It's All About Love - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

It's All About Love Reviews

Page 1 of 5
½ August 18, 2014
"It's All About Love" is full of good intentions and promising surreal moments that are never fully realized in an entertaining way. Worth the viewing if only for Anthony Dod Mantle's brilliant camerawork that finds the compositions swaying left and right, thus creating a permanent state of unease.
November 17, 2013
It is possible that "its All About Love" portrays a future world where everything is so fake that it goes beyond shallow to people intentionally being created as frauds to perpetuate the lies and the individuals are so brainwashed and drugged as to not even know that they are disposable fakes. They don't realize that they are all insane in one big fraud perpetuating machine of a world that they cannot perceive the world as it really is. The movie says that, even so, Love can still exist even if no one is sure what or who they are loving. In the end, the lover's do not know where they are going or why, but die together trying to get there together. I do not believe that even the news shows truth, 2 min of freshwater freeze everywhere, people flying without wanting to in Uganda, weather unrelated to the seasons, no one seems to know what day it is. With a drugged, fake, insane existence, what do we have left for ourselves, but some agreement between 2 people that they have love, even if they have nothing left, not even life.
½ October 8, 2013
I'm trying to pretend this never happened, I wouldn't want a misstep as big as this to ruin my love for Thomas Vinterberg's films, which are nothing like this one by the way.

In a world were people die on the street for some unexplained heart condition and no one does anything about it, a man (Joaquin Phoenix) with a strange accent visits his wife (Claire Danes) to get her to sign divorce papers, but they seem to still love each other and so they play like little kids and he watches her and her clones ice-skate. Meanwhile, Sean Penn is on a plane blabbering about love (also in a strange accent) and has no interaction with any other characters. He's just writing a letter on a plane that is about to crash.

Thomas Vinterberg's films aren't really known for their technical aspects, but for their emotional aspects. I couldn't feel anything at all during the whole movie, there really wasn't anything good in it. I really loved "Dear Wendy", which is one of his lesser known works and thought this could be a good film, I was wrong. I actually hadn't seen a bad film of his, they're either great films (Festen, The Hunt), fun and original (Dear Wendy), or at least worth a watch (Submarine).

Stay away from this film, watch any other film by Thomas Vinterberg but not this one.
½ June 10, 2013
It's more about boredom.
½ March 17, 2013
About as poetic a conspiracy theory film can get. It's nevertheless a dreary depiction of life in the near future, although given the corporate greed depicted maybe it will one be viewed as prophetic. There's a number of elements in this film that cause consternation, such as Sean Penn's character that as deep as he is as a narrator, seems unnecessary - as is the strange weather system that offers style over substance.
January 13, 2013
Slow and quite dull. Didn't make it to the end.
December 10, 2012
That's two hours of my life I'll never get back.

Seriously, don't even think about watching this. You will get sucked into a black hole, trying to comprehend this incomprehensible movie. Is it a sci-fi clone thriller? Is it a romance? Is it a moral drama about global warming? No one knows, not even the director. I hate him for making this movie.
December 1, 2012
the story was too pretentious, it could be a great movie with diferent music, the performance of Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes is great even Sean Penn with no more than 20 seconds in his 4 scenes. In the end has a message which seems to be linking the global freezing of a near-future world with the coldness in people's hearts. The exact problem is that they want a mixture of diferent genres, and you get confused waiting to something to happen and turns slow.
November 2, 2012
I guess I'm in the minority in liking this movie, too bad it did not too well in the box office, perhaps the timing was wrong.
October 8, 2012
I don't know why people hate this movie so much. It's extremely entertaining, fascinating, emotional and highly original. Just enjoy it and quit trying to rationalize it. It's an extremely powerful film with brazen images and an ambitious storyline which to me is very successful for what the film was trying to achieve. Please don't be chased away by all the bad reviews that have collectively decided this film is a flop. Don't be afraid to watch it and think that its great because it is.
½ August 4, 2012
T.V. you make my heart go weak . . .
July 22, 2012
a fucking waste of time.
Cameron W. Johnson
Super Reviewer
April 25, 2012
Hey baby, it's all just about the love. Well, Steven Curtis Chapman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, you Christian singin' dude I've never heard of until I just Googled songs with titles that are something along the lines of "All About Love", because this film certainly didn't get any love from the critics. Richard Roeper notably called it "like Kubrick with a talent-ectomy", which is pretty harsh, because I've seen "Eyes Wide Shut" - and oh boy, did I come back to tell the tale -, and I can certainly tell you how bad a post-talent-ectomy Kubrick film is, like "Days of Heaven". No, "Days of Heaven" was just mediocre as all get-out, rather than all around bad, mostly because it was prettier and about 70 minutes shorter than "Eyes Wide Shut", and also, even it, "a Terrence Malick film", had more of a point. Other than that, however, there were an awful lot of similarities, outside of the fact that those films were both pointless bores, like how Terrence Malick took 20 years off after "Days", and Stanley Kubrick took, well, forever off after "Eyes", if you catch my drift, until about 20 years later, when Spielberg did his big Kubrick homage, "A.I." in... 2001, which was only two years after "Eyes Wide Shut" came out? Well, maybe "Eyes Wide Shut" just felt like it ran 18 years, which is why a lot of faulty dramas that came out after 1999 automatically get a few extra points, based on comparison, even if it was also the year of "Fight Club", which bumped off a couple of points from, well, "every" film after 1999, based on comparsion. Well, needless to say, the "'Eyes Wide Shut' Principle" certainly gave this film an advantage, but, make no mistake, this is quite the faulty drama, though kept from falling apart by other saving graces.

