Наука сна (2006) Online

There is no surprise in Hollywood's ignoring this film for awards and honors. None at all. This film does not speak Hollywood's language, because it speaks the language of art, not the language of money. It is brilliant. It is entertaining. It is visually hypnotic. It is insightful. These qualities cannot be found in today's blockbusters. Bernal is endearing and funny. Gainsbourg is beautiful in an intensely real light. The pace of the film is exquisite. I also had the pleasure of watching the 'Making of...' documentary on the DVD. Michel Gondry's subtle genius shines brilliantly in the interviews. The techniques employed to achieve the effects in the film are amazingly un-Hollywood. I have a new respect for French film-making. Added to the wonders of Jeunet are the wonders of Gondry. I cannot recommend this film strongly enough to anyone with a sense of humor and imagination.

This is a perfect example of a love-it-or-hate-it movie simply because its very nature means it's somewhat plot less -- we're constantly unsure if what we're seeing on the screen is really real or just in Gael Garcia Bernal's dreams, and some moviegoers abhor uncertainty, hence I think the large number of "1" votes for this flick. (Also, the film is ostensibly foreign, but moves from French to English with equal measure, with a little bit of Spanish tossed in, too. So maybe the shifts in language also irked some people, but I found it enchanting.) So don't let those low votes fool you; this is a beautiful, sublime film, and if you let yourself go onto its wavelength, you'll most likely find yourself *enjoying* the (perhaps unsolvable) visual puzzle Michel Gondry has created here. It is the quintessence of magical realism, and yet everything comes across as absolutely effortless, unlike the forced whimsy of, say, last year's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or the too-clever-by-half Adaptation. I dare say it's probably one of the best films of the year.

The Science of Sleep is most likely the best and most visionary film playing at Sundance this year (I say most likely because I've only seen two, but I doubt that anything can top it). Furthermore, I believe that The Science of Sleep is one of the best and most visionary films I've ever seen.

The Science of Sleep is about Stephane (Gael Garcia Bernal), a creative and naïve dreamer who moves from Mexico to his childhood home in Paris after his father's death. He takes a job at a calendar company, assuming that it will allow him to express himself creatively. Living across from Stephane is Stephanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg), an equally creative woman. They form a relationship and as it grows, it becomes threatened by Stephane's overactive dream world, which begins creeping into his waking life.

The Science of Sleep marks the screen writing debut of director Michel Gondry. This is Gondry's third theatrical feature film, after Human Nature and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Much like last year's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, where it was unfiltered Shane Black on the screen; The Science of Sleep is pure Gondry from start to finish. This is Gondry's immense visual world unrestrained by a script by Charlie Kaufman, and this world of fancy and imagination is where the film flourishes.

The title sequence is set to the image of spin art (think back to the days of your school carnival) as we enter Stephane's active dream world. The paint layers upon itself as the colors stretch further and further outward, while we hear Stephane dreaming. This perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the film as we see bright and vibrant imagery and characters layered upon each other and pulled outward into their worlds. The magic of the sequence is broken, though, when we are immediately brought into the real world.

Stephane's real life is as banal and mundane as anyone could imagine. As an artist, he feels suffocated in a job where he "glues in a basement all day." In his own time, he creates inventions such as 3D glasses for real life ("Isn't real life already in 3D?" asks Stephanie) or one second time machines. His indomitable creative spirit is what he finds mirrored in the equally creative, yet more realistically centered Stephanie.

In direct contrast is Stephane's dream world. It is outlandish, beautiful, and unrestrained. It is in these sequences when Gondry takes flight. The sequences are filled with so much eye candy it is difficult to take in. They range from the absurd (a spider typewriter), to the grand (an entire cardboard city), or to the beautiful (a cloth horseback ride to a boat on a sea of cellophane). What makes the sequences all the more incredible is that, for the most part, he relies only on practical effects. Also remarkable is the way that the dream world represents the film's reality. The film is so very aware of itself and its intentions and the dream sequences utilize that knowledge to the full extent. As the dreams begin to invade the real world, this knowledge becomes even more vital. Gondry's meticulous attention to detail is a benefit, seeing as he does not confound himself, and therefore does not confound the audience (for the most part).

