|
I was looking forward to “Forty Shades of
Blue,” mainly because the film looked to be an interesting take on the
love triangle set to a life of a woman won by a man with a brutal ego.
And when a film like this barely gets any attention, I’m inclined to
give it a chance and see what everyone else is missing out on. When I
watch a film like this, I want something new and memorable, something
that I take to bed with me, but alas, there was nothing. “Forty Shades
of Blue” is never as important as it wants to be, never as intelligent
as it tries to be, and never as good as it vies to be.
|
There are your typical shots and
plot devices here that you can find anywhere. A man
struggling with infidelity and his own life, “graphic”
scenes of sexual activity, and a montage set behind an arty
song. It’s all here, and none of it is ever used to its full
capacity of dramatic effect. Sachs relies on long drawn out
moments of silence meant to reflect the misery of the
characters trapped in the situation, yet he never uses these
moments to convince the actors to convince us of this
set-up. |
|
 |
Sachs’ film is muddled, and often times
dull as hell, and I’m usually one who can sit through a long and
silent film without even drawing a yawn, yet for this I was anxious
to have it end. It’s melodrama and manipulative recycling of old
plots only painted as innovative independent cinema, and the ploy
just doesn’t work. I was never convinced I was watching anything
new, and I cared for none of the characters.
The intended effect is that all of these
people are despicable, and horrible, but they’re too bland to be
either and come off as such. The performances here are shaky and
dim, especially by Dina Korzun, and the climax is so abrupt and
rather irritating that all the symbolism is lost instantly.
Sachs’ love triangle a la Sundance is just
more art house malarkey deemed important and groundbreaking, when it’s
more soapy melodramatic fodder with a dull plot and a lackluster series
of performances. I was severely disappointed.
|