Aesthetically, the film really accels, boasting subtle, but eye-catchingly glowing cinematography that gives this film a touch of visual spectacle, while Zbigniew Preisner's fabulous score touches this film with grace and resonance, more than you would expect it to. As I'll get into later, the film's tone is all over the place and tainted by overambition; but where most films this tonally messy would have all but, if not certainly fallen apart, Preisner's striking musical taste, while sometimes manipulated as a supplement to the overbearing tone, more often than not, keeps the film as down to earth as it can get it, and does so with grace upon the ears so sensational that, from time to time, the film's fauty underwhelmingness falls away for an all too brief moment of genuine charm or even emotion, especially at the admittedly moving ending. Still, the true saviors of the film are the people that bring grace to the screen, while on it, with a cast featuring such people as Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes and even Joaquin Phoenix in some parts, really, it should almost go without saying that the acting is excellent. If there's anything that our leads have in common, outside of the simple fact that they're all brillaint, it's the nailing of accents, something that I just have to bring up, because I'm quite impressed with the very unique, delicate subtlety in the execution of those accents, making them all the more realistic and the performers all the more impressive, because a shift in pronounced accents is difficult enough, let alone when it's subtle, and all of our performers nail it. Other than that, few, if any two performances are exactly alike, with Joaquin Phoenix powerfully playing a confused and well-intentioned man facing life-changing, if not life-threatening circumstances and Claire Danes soulfully playing a fearful, as well as hopeful, though still consistently breaking spirit. Most all performance are good, but it's our moving leads that really do their best to bring the film to life, making them, quite likely, the biggest saviors of the film, as they are charismatic, subtle, graceful, compelling and, most impressively, don't come off as bad, which I know sounds like bizarre redundance, but really, with a script and editor like this, for all extents and purposes, the acting should look as much like a piece of Amateur Hour (and-a-Half) as the rest of the film, outside of the cinematography and score. Sure, the film is ultimately watchable for its beautiful style and excellent performances, but on the whole, this film is a mess of its own ambition, and it doesn't help that it doesn't even come close to reaching those ambitions, or at least not from a technical standpoint.