It is also filled with wonderful dialogue, and it finds transcendent humor through the characters. By using truth instead of punch lines to provide the humor, Gondry adds another layer to his already versatile film. The dialogue is in French, English, and Spanish, each seamlessly interweaving with each other, much like the realities of the film interweave. There comes a point in the film where you stop realizing the language of the film is constantly changing. It comes as the three worlds represented by the language (the Spanish is who Stephane was; the English, he who is now; and the French is his dream of the future) begin to merge into Stephane's one reality.

The film truly ascends to its full potential when it arrives at such an incredibly heightened state where we have little idea if we are in reality or in a dream. It is a language of its own, and in and of itself, it is seamless.

The Science of Sleep is not simply a visual wonder of a film, either. The performances are touching and heartfelt. Gael Garcia Bernal continues to be one of the most talented actors working. His performance is filled with so much raw emotion, giving a strong emotional core to the film. I believe that without his powerful and nuanced performance, the spectacle of the film would have been too much; however, Bernal keeps it grounded in reality with a performance so truthful that the insanity happening around him seems completely believable. The same can be said of Charlotte Gainsbourg as Stephanie, as well as the myriad of supporting actors, each playing fully developed characters.

Few films ever achieve their full potential, this exceeds it. The Science of Sleep is a film that will excite you with its visual fancy, and touch you with its powerful emotion. Michel Gondry has created a film that even through the unbelievable proceedings, has so many deftly-crafted human moments. Deep down, this film is a love story. Going back to the title sequence's spin art, below all of layers being spun and pushed around run currents of human emotion which Gondry smartly anchors the film with; therefore, allowing it to soar.

it's funny to read how many people seem to be upset after having seen the film, because he was so boring for them, nearly without sense or any real plot. But what do you want of a film called "The science of dreams" (in original)? Have you ever had a dream, which really had a defined structure or felt like being the normal story of a normal day? After my opinion the film was great, simply copying the "structure" of a fantastic dream. Of course, after some minutes you won't find your way out of this chaos anymore. But that's the way it should be. Simply sitting in the cinema and no longer being able to realize, if you are still watching the film or if you have lost yourself in your own dreams. So to say, only a film for people living in two worlds, the real one and the magical one of dreaming.

I just saw this at the Sundance Film Festival and feel compelled to saw a few things about the flick. This movie is so insanely good and just plain insane at the same time. The movie follows Gael Garcia's character as he moves back to his mothers home in Paris and finds himself falling for the girl across the hall. Gael's character experiences reality through dreams and the present, creating all sorts of confusion. The movie has some of the most unique props and eccentric animation pieces I have ever seen, but would you expect anything less from Gondry (Eternal Sunshine..). This movie really can't be described in truth but holds so much potential for multiple viewings as its so full of life and visual wonders for the eyes. Gael Garcia is just perfect in this role and is fascinating in gesture and laugh out loud funny when the script allows. I think you should definitely look forward to seeing this movie when it gets a wide release, its funny, its art, its pleasure for the eyes and a puzzle for the mind.

Or, The Science of Sleep. A film that rates -very- high on the weirdness scale as it tells the story of a man that has trouble keeping reality and dreamworld apart. It starts when he moves back to France to live with his mother after his father passes away. The rest of his story is a fairly normal one, just the way it is played out is rather odd.

This film had me watching it open mouthed for most of the time. From the very start of it to the very end. In fact, I might have had my mouth open from the moment it started - I didn't realize it until about halfway through. The astonishment and pleasure on my end started with the very first shots - the way things got depicted and worked out. A film that is as much a film as a true piece of art.

I can do nothing other than rating this one very highly. It is like a dream but also like reality and it explains its title and theme very clearly. Acting is good enough and the music choice is very fitting. All in all, very worthwhile material.

9 out of 10 fuzzy dreams

Michel Gondry, the visually creative giant behind some of MTV's most stylistically innovative music videos, and more recently the driving force behind his and script writer extraordinare Charlie Kaufman's brilliant Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, finally makes his solitary debut, choosing to write and direct this surrealist tale of dreams, reality, and the lines some people walk between them. Fans of the visual virtuoso must have been anticipating Gondry's official declaration as auteur for some time, having salivated for a decade now as this French director continually pushed the envelope for lucky musicians.

