Shit Year (2010) User Reviews (4)

there is clue in the title

[uwa · 1/10 · 12 April 2011]

i had my doubts about writing a review about this movie, it feels like kicking a child with a down syndrome, but if that child constantly bites you then there is no choice, is there?

the movie is about a constantly talking actress who is obsessed with herself, trying to come in terms with her retirement.

i usually like experimental movies, but this wasn't an experimental movie, it was just a wanna be project, i was okay if it didn't have any meaningful purpose, but this movie tried so hard to be meaningful in an experimental way which is really not a good idea, horrible idea to be clear. the biggest issue in the movie is that it is like a diary, nothing visual on it, the fact that this director also directed music videos is beyond me. it is like we are watching a monologue of a boring woman who constantly repeat herself then director remembers that he is shooting a movie and adds something visual but not so amazing images.

to cut the long story short(unlike the movie), i would believe if the director turned out to be a high school student who's favorite movie is 'a single man'. it tells nothing new, it is a real wanna be movie, and it is real a waste of time, i hope i never watch a movie like this again. (actually it is really hard to call this thing a movie.)

Years of Retirement

[virtualimmigrant · 7/10 · 8 February 2019]

This film might be too experimental and fragmented for its own good, but it is enlivened by fantastic performance by Ellen Barkin as Colleen West, an retired actress trying to find her place in the world she is not familiar with. The film doesn't follow traditional narrative and scenes jump from present to past, and between dreaming, dreams and nightmares (there is one haunting scene near the end the puts most contemporary horror films into shame). Yet, this fragmented flow of the film doesn't take anything away from Ellen Barkin's wonderful character. Actually it all enhances her confusion - did she already loose everything (herself among) while she was working as an actress or, everything went loss after her retirement? It is my own personal interpretation, that she was already lost, but when she quit the circus she just started to see the things. Although, experimental with its directing style and it sounds pretentious self search/loss story, the film stands much higher than your usual artsy film school stuff that deals with existencial crisis. The heightened meaning behind this might come from Barkin's performance and her own life experience. Don't be afraid that film, although black and white, might be too depressive or bleak, as it offers some nice laughs. Especially scenes between Colleen West and her new neighbor Shelly (Melora Walters). Barkin's character is wonderfully arrogant and self conscious, but not unpleasant, actually she is very cool.

Definitely not for everyone, but this movie has definitely hasn't got the recognition it truly deserves.

i don't usually write stuff online, but...

[reyly · 8/10 · 14 February 2017]

...i feel like i have to set something against what has been written about this film in an earlier review on this website. sht year is a very sensitive, empathetic portrait about an eccentric, depressive yet somehow sympathetic woman, it is a film about loss, the loss of meaning, sense, purpose, occupation, loss of love and ultimately about the fear of the end of loss of having nothing more to lose. since the other review is highly subjective and since i don't know how to write a decent review i will just say: there are a lot of things i like about this film, i just watched it again after about 3 years and, again, i greatly enjoyed it. but even if you're not into the kind of photography/videoart aesthetics archer employs along with his talent for stillness, even if you don't recognize the existential struggle with identity and being a real person in a real life world that gifted actors seem to be prone to and which is embodied here by such an actress in a very very courageous, intimate and personal way, even if you do not identify with the character or the imagery, one must acknowledge that it is a strong and unusual film. it is by no means trashy or cheap or attempting to be something it is not, like the other review suggests. im not saying you're wrong in not enjoying it since its your subjective experience, but you're making it sound like its impossible that anyone might enjoy it and its total crap which is not true at all. it is a strong movie, it has a strong point, and a sense of urgency. it is artistic expression by means of film on a high level in the way its written, performed, captured and produced. so im not saying its for anyone, everyone should watch it, but i like it a lot and its certainly worth a shot. it deserves to be taken seriously, please don't just dismiss it because one dude on IMDb couldn't make sense of it. i could and i recommend it as well as archers first feature length film "wild tigers I've known" (again very specific images, but if they tell your story it can feel like someone knows whats in your heart and i am thankful for that, its the best thing about art!)

It took time to get it

[alexeiovcarenko · 10/10 · 30 March 2020]

Have you ever watched Persona by Ingmar Bergman? I did. Apparently Cam Archer watched it too.