Okay, outside of that bad CG plane that stays way too long when it occasionally pops in, or the editing, the technical value is reasonably impressive, except when it comes to the editing, which messy in a way that's sometimes difficult to notice, though still often faulty, nevertheless, with a good couple of moments where the faultiness is really glaring. The hit-or-miss technical aspects, alone, reflect the incompetence in the film, though not quite as much as Thomas Vinterberg's direction, which kind of justifies my talking too much about "Eyes Wide Shut", because, while Vinterberg's direction doesn't fall that amazingly flat, oh boy, does it hit the ground hard, and in an all too similar fashion. Vinterberg drenches the film in too much artistry, making the meditative points of sobering style sappy and pretentious, and the moments of exposition and plot - such as it is - overbearingly melodramatic, ultimately leaving the film consistently rather dull. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, the consistency ends there, because the tone of the film is all over the place, going from being an overly sober dramatic piece, to a rather far-fetched thriller piece, and even some kind of a stylized sci-fi piece, and doing it all so abruptly, limply and jarringly that, after a while, which ever tone the film falls upon goes rather limp, thanks to Vinterberg's overbearing overambition. Still, it's not like his ambitions are terribly justified, because while his execution of the concept is certainly spotty, it's a messy concept to begin with, and made more so by Vinterberg's and Mogens Rukov's just as, if not more messy screenplay, which can't even provide simple dialouge pieces without it feeling awkwardly sudden and all over the place in mood. Still, it's the screenplay's story structure that stings the most, for although Vinterberg, as director, slips on tonal consistency and most ever turn, he's certainly not help by the fact that not even his and Rukov's script can't even figure out what it wants to be or do, going plauged by inconsistent focus on various borderline contradicting aspects, and yet, what is consistent about the script is the fact that, like the film, which ever aspect it does focus on, it falls short of delivering on. Really, I know that it sounds like I'm building up a bash down on this film, yet I still stand by the style and performances as saving graces that stand as strong enough to not simply save the film, but make it rather watchable, though just barely, because, at the end of the day, this film is a sloppy mess of failure of ambition that was never really all that high in the first place.

When it's all said and done, the handsome cinematography, touching score and fine performances - particularly those by the charismatic, soulful, versatile and generally powerful leads, Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes - pump this film with just enough impressive quality, as well as the ever so occasional golden moment of genuine resonance, to save it and make it rather watchable, and yet, even with all of the style and acting grace that saves the film, some shoddy editing taints Thomas Vinterberg's overambitious vision, though not nearly as much as Vinterberg, himself, both as director and writing partner to Mogen Rukov, with whom Vinterberg turns out a spotty, limp and wildly inconsistent screenplay, made all the sloppier by Vinterberg's dull, tonally uneven and generally pretentious direction that helps in making "It's All About Love" a messy, unrewarding piece of mediocrity, even with its just effective enough saving graces.

2/5 - Medicore
March 14, 2012
My friend says it's pants! Don't waste two hours of your life watching this, cos you'll just end up confused and pissed off!
½ November 10, 2011
Confusing and ill conceived,
September 30, 2011
Hard to believe that I saw a film that rated 14% on the Tomatometer and liked it. What attracted my interest was its Ballardian strangeness; e.g. a cosmic upheaval without conscious or reason and human deterioration in its wake. You would have to be familiar with the literary style of J. G. Ballard (e.g. Crash, The Crystal World, or his short stories) in order to fully appreciate something like this or youâ(TM)ll be left asking what just happened when the credits start to roll.

The filmâ(TM)s director, Thomas Vinterber, is one of the founders of Dogme 95, an avant-garde filmmaking movement designed to create that sense of strangeness and in my opinion he pulls it off with some success.
August 15, 2011
Another masterpiece from Tomas Vinterberg.
July 25, 2011
I'll watch any movie with Joaquin Phoenix or Sean Penn, so to put them together... I could not resist. Not a bad movie, a little creepy, definitely differnet.
July 24, 2011
I didn't watch the whole thing at first. In fact, I only walked in the room while it was playing, and caught a brief glimpse of Phoenix and Danes in the snow. My brother was watching it, and I asked him what it was, perplexed that I'd never heard of a movie with both of these actors.
"I dunno," he said. "I think it's the end of the world or something."

"Really? What's the culprit? Zombies? Nuclear winter?" The last one made sense, given the setting.

"I dunno. I don't think anyone cares. They're just trying to get back together or something, before the world ends. Honestly, it kinda sucks."

For some reason, the idea of apocolypse as a personal experience stuck with me. Several years later, I decided to track down and watch this film, curious about what this other director had done with an idea that had, by that point, become very personal to me. What I got instead was this steaming pile of crap. This festering monument to the importance of creative feedback in a professional setting, this monolith to inadequacy. F*ck you very much, Vinterberg. Dogme was great, but you're a coattail-riding hack.
Page 1 of 5