I'm sure many saw The Science of Sleep as a proving ground that would help fans see if the eccentric director would be able to parlay all of these visually creative aspects into a more cohesive, cinematic experience. By and large, the dangerously imaginative movie succeeds on it's own, though there are a few discrepancies to note. First, it does feel that much of the way the movie is shot, in particular the scenes which stay most grounded in reality, do mimic a lot of the production values that gave Eternal Sunshine such a realistically detached value to it. Ditto with much of the stream-of-consciousness script, at times heavily emulating the flow Gondry and Kaufman helped pioneer the first time around. The actual plot is decidedly low-key, and for good reason, though at times Gondry does struggle to fill all of his microcosms with relevance. To say these values remain derivative and do not completely complement the whimsically dark storytelling taking place here though, would be to forsake the fantastic and singular joy that the Science of Sleep is.

Regardless of it's constant French avant-garde noodling, and despite the obvious parallels to Gondry's previous film, Science remains a near-masterwork, punctuated by the intoxicating rhythm of it's perceptive dream sequences, often edited with the most keen of intentions. Whether viewers will stay immersed throughout the fantasy bleed-in will be up to ones subjective threshold, and ones ability to thrive off of the magically deranged pacing that hints at underlying psychological relevance. Gondry's masterful pacing does not disappoint, culminating with the brilliant evolution of the script's supremely playful tone into something much more serious.

Of course, the sincere material would only be at home when recited by actors of a pure heart, and in this Gondry also excels by casting two leads who do everything they can to involve us in the realist fantasy. Gael García Bernal, always doing well to pick good material, finally slips into an English language role with the ease I would expect, and the luminous yet subdued Charlotte Gainsbourg radiates the earthly kind of magic that this film is all about. People with strict objective agendas stay clear, anyone else who still uses an inkling of their imagination, please dive in. It may not be perfect, but Science is surely one of the most unique and perceptive fantasies to merge with the mass consciousness in years.

THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP (Michael Gondry - France/Italy 2006).

There's something magical about this wonderfully sweet romantic fantasy by Michael Gondry. A love story, emotionally rich with dazzling dream-like visuals, done the old-fashioned way with simple stop-motion animation techniques. We see Stéphane flying above his cardboard imagination of Paris and later, we see him sitting in the bathtub full of silver cellophane. It's Gondry's first film as writer-director after a two-feature partnership with Philip Kaufman. Not surprisingly, it feels a bit Kaufmanesque, as Gondry's previous "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", but now dreams have replaced memory.

Stéphane can hardly make the distinction between his own dreamworld and the outside reality and doesn't know a whole lot about love. For no apparent reason he lies to Stéphanie that he lives next door to her, which results in some comic situations. He also wants to be an inventor and so he gives her his 3-D glasses, 'but the world is already in 3-D', she replies. He is a man-child, unable to adjust himself to the everyday realities of the outside world.

Ultimately the relationship between Stéphane and Stéphanie ends in a kind of stalemate, and so does the film itself. How do you end a film? With most films I can't wait till it's over, but here it seemed like the last twenty minutes got lost in the editing room. A very abrupt ending. The film might have a bit of an unsatisfying resolution, but Gondry creates magic here. It's the dreamworld that makes this rise above the level of just another romantic comedy, and it's funny, very funny. The breathtaking stop-motion animation is a feast for the eye and the sets and creations are wonderful to look at. The film had me in a permanent smile.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

I viewed this based on a number of factors: Gondry's work on Eternal Sunshine and some of the most inventive music videos ever created; Gael Garcia Bernal whom I've yet to see in a dud movie.

Until now.

Gondry achieves his aim of immersing the viewer into a waking dream. Like the protagonist, as the film goes on we lose the ability to tell what is real from what isn't. At times when you think Stephane is lucid and in honest communication with the other characters in the story something will happen that will completely throw you. Is he ever fully awake? Is he asleep? Or is he just daydreaming? The visuals are very dreamlike and reminiscent of Gondrys music videos for The White Stripes, Steriogram and Bjork (to name a few). Marvellous to watch and remarkably effective.

