Poorly shot brilliant film. I don’t even know how to make these films.
For ideas that are indicated in it and slightly worked out, including ideas that formed in your head while watching, but were not disclosed – 10 out of 10 and the bookmark “Favorite movies”.
For directing and scripting 5 and 6 of 10.
For some other details, I could slap 2 out of ten, which is a shame. Here, for example, the state of the home of the heartbroken main character: in order to Die the house 4 years of mess is not enough, cracked paint on the doors, holes in the walls, stripped wallpaper and crumbling plaster - everything could come to this state for 70 years, but not for 4 years of neglect of the house of a well-earned musician (or is it just a hack of decorators and the main artist?)
Another of the same: the love line. Worked on 2, because as far as could win the film, confess the heroine much earlier. No, it's a standard, predictable development.
Completely incomprehensible calm of all the inhabitants of the earth in anticipation of the coming apocalypse: after all, the land that appeared 4 years ago out of nowhere is growing and increasing in size - and this means everyone is waiting for the outcome, like "Melancholia", remember? Nothing! What happened to this rapprochement? Disaster? The authors have forgotten this.
This is a film of numerous unshot guns, undeveloped plots. Plots that could have been born out of those great ideas that led, of course, to the creation of the film, but to develop which the director and screenwriter lacked the strength. And the money, of course.
But thank you to this movie for the fact that these same ideas buried in infancy can be reborn in your head while watching the movie, in parallel. “Another ‘Earth’ is a different world.”
For example, the idea of a parallel, absolutely identical world with the same inhabitants, with the same destinies and with the same thoughts every second. (This is a very real idea of modern theoretical physics.) A. Vilenkin’s book “The World of Many Worlds” helps you. Imagine what kind of movie that would turn out to be. Since everything is absolutely perfectly mirrored, the launched space expedition flies there, and sees the puzzled faces of the “launched” expedition: “What are you back?” By the way, the heroes could never meet their “reflection”, except in the middle of the way. And in that world of the tragic meeting of the heroes 4 years ago could not have happened, or the meeting could have other consequences, since, as it is said in the film, from the moment we learn about the existence of another world, there is a gap in the synchronicity of the existence of the two worlds. A mirror research expedition that flew into our world from another land could return the main character to a girl who never caused the death of his family.
The psychedelic thoughts of a deaf-blind janitor and the same insertions of a voiceover hang in the air.
It seems to me that the film was deliberately made low-budget, with poor quality of everything, including poor performance of actors, to get the kind of realism that is related to the realism of Leading From Blair, for example. But it didn't work.
Because you can't fool great ideas so much.
Why this, in the first place, low-budget, did not work here, but succeeded, for example, in Donnie Darko, which became a cult, I do not know.
The opposite does not work when there is a lot of money. When a film with a good budget, but the same borderline ideas, and where everything managed to be implemented – your favorite films “Mr. Nobody”, “Fountain”, for example – also fail: the audience does not go to them, the film is unprofitable. (But such films are widely known in narrow circles.)
In my ranking, "Another Earth" is a poorly made film with a claim to elitism, but a lot of under-conceived, deserves a rating of 6 out of 10. But it does end up on my list of favorite movies that you can revisit to rethink and maybe find other ideas that are embedded but not realized in the film. For this he has
10 out of 10
Original