Alex Caulfield Is this Hartley following Godard's footsteps and becoming "political"? Political commentary is never interesting, unless it is executed in an interesting way. Luckily, this is one of those cases.I'm amazed at the quality of the shots considering they used a DCR-VX2000 for this movie. How many cameras did they use? One I suspect.Hartley's World is that of an intelligent essayist, specially since he quit making movies like "Surviving Desire" and "Trust". "Theory of Achievement" was heavily influenced by "La Chinoise", as much as the form of a "short" could take it. Here we have the same intent, but turned into a fictional narrative. It works, but only if you understand the reasoning behind it.

nanelikek It is a typical Hal Hartley in terms of the mood he creates. Long in-door shots, the disconcert between sound and sight. As always he uses cheap material. for instance one suspects that the black goggles that the cops wear -with the red light in the center- may be like a 10 dollar toy bought from Chinatown. But this combined with the camera moves and lights allows him to create a different world that is often visually convincing. Although I heard people in the audience murmur about the connection with the space being unconvincing, I totally disagree.It is a meditation on capitalism where the term 'flesh market' gets literal. He weaves this theme in with reflections on the sense of the extremeness of the boundaries between individuals in modern capitalist society. How one feeds the other, in fact makes the other possible. I found it very successful although sometimes a bit didactic.

dcold So hopefully this was just a blip on the screen of an otherwise good career. Was the talk of the Sundance shuttle bus...but not in a good way.Too many amateurish techniques. Voice over narration in an attempt to get a noir feeling but most of the time was actually for exposition because the story wasn't getting told on the screen.Bad camera technique that would be okay in small doses (ie: a dream sequence) but was tiring and distracting from the opening credits onward. Kept waiting for the "real" movie to start.The girl from Monday doesn't make an appearance for quite awhile in the movie and then gets left in an apartment to learn to use her body (or course she swam out of the ocean quite well).Anyway...I had to leave about the time the boy was getting "raped" in the school bathroom. Time is too precious at Sundance and I went to "Rory O'Shea was Here" and the contrast couldn't have been higher between the two.Is probably a waste of time to anyone but his fans.D.

rm-27 Shown at New York's Museum of Modern Art, January 2005. Introduced by the Directer with the major cast in attendance.A satirical swipe at Big Government and Big Business. Government and business are in a conspiracy to exploit the public. The film also ridicules the situation in the schools where guns are checked at the door. The main characters are rebelling against the big powers.Life is not good for the workers. Everything is turned into a profit maker for the big company which is an arm of the government. Sex, for example, cannot be enjoyed for pleasure but is used to earn purchasing credits. Sex for pleasure is punishable.All students take Attention Deficit pills. The school situation is so bad, that a criminal sentence is to teach high school for two years.The action takes place in the "future' but the very near future as the cars, streets, clothes, etc are all modern day. The film was shot almost entirely in downtown Manhattan. Some parts looks like a hand held camera was used but the resulting film is professional in look and color.The acting and action move the action along at a nice pace. The Girl From Monday arrives from a planet(?)called Monday. A space visitor is not really necessary to the story but it allows the "Monday" character to observe the local people with a fresh eye.The "bad" motives and actions of the government, corporation, and The Police are beaten to death with a fairly heavy hand but that is the point of the film which arose from a "rant" written by the Director who later decided to put his criticisms on film.Have not seen any of this director's previous films to compare but this film was an enjoyable look at what could happen if the "Military/Industrial Complex" of the 1950's becomes the Government/Industrial Complex of today.