Where the film started to lose effect for me was when frustration began to replace sympathy for Stephanes predicament and character. Some of his actions and statements appeared indicative of a deeply mentally unbalanced individual verging on creepy. He was effectively emotionally hassling the object of his affection with behavior that was becoming plainly offensive. Because of this it is hard to see how he could win Stephanies affection let alone anyone else's. If anything he appears a manic depressive and in need of psychiatric help and if the film had ended with him sitting in the corner of a padded cell, drooling from the side of his mouth, having completely retreated into his much preferred dream state full-time, it might have been entirely appropriate.

What the film does instead is leave you with the possibility (tho slim) that Stephanie will be attracted to his fragility thereby allowing Stephane to achieve his stated objective, however messily he went about it and despite his obvious social dysfunction. To me this was a cop out and unrealistic. Sure, it's one of many possibilities, most of them unhappy for Stephane, but it's those last few scenes that your understanding of the film as a whole hangs on. My reaction was one of annoyance and frustration.

This film is beautiful, intricate, fun - all at the same time. It hits the mind and pulls the heart strings on so many levels - while still managing to make a whole cinema audience laugh loudly, frequently and unreservedly. Michel Gondry has created something really wonderful here, the kind of film worth seeing again and again.

The Science of Sleep is trying to do something quite different to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but there's definitely something of the same feel. Certainly the level of exquisite artistry is comparable, but maybe it's also the amount of care and sincerity that has been invested in the inner lives of the film's characters.

This director/writer never sells anyone short, say, by using a character or situation just as a plot or artistic device. Instead the characters' growth and flow of ideas are what build the story, always treated with a touch that is loyal and genuine. You begin to feel loyal to them yourself, to have a sense of them as very real people in whose ultimate well-being you have a very involving stake.

That's all I really need say about the film, though I'd point out that the few negative comments I've seen below really weren't worth reading. Reservations I can understand (as everyone's different, right?) but these naysayers are clearly emotionally, intellectually and artistically stunted. Most likely they can't comprehend a work that doesn't fit their prescribed and limited framework for film appreciation - the sort which demands that progression be made through exactly the crude plot and character devisings which this film avoids. In fact, I don't think the Science of Sleep even studiously avoids them - it is simply a mile above such considerations. The film works on every level - and if you're even halfway to normal with your own emotional development you'll get what's good about this.

After reviewing all of the d.v.d. extras, it still is clear that one of the notable characters in THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP meets enough of the DSMIV-R check-list for paranoid schizophrenia to qualify as a textbook-ready case. The voices in his head, the visual delusions, the wild mood swings, the violent outbursts, harming himself, his alternate realities, his stalking behaviors, his idiosyncratic use of language, his distorted perceptions of his own body, his relationship with his parents and coworkers, his inability to "fit in," his megalomania, his fractured ego, his inability to distinguish dreams from reality--it's all there. Though many films feature paranoid schizophrenics, most of them use this sad condition as an exploitive plot device, making it LESS likely that audience members will have any true understanding or sympathy for the victims of this illness, most of whom are guilty only of sharing their parents' genes. Many high functioning schizophrenics, such as Vincent van Gogh, have made enormous contributions to humanity's cultural treasure trove, often without making a penny for themselves. However, people like van Gogh--who have enough talent, as well as luck, to make a mark on society, are the exception to the rule, whereas folks such as the one in this film or the patients I've worked with (whose "triumphs" are only in their minds) are the disheartening norm. Kudos to SLEEP writerdirector Michel Gondry for providing the world with one of the few balanced views of this heart-breaking condition.

This movie had a lot going for it. The art direction was incredibly fun and creative, and overall the movie looked great and had a very unique vision. It was cute and quirky and definitely made me laugh out loud at times while at other times it made me feel awkward and tense in the best possible way.

The dream sequences were fun and blended with reality in a very seamless and engaging way (though on a personal level I prefer the way dreams were portrayed in Waking Life). And while on the surface the love story was thoughtful and true (and I could even relate to it in some ways), the problem for me was that I just couldn't sympathize with Bernal's character, Stéphane. I couldn't really see where Gainsbourg's character, Stéphanie, was coming from either. While their interaction was at times endearing, I just didn't feel like I had to root for them. Still though, there was enough charm in this movie that that fact didn't ruin the movie for me.

