Origami

No spoilers...

I have the urge to go off on a tangent about the fact that Lem's novel Solaris was written BEFORE 2001: A Space Odyssey so that people might think beyond the basic, but instead I'll just get to the movie.

As for this version of the story itself, alas it's missing something. Like motivation for Kelvin's actions. Whether it is the screenplay's fault, or if Kelvin's motivations are edited out, his whole demeanor is not convincing from the limited backstory we are given to begin with. Add to that the sloppiness of subplots left hanging (mentioned quite well in other comments) and you are left with something that *could* have been great, or even good but which just feels empty. Clooney's work is very good for what he has to work with, and Jeremy Davies is quite together for the not-all-together Snow. But again, with a flawed production there is only so much they can do.

3 out of 10.

This, THIS utter piece of junk, slapped together and lacking anything close to coherence, this was supposed to blow the lid off of some conspiracy about Cobain's death? I cannot believe anybody gives credence to something this lacking in any evidence, real interviews, or some semblance of anything above tabloid schlock. Okay, actually, tabloids do much better work.

Here's what they've dug up.

• family members who don't like Courtney (and who she doesn't like), who haven't seen her in years, using Courtney's fame to aggrandize themselves and make a lot of baseless charges. Both her father and stepfather think she killed Kurt; of course, neither has spoken to her in a decade. Her stepdad actually pulls a poem out that she wrote when she was maybe 14 and says that it's proof that even then she was going to kill a rich husband.

• friends and supposed friends who tell self-conflicting stories about Kurt being suicidal, Kurt not being suicidal, Courtney being a harpy, Courtney being a good partner for Kurt.

• The infamous El Duce (of the Mentors) interview, where he does back up his claim that Courtney offered him $50,000 to kill Kurt. His specifics aren't anything more than what could be pulled from any newspaper story on Kurt. His death shortly thereafter looks less like a Courtney-orchestrated hit than the inevitable death of a doomed nihilist (see G.G. Allin).

• Paparrazzi who are supposed to be so smooth and jump Courtney to ask her questions, but who are so inept that the battery on their camera runs out while they film themselves buying soda outside her studio. Then they catch her at the ACLU dinner and ask her wimpy little questions about her new record and get all giggly, and are too "overwhelmed at the moment" to ask her any questions of importance.

• The private investigator hired by Courtney to "find" Curt who now believes that she had him killed, but who has nothing supporting his claim, only vaguely polished reasons why Curt could not possibly have been able to kill himself. Which are then easily refuted.

• Numerous interviews with either stoned or simply stupid acquaintances whose concept of answering an open-ended question is by saying, "Yeah................yeah man, I think so." The surprise final interview with the Cobains' nanny is scintillating: we learn she had to leave because she hated it up there; that Kurt was a loving father, but Courtney wouldn't let him love Francis Bean as much as he wanted; that Curt seemed really unhappy and wanted to get away. That's it, that's the big insight from someone who was on the inside. Wow, brilliant work there.

In the end the movie makes no claims at all, which is for the best since there's really nothing but a lot of 3rd hand chatter and noise. The filmmaker asks no real questions, does no real research, does no real editing and makes no real claims. The musical choices are bland, drab, and perfectly fit the endless blank-wall pallor of the film (except the live bands add a little flavor). The only real info is very clear evidence that Courtney is probably a relentless bitch that few people probably liked before she got rich and that nobody likes now, although many people fear her. Then again, is that really news to anybody? The movie is more about the attempts to stop the movie from being made, but given what he accomplished while he was working Courtney need not have feared it so much. I understand that he lost financial backing, but even if he had a million dollars it doesn't look like he was capable of using it to get any any information justifying the expense. There's not one interview with Nirvana, no people who knew the couple at the end of his life (well, nobody who can speak in more than vague, spaced out phrases), no ex-handlers, no Evan Dando, no Eric, no nothing. Since I'm an information junkie I have never before actually said "yeah, pull the funding on that documentary," but there's a first time for everything.

Someone in an earlier review said they couldn't understand why Nick Broomfield's work is unavailable in the US. Well, I think I can answer that question.

Don't see Limbo. It is a poorly made film, and a failed experiment in filmmaking.

Sometimes it is best to get to the point early on, and so I have attempted to do just that in this review. If the makers of Limbo had kept to that idea, they could have saved themselves several million dollars and thousands of people would have 2 1/2 hours of their lives to spend in better circumstances. Alas, it was not to be, so audiences will pay for their mistake.

