. 2. Reviews from obscure sources declare the the film a "masterpiece". 3. Splashes of "film festival" awards. 4. The usual emo talky indie film character clones. 1+2+3+4 = artsy fartsy film made by some hipster for hipsters. When I saw the trailer, other BLAH "end of the world" indie films Last Night and Melancholia immediately came to mind. Based upon these previous movies, if you are looking for scenes of apocalyptic disaster don't bother, all you will get is a movie loaded with "artistic" photography and editing with mega emo characters that exist only in some Haight-Ashbury type area.

[JDFP]

Based upon these previous movies, if you are looking for scenes of apocalyptic disaster don't bother, all you will get is a movie loaded with "artistic" photography and editing with mega emo characters that exist only in some Haight-Ashbury type area. I.E. - if you're looking for blowing shit up you can always fall back on Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich to deliver. It seems with films anymore it often breaks down to whether it has a big budget and lots of cool things exploding (which can absolutely suck or I suppose be decent if that's your cup of tea) or a small budget and actual character development with humans doing things humans actually realistically do (alas, no blowing of shit up!). It would be nice just for once to be able to see both combined together but often times you sacrifice characterization for special effects or special effects for characterization - pick one of these things, you can't have both. Now, me, I prefer a good independent film any day of the week over anything Hollywood can deliver (except maybe Kevin Costner films - but those are an absolute guilty pleasure of mine I make no apologies for). But, I still expect a coherent plot and none of that stream-of-consciousness nonsense (here's looking at you Lars von Trier and Terrence Malick) that only the most "sophisticated" in society can really "understand" that give independent films a bad name for being pretentious artsy-fartsy nonsense for elitists. If anything, "Melancholia" and "2012" were both horrible, horrible films - but they were horrible films for opposite ends of the spectrum. The first because it is pompous and pretentious and the second because it's pompous and replaces intelligence and logical human interaction with special effects (i.e. "blowing shit up"). j.p.

[Mike70]

what in the hell was anyone expecting of "Melancholia??" i mean seriously, any film made by lars von trier is going to be about as pretentious, and pseudo-artsy as it gets. everything the man has ever done just screams out self indulgence and "look at how artistic and deep i am." von trier and his ilk of film maker are about as deep as a rapidly evaporating puddle after a couple of seconds of rain in death valley. the dipshittery (yes, i just invented that word) on display in melancholia was no surprise to me. if you want a deep films, which make you think about a single issue, go for the films of Bergman. "winter light", "hour of the wolf", and "wild strawberries" are three that come to mind instantly. beautifully shot by sven nykvist, great acting (usually by the same group of folks) and a singular focus on one human issue. as far as 4:44 goes - abel ferrara is the kiss of death. i made a promise to myself a long time ago that i would not ever waste a single second of my life on any of his films. they are trashy pieces of shit.

[krisvds]

what in the hell was anyone expecting of "Melancholia??" i mean seriously, any film made by lars von trier is going to be about as pretentious, and pseudo-artsy as it gets. everything the man has ever done just screams out self indulgence and "look at how artistic and deep i am." von trier and his ilk of film maker are about as deep as a rapidly evaporating puddle after a couple of seconds of rain in death valley. the dipshittery (yes, i just invented that word) on display in melancholia was no surprise to me. if you want a deep films, which make you think about a single issue, go for the films of Bergman. "winter light", "hour of the wolf", and "wild strawberries" are three that come to mind instantly. beautifully shot by sven nykvist, great acting (usually by the same group of folks) and a singular focus on one human issue. as far as 4:44 goes - abel ferrara is the kiss of death. i made a promise to myself a long time ago that i would not ever waste a single second of my life on any of his films. they are trashy pieces of shit. You are kidding right? I found Melancholia to be the best film of last year. Tree of life coming in second ... Both beautifully shot, well acted fims. That opening slo mo montage in Melancholia was better than anything else last year. I'm not an artsy fartsy cinephile snob, though I enjoy the many Tarkovsky references in Von Triers work. I like Bergman too, especially 'hour of the wolf' BTW. What is it about Melancholia you guys found pretentious and pseudo -whatever?

[JDFP]

You are kidding right? I found Melancholia to be the best film of last year. Tree of life coming in second ... Both beautifully shot, well acted fims. That opening slo mo montage in Melancholia was better than anything else last year. I'm not an artsy fartsy cinephile snob, though I enjoy the many Tarkovsky references in Von Triers work. I like Bergman too, especially 'hour of the wolf' BTW. What is it about Melancholia you guys found pretentious and pseudo -whatever? Actually, I'd have to rank "The Tree of Life" as one of the single worst indulgences of pseudo-intellectual bullshit and elitism I've ever witnessed (as I've mentioned before)- and I've seen probably over 10,000 films (and that's not an exaggeration either). There's no singular coherent plot but this is not always the kiss of death (David Lynch) but only a handful of people can pull that off. Second, it did not settle for letting the story stand on its own merits - rather Malick had to attempt to surmise the formation of the entire cosmos and the creation of earth and even shitty CGI dinosaurs - and this pompous display of philosophical enlightenment about the creation of everything only serves to bolster his: "Oh, look how incredible I am! I'm making an analogy between the creation of everything and the family unit being the most fundamentally important thing! How utterly brilliant I am!" which just REEKS of self-serving smugness in my opinion. Fortunately, Malick only makes a new "film" about every decade or so. "Melancholia" was also highly elitist for some of the same reasons but fortunately not quite on the same level of pompous douch-baggery. The score by Wagner was absolutely beautiful (but I'm partial to Wagner anyway) - diminished only by the silly frozen in place "Ode to Materialist Indulgence and Death of American Elitists" that von Trier painted for painstaking moments. There were parts of "Melancholia" I actually really enjoyed outside of the pseudo-intellectual bullshit - the writing was, for the most part, highly intelligent and Kirstin Dunst was exceptional in her acting role. I didn't absolutely hate "Melancholia" like I did "The Tree of Life" - I just found it, overall, to be highly pretentious in scope and quite pompous (trademarks of Lars von Trier). Ironically, the same thing can certainly be said about Wagner's music - bombastic, pompous, and perhaps pretentious. Unlike Malick though - von Trier is similar to Wagner in that he can be this way and yet do it with style. Overall, I'd have to say Polanski is still the best director working right now. No one does dialogue and reaches the human condition like he does in his films. j.p.

