Melancholia - Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Kiefer Sutherland

The Gist

Melancholia
Buy it here and support our blog

Justine (Kirsten Dunst) just got married. Her sister and brother-in-law payed for and organized everything. All Justine has to do is be happy. And at first she is. But when her divorced parents quarrel at dinner she begins to feel a bit disconnected for her party, her family, and even her new husband. As Justine begins to feel more and more alienated she begins to withdraw herself from the party for long periods of time - her actions becoming more and more desperate.
Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is Justine's sensible sister. Though frustrated with her sister's moods, she understands Justine more than anyone else, and takes care of her no matter what. While trying to help her sister, Claire also has her own worries to deal with. Her husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland), is a scientist and talks of a planet hidden behind the sun for years. A planet that will soon be visible to the naked eye from Earth. A planet rushing through space towards them. A planet called Melancholia. Though John assures her Melancholia has no chance at hitting Earth, Claire feels sure that something bad is about to occur. But there's nothing she can do to stop it.

What We Think
Reviewed  by Dream Catcher
Run Time: 136 Minutes
Rating: R
So. I heard about this what seems like years ago but was probably a few months tops. My mind is weird like that. But anyways, I started hearing about it again recently. Where? Entertainment Weekly. They were trying to convince me to go out and watch this movie - they told me it was fantastic and beautiful and symbolic and all that jazz every movie aspires to be. So what did I do? I trusted my Entertainment Weekly and I watched it. The worst decision ever.
So, I think I'm going to start out with the thing that was the best; the acting. I'd heard Kirsten Dunst might get nominated for best actress in the Oscars for this. And, truth is, she was actually really, really good. Her character was really interesting and complex and she made everything about her believable, even things that shouldn't be. Like deserting your own wedding? Normally, people don't do that. Dunst somehow made me believe it. Charlotte Gainsbourg was actually pretty good, too. She did well as the emotionally stable sister in the beginning, and the one falling apart in the end. The other main character, Claire's husband, John, was pretty mediocre. He was nothing to rave about but he wasn't noticeably bad. His character was pretty bland, so you can't really blame him for that, I guess. The acting was by far the best part of the movie. It was really convincing. But when I say it was the "best part" I really mean it was the "only part". Because nearly everything else was terrible, contrary to popular opinion.
The script was written by the director, Lars von Trier. Ever heard of him? Apparently he's pretty famous. I've never heard of him OR his supposedly beautiful movies. Eh. Well, he wrote the script and it was perfectly average, except for the fact that nothing made any sense and the segments of the movie were unforgivably disconnected. The dialogue itself was fine. The sister-sister relationship was believable, the husband-wife relationship was fine, the end-of-the-world panic was good. But the script is the plot. And the problem wasn't exactly lack of one...it was the fact that the story contained two mostly unrelated plots. The first section is just about Justine's disastrous wedding and her even more disastrous depression (otherwise known as melancholia). The next thing I know I'm watching everything from her sister's perspective - Justine is comatose in her sadness and Claire is freakish in her panic. Suddenly it's not at all about the wedding or the effects of that. It's about a planet. Do those things seem at all connected? No. In a desperate attempt to understand, I went to the Melancholia website and was half-reading an interview with Lars von Trier about the movie. It shed some light on some things. Some. Melancholia  is an old-fashion word for depression, so if you have depression you're a melancholiac. That's why the movie is named Melancholia; Justine is a melancholiac (and because the planet is called Melancholia - who knows why). So, the movie is supposed to be exhibiting how a melancholiac deals with the end of the world versus how the average person deals with it. Moral being: melancholiacs are so apathetic they deal with the end of the world as if it's any other day - depending on the melancholiac there may even be some celebration involved. This is put up against the manic freak out of the average person. I think dear friend Lars is trying to subtly tell us something. I just haven't figured out if he's saying melancholiacs are better, or if he's just comparing and contrasting. If it's that latter, a simple Venn diagram would have sufficed, Lars. If it's the former, it would make a little more sense. Lars is a melancholiac, after all (another thing I learned on his website), so asserting his awesomeness via film would make some sense. Maybe. Except I really don't think that was his full intention when he wrote the script. I think he was going for something deep - and because he was so OBVIOUSLY trying for thought-provoking people bought into it. Wow, he has some wicked cool slow-mo images at the beginning that symbolize the meaning of the film as a whole! I think I'm supposed to be impressed! Critics say. But I don't buy it. Just because something is intended to be awesomely mind-blowing doesn't mean it is. I think some people forget that.
I will go into cinematography because it's something that I find to be really interesting and  - when pulled off correctly - makes the entire film a whole lot more beautiful. This was another good point of the movie. The cinematography was fantastic. And, though I did just recently taunt the opening scene symbolism, it was really beautiful. The pictures were grim with a sad edginess to them. My complaint there was that each was a little to dragged out - everything could have been cut a little better. If I based my grade entirely on cinematography, the movie would get an A for sure. But I don't. And though I loved this aspect of the movie - the aspect every critic focuses on with no mention of anything else - there has to be more than that to make a real film.
I'll finish ranting soon and you can go and finish watching the movie, or start watching the movie, or make plans to watch the movie, because I know my review is probably the only of its kind in the entire universe at the moment - I am the only one to dislike Melancholia. Or so it seems.You'll want to see it anyway, and I shrug at that; I would if I were you, too.
I'll end with two things. One thing I liked, and one thing I hated. Loved: there's this specific scene which I cannot get out of my head, and I honestly do love. Justine has just gotten to Claire's house and Claire has prepared Justine's favorite meal (meatloaf) in hope that it'll bring her back to the land of the living. She helps Justine in the room and into a chair in front of the dinner table. "Do you smell that?"
"Meatloaf." Dunst's portrayal is perfect. She cuts off a slice of said meatloaf and puts it in her mouth. Chews. Everyone watches intently. She puts down her knife and her fork and stops chewing. And starts crying. "It tastes like ashes."
My point in writing all that out for you is to say I didn't completely dislike Melancholia. I hated it, but I didn't entirely dislike it. If that makes any sense. There were some great scenes, but the problem was they were few and far between. Which brings me to the thing I hated: boredom. I got so bored when watching the movie that  I paused it a few times and did something else for a few minutes before getting myself to agree to resume watching. Sadly - as sad as it can ever be with movies, it had potential. But it fell flat.

Real Teen Rating ~ D+ : It passes time...barely...