Depressingly, Limbo isn't just a bad movie; it is two bad movies. The first revolves around a small Alaskan fishing town that is at the end of its spool. The cannery is closing down and the fishing business itself provides only a risky living for those desperate enough to take their chances with its financial and physical risks. One of those desperate souls is Harmon King, a down-and-out former fisherman looking to return to his old trade. Sadly for him, he owes a large amount of money to the local lodge owners, who have repossessed his boat. They have hosted a wedding for the daughter of a tourism executive's daughter, which is being worked by handyman Joe Gastineau, torch singer Donna De Angelo, and Donna's daughter Noelle. Donna has the audacity to dump her bandmate/boyfriend onstage at the wedding, which is a good example of the selfishness that has estranged her from her daughter. She hitches a ride into town with Joe and they begin an intimate relationship, while Donna ignores the continued warning signs that her daughter is slipping into serious depression. Meanwhile, we meet the local bartender, keeper of sea stories, and also watch Harmon fight with Frankie and Lou (the lodge owners) over his boat. They have lent the boat to Joe so that he can return to the sea 25 years after having two friends die while out with him on a fishing trip. And finally, enter Smilin' Jack, the bush pilot Romeo with an eye for Donna and a dislike for Joe.

Did you get all that? It doesn't matter because, 90 minutes into the film, all but three of the aforementioned characters are erased from the movie. Even the histories of the characters kept on are eradicated. It is as if they never existed, and the film begins again, this time centering on a sea jaunt by Joe, Donna, Noelle, and Joe's brother Bobby into the backwaters of Alaska's islands. Bobby doesn't tell his passengers, but he is meeting some drug kingpins whose dope he lost and who are out for revenge. When the meeting turns fatal, the three passengers must hide on a deserted island with little hope of rescue and winter closing in. Slowly, ever so slowly, the drama of three hopelessly stranded people plays out, as anger, lust, and vulnerability each take their turn in the castaways' lives.

It is apparent that writer/director John Sayles wanted to make a non-traditional sort of film, and he succeeds. That is the only measure of success in the film, however, as some film making conventions should be followed. Such as finishing any storyline that is started, or not creating ridiculous situations in order to squeeze some sort of "character building through adversity" out of your stars. The dismissal of the entire first half of the film before any resolution makes the film seem overlong, and is wasteful of any emotion imbued in the characters discarded. Likewise, once you have placed your chosen characters in adversity, it would help to allow some development by them, or give a reason why they are still the small people they were to start with. The only personal discovery by the stranded "family" is that Noelle is an extremely gifted if morose storyteller; Donna doesn't notice that her emotional abandonment of Noelle has sparked her daughter's lonely talent.

I feel I must add some "meta-review" here. Several hundred other people and I were treated to free passes to this film. I can honestly say that I have never seen so many people walk out in the middle of a free movie as walked out of Limbo. As the film dragged on the remaining audience sank lower into their seats, muttering disparaging comments, and generally suffering the annoyance of an excruciatingly slow film. In fact, I wish I had thought, "the only way this film could get any slower is if the film broke", because, two hours in, the film broke. Normally when the film breaks during a screening there is a lot of booing and hissing, and general disappointment amongst audience members. When the film broke during Limbo there was a palpable wave of relief that swept the audience, with laughter and high fives passed around. A number of moviegoers resembled prisoners who have noticed the prison guard's back has turned and made good their escape. And finally, once the film was restarted and the inconclusive end reached (which is supposed to place you and the cast in limbo, get it? Wakka wakka wakka) there were people asking for free passes to another movie for sitting through the torture that is this film, and they got in for free. Imagine how bad you'll feel if you pay for it.

Whether you liked the film or not, whether the jokes in this film made you laugh (as they did me) or cringe (as they did others), it is not, as some have stated, sloppy or stupid filmmaking by any means. I draw attention to the fact that the film spoofs not only James Bond (repeatedly), but both the Avengers (with the original Mrs. Kensington and her vinyl outfit, the female assassin who's "a man, baby") as well as "The Prisoner" (Austin's car, the repeated question, "Who does Number 2 work for?"). As a genre-spoof, it brought more to the table than just playing on the familiar jokes over and over again. Far from a missed opportunity, this was a rare gem of a film that attempted success on several levels. If it didn't always work, then that is a matter of taste. But whether the film was a worthy attempt at parody I think is beyond question.

While "Go" is an enjoyable thrill ride while watching it, a little distance shows the glaring weakness of the story. That is, the characters must continually make the wrong decisions for the film to continue. Without giving anything away it takes numerous examples of poor decision making for the film to reach its conclusion. While these choices may seem logical at first, once they keep happening over and over again they become apparent for what they really are: plot devices.