Reviews

I don't want to talk about the storyline much (you can read that in other reviews), I just want to point out the things that need more attention to my opinion. Why? Because all this fun that is really 'in your face' may distract from the underlying, perhaps much more interesting, message.

Spring Breakers shows the extreme party many young people dream of. Dancing, naked bodies, beach, money, music, beautiful young people, lots of liquor and drugs, the ultimate high all day and all night long. I wonder if the same version will be released in the States (because it contains quite some full frontal nudity)

The shady side to all of this 'joy' starts already at the beginning of the story when three of the four girls violently rob a diner for the cash needed to pay for this vacation. The last girl tags along for the trip, but is the most innocent of them all. She is the one that is religious, and she obviously leaves the party madness first, before it gets really bad.

The film is well edited, and the music really adds to the experience. Though the, first original, way of repeating sequences does soon get tiring towards the end. The film tries to convey you trough humor and the sexy appeal of it all, the same way the characters are swept along in their urge for limitless excitement and pleasure. The character of James Franco is most funny in his role, I especially recall the sentence "look at all my sh*t" next to his absurd piano scene, to be hilarious. One almost forgets he is a full blown criminal, all his guns an money and clothes are gathered by killing, distributing drugs and so on. As eventually two girls remain, they are getting more and more entangled in criminal activities.

This is what makes Spring Breakers actually a good movie: it shows how close this partying and fun really is to crime. Because booze, sex, drugs and all related lean very close to, or are directly connected to, the underworld.

It's good that the film doesn't condemn fun or partying in general (although the religious girl getting out first got me suspicious).

It was a shame that the cast or director didn't mention this deeper meaning at the press conference, and the actresses only spoke about how they had 'such a great time' during the shooting.

Attending the official screening at the 'Sala Grande' at the Venice film festival. The applause for the attending actors finally stops and I find myself waiting with some excitement for a film created by one of the most praised directors of the moment, lining up some great names like Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Javier Bardem and Olga Kurylenko. I was also expecting another great actress to appear on the screen, Rachel Weisz. I would soon find out that she was being cut out, and some more were. It is not the first time this happens. Malick has a notable history of cutting actors out of his films, which is of course his good right.

After a typical romantic scene in Paris, more resembling a travel advert then anything else, I start to get nervous. Why? Because the romantic blah-blah doesn't seem to stop. An overhead voice speaking french doesn't make a movie artistic. Loosely filmed scenes in corn fields are not per definition beautiful.

Kurylenko, in the role of Marina, comes to the hometown of Neil (Affleck), some nowhere ville in Oklahoma where they continue their fairytale romance. Kurylenko is constantly doing little dances and pirouettes on the street, or where-ever she is located. Giggling, singing, hopping on the bed, and looking over her shoulder while laughing towards the camera. That kind of sums it up, since Affleck hardly speaks a word. He is just the typical guy and she is just the typical so called-artistic-french-loving-and-beautiful girl. After she and her daughter return to Paris, he has a identical affair with his hometown sweetheart (McAdams), as if super attractive women are just available everywhere. Then Kurylenko returns, because she needs a Greencard. Explained in just one very meaningful phrase "Forgive me" they have a fight. Also very typical (but yes, finally some action!). Of course some kind of vase is shattered and its all tears and gestures.

Then suddenly Javier Bardem appears as a priest seeking spiritual fulfillment in a church. These scenes seem detached from the rest of the story, although the same church is visited by other characters. Some cleaning personnel and people who are 'worn down by life' are also given some screen time, placed randomly into the movie (in high contrast to the blazing beauty of the main characters).

The religious undertone becomes stronger and stronger towards the end of the movie, making it all too clear that love and religion are one and the same. And that all of the Hallmark-inspired beauty seen before must be powered by the divine.

Enforcing religion onto an audience reminds me of brainwashing, and it is something I cannot appreciate. Showing religion in a movie is no problem; since it is a part of most people's lives, but trying to emotionally convey someone to a certain religion, doesn't matter which one, should be a priest's job not a film director's.

I must say I admire the wish to look upon cinema in new ways, and I can see very clearly what the idea was for making this movie: Malick tries to tell a story by not showing the key moments, conversations or explanations: he shows the in-between. The silent moments, 'life'.

This is how the movie fails: there doesn't seem to anything in-between. The emotions seem empty, love seems superficial, religion is fake.

The thing is, I applaud to art cinema, I am very much fond of romantic stories, I love it when a filmmaker pays attention to cinematography. Maybe all of this made me more disappointed in "To The Wonder" then anyone else.

After it was finished some applause but also loud booing was heard from the audience. I sure wasn't the only one frustrated and appalled by this movie.

Howcome nobody recognizes that this movie is so unoriginal. It tries to convince you by throwing in lots of special effects, tricks and (fake) emotions. In total it's a big struggle to be artistic, romantic, science-fiction and a commercially marketable all in one.

I recognized not only story elements of other movies, even literal shots that were stolen from other (and better) movies. For example: there is this scene brother and sister (not related by blood) are having a private moment where he touches the skin of her arm and you see the hairs of her arm stand up. This idea and even the angle of the shot directly relates to one of the key shots in "The Fountain" (Darren Aronofsky) but this is just one of many. To name some titles; the movie reminds me too much of "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind", "Waking Life", "Sliding Doors", "Jeu d'infant", "Being John Melkovich" ...

Why does the main character only have three choices in his love life: the three girls he sees on a bench when he is a child. In three different dimensions he marries them, while he is only happy with his 'true love' while in these other realities he feels miserable with his fashion-model women. Why if you are unhappy, drag on with it? And he has all these children,and never cares about them. And what about friends?

This film pretends to be open minded, while nothing in the story really is. (especially the religious notes that subconsciously are interlaced in the story) This film pretends to be original, while it is filled with clichés only.