Where to begin. Before the screening of It's All About Love, director Thomas Vinterberg urged the audience to take a couple of days before forming an opinion of this film. You know... time to let the movie sink in. I took his advice and I have the same opinion now that I did when I watched the movie. I didn't like it. I also didn't care for the way he responded to a valid question from a curious Sundance attendee. Following the movie, a gentleman had the courage (something I don't think I've ever seen at the festival) to ask what the movie was about. He was completely, utterly confused. The director responded by saying that that was one of the reasons he wanted everyone to take a couple of days to think about it, and that he did the best he could as a film maker. A moment later, another gentleman stood up. He was a spokesman for the half of the audience that "did get it". Of course as this man began to ask his tediously formed question, he contradicted himself one second after the other, as he attempted to make sense out of this convoluted experiment of a movie.

I guess I'm rambling myself, but perhaps that's because this movie has me dumbfounded. Let me start by saying that I love experimental movies. Mike Figgis' Timecode was extremely innovative. Hell, I'm probably the only critic in America that gave a favorable review to Steven Soderbergh's interesting Full Frontal. I'd also like to say that a movie doesn't have to spell everything out for me to like it, nor does everything have to make sense in a conventional way. I love the works of David Lynch and numerous other film makers who deal in strange fantasy and surrealism.

It's All About Love is meant to leave the audience in a sort of dream state with it's odd plot developments and European flavor, but the movie fails because it dares to introduce a plot. If Vinterberg wanted to raise interesting questions about life and give us a glimpse at how he looks at the world that's fine. But if the movie isn't really supposed to have any kind of valid point, then it really isn't fair to expect the audience to invest any kind of emotional attachment towards the characters. This movie goes nowhere despite an engrossing and promising first act and some strong performances.

The futuristic movie features Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Daines as ex-lovers who rekindle their fiery romance. Unfortunately, a hideous plot sends the two on the run. Who their on the run from isn't really important and where their going isn't either. It's just an excuse for the film maker of Celebration (a picture that incorporated the Dogma rules of movie making) to do the absolute opposite of what he did last time. Now, I haven't seen Celebration so I wont comment on that film. But this movie is a complete mess. It introduces a couple of interesting ideas (the strange heart condition sweeping the world is a nice touch), but it never amounts to anything. It's unfortunate because Daines and Phoenix are extremely talented. They bring emotion and pain to this emotionless and painful exercise in tedium.

I'm sure there are many out there that will proclaim this a brilliant piece of art (as they did with the meandering Gerry last year). They'll talk about all the metaphors and symbolism that flow throughout the film. They'll talk about it's cold and bleak look at the future. What they wont talk about is how nonsensical this movie is, and how we as an audience are fooled into thinking that this movie is about something when it really isn't. It's just about showing off with a camera.

By the way, did I mention that Sean Penn helped get this picture off the ground? He also has a bit part in the picture, but if you blink, you'll most certainly miss him. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Penn, but this is not a movie, it's an experimental misfire.

It's All About Love is proof that not all art is good art, and I for one want to commend the audience member who had the courage to stand up and ask what many of us were only thinking; "What the hell did I just sit through?"