[MikePizzoff]

Not sure why none of you guys have mentioned this yet, but this movie doesn't look like a horror film at all. Looks like it'll just be a drama about acceptance and parting ways. Sucks cause I'm always looking for a good end-of-the-world flick...

[krisvds]

@ JDFP First, thanks for a reply that doesn't include insulting a person with a different view. That happens so often on the internet. It's one of the reasons I like this forum so much; less people, more intelligence. Second, I'll have to agree on those CGI dinosaurs in Malick's latest. They were shitty. And that whole 'creation of the universe' part of the film was overly ambitious. I guess he was trying to channel some Kubrick in 2001 - mode there but it wasn't a complete succes. I found it also breathtakingly beautiful. I liked the film especially for the '50s segments in it (let's be honest that's about 80/90 % of the film); the story of the young boys growing up approached pure cinema to me. Visual poetry, well acted ( especially those kids were uncharacteristically good) and at times touching. Had he cut out all the other parts, including that ending and every scene involving Sean Penn he would have had a film more people could get behind. Still, I enjoyed the ambition. It's a rare thing these days. Now, I'm not a religious person, so the voice over/ prayer was at times irritating but I did find the whole 'nature' vs 'grace' thematic well handled. So a bit of a flawed masterpiece to me. But on the big screen, one of the most beautifully shot films in a long time. I liked Melacholia because of it's portrayal of 'depression.' Von Trier's film is thematically the exact opposite of Malick's latest. What you say makes Polanski so good, the portrayal of the human condition, can also be said of Von Trier. He shows us again and again man is but an animal. No one portrays immorality/amorality better than him. Cases in point; Dancer in the Dark and The idiots. And yeah, Polanski is one of the finest directors around. No doubt. Have you seen Carnage? Now there's a bitter, bleak comedy like only he could do. The play it was based on is also a great read BTW and if you can catch it, performed by a worthwile group of actors do so! The fact that the play obviously doesn't show what went on between the two children makes it even more powerful than the film ...

[AcesandEights]

I don't know, guys. For me, the whole point of film is not just to tell a story, but expand the way stories are told and experienced, and while there's way more art in just telling a good, compelling, original story than gets credit, I have to say I can't hate on something just because it gets ambitious with the scope or message. -- -------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ---------- it'll just be a drama about acceptance and parting ways. Sucks cause I'm always looking for a good end-of-the-world flick... But that's what the end of the world would be about for billions of people if they had to experience it

[MikePizzoff]

I don't know, guys. For me, the whole point of film is not just to tell a story, but expand the way stories are told and experienced, and while there's way more art in just telling a good, compelling, original story than gets credit, I have to say I can't hate on something just because it gets ambitious with the scope or message. -- -------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ---------- But that's what the end of the world would be about for billions of people if they had to experience it I know, but I don't want to watch that aspect, dang it! I want to see society crumbling - looting, rioting, etc. Not everybody is just going to believe the world is truly ending, either. I wouldn't mind also seeing some aspects of people in denial, only to get proven wrong.

[wayzim]

I first came across this idea in a story by Ray Bradbury, from his anthology; The Illustrated Man. It concerned a world where all the adults have the same dream, that the world will end on the following morning. The payoff, for the time, was quite nasty. Later, Night Gallery had an episode called 'The Boy Who Could Predict Earthquakes. ' with Clint Howard as a kid with the gift of prophecy. That also had a wicked twist. There's been others, and this one doesn't look any better or worst - might be worth a look see - at a matinee. Wayne Z

[Sammich]

I first came across this idea in a story by Ray Bradbury, from his anthology; The Illustrated Man. It concerned a world where all the adults have the same dream, that the world will end on the following morning. The payoff, for the time, was quite nasty. Later, Night Gallery had an episode called 'The Boy Who Could Predict Earthquakes. ' with Clint Howard as a kid with the gift of prophecy. That also had a wicked twist. There's been others, and this one doesn't look any better or worst - might be worth a look see - at a matinee. Wayne Z At least with Bradbury and Serling you know you aren't going to be a victim of a bait and switch. On imdb this movie only got a 4.8 out of 10, and that is a site whose readers regularly give indie movies high ratings. Here is what one review said: "Ferrara's choice to shoot the majority of the film in one setting with a minimal amount of takes made me feel as if I were watching a play" and "Fans of both doomsday scenario movies and movies that show close-ups of Willem Dafoe's pubic region should walk away eerily pleased from this one." So in other words, the movie consists of 80 minutes of Dafoe and some chick in an apartment babbling about philisophical, metaphorical and metaphysical issues in between screwing, screaming and crying. Does that really sound like the movie tagline? A look at what would happen if everyone knew the world was ending. Don't get me wrong, I happen to like indie movies. Just not these types. If you want to see a truly interesting IFC movie, I suggest Enter the Void. It is somewhat long at 161 minutes but I found the settings, photography, and story fascinating.

[AcesandEights]

If you want to see a truly interesting IFC movie, I suggest Enter the Void. Thank you, thank you for reminding me about this film! I remember hearing about it from another member here before it became available, and totally forgot about it. I'll definitely check it out, now that it's been released.