Sympathetic apologies Michel; this one did not appeal. Three of us attended on the basis of a 7.6 IMDb rating, the highest in our local cinemas this week. Also of course out of respect for Gondry's previous achievements, particularly his collaboration with Kaufman.

We are all familiar with the surrealist and fantasy tradition, as well as strong fans of French film. While it was quite interesting at first we thought the production went nowhere, was boring and repetitive, and was little more than a cyclical portrayal of standard teenage frustration fantasies.

The humour was limited, the pace slow and the artwork patchy.

The heavy accents and broken English did not work well for us and required subtitles more than the French. We don't mind seeing a French/Spanish language film with subtitles.

The only charitable explanation is that we are not taking the right stimulants. Sorry!

The plot summary says that the lead character is "held captive by people in his dreams." That's not so. Stephane just can't tell the difference between his dreams and reality. He is attracted to a girl and wants to move toward a relationship, but is hampered by this problem.

This film is not at all like "Waking Life" or "Eternal Sunshine." It's like Gondry's music videos, playful and eye-popping. There's no dark conflict, as implied by "held captive." I enjoyed it a lot, though because of the essential nature of the plot, it's a bit hard to follow, which diffused the impact of the story.

The French have a way with films that tinker with reality, fantasy, illusions, and delusions and the result of those traits have produced some of the most exciting and avant garde films ever made. Michel Gondry has inherited the mantle from Cocteau, Resnais, etc and runs with it in this charming little diversion of a film THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP.

Gondry is primarily a visual artist and tells his stories in a visual manner, but that is not to say his stories are superficial or trivial: he has a preoccupation with the thin line between reality and non-reality, between dream and diurnal creativity, and it is this space that occupies his mind, his pen, his camera, and his mission in this little tale.

Stéphane Miroux (the enormously gifted, dedicated and hunky Gael García Bernal) is a true 'artist', a young man whose father is Mexican and whose mother is French, and he has entered Paris to begin a job his mother Christine (Miou-Miou) assures him is creative: it actually is a boring, restricting graphic design outfit (though populated by some zany confrères including Guy played beautifully by Alain Chabat who allows to run with his idea of publishing a calendar whose months are pictured by world disasters!) that at first defeats Stéphane's artistic integrity.

Stéphane dreams and in his dream life he is a TV host who can make the most impossible things happen. His work frustrations push him further into his dream world and he finds it more real than the mundane life of daytime. He lives across the hall from an equally delicate artistic mind named Stéphanie (the always fine and adroit Charlotte Gainsbourg) who is caught up in her own dream world of making little boats of paper and water of cellophane and clouds of cotton. The two begin a touch and run relationship that gradually develops into a mutual appreciation for each other's idiosyncrasies - in the best of all possible ways.

Gondry peppers his script with make-believe constructions, testy conversations, and some very funny and naughty observations that he tosses off with aplomb. Gael García Bernal infuses this strange role with a facile use of three languages (English, French and Spanish) and with a tender sense of comic timing and sensual magnetism that makes him irresistible. He carries the fantasy on his capable shoulders allowing us to love his bizarrely complex character at every quirky turn. He is an actor who takes more risks than most and is destined to be one of our more important actors as he continues to gain attention.

For those who need sharp margins of linearity and borders between reality and fantasy, this film may confuse and frustrate. But for viewers who love 'taking rides through dream fantasies on felt horses' this film is sure to please. Grady Harp

Name it Science des rêves or Science of Sleep (as the French and American titles would have it respectively), this film is neither a dream nor a nightmare. BUT, it does make one (me) feel like leaving the theater to get some good sleep - of one's own. It is a "nice" little film about the inability of today's cinema to cope with the complexity of what's going on around us, whether awake or asleep, when it is not action (holywood) nor conversation around the family table (the French exception). So, it deals with the "simple", "intimate", "childhood-anchored", "sweet oh how sweet" feelings turning them into an AmeliePoulainesque kind of thing. The little innocent Mexican arrives in Paris and meets his co-employees, a trio of Frenchies (one of the most pathetic elements in the film / was Gondry trying to demonstrate contemporary French Cinema's bad bad state and taste?). He keeps the job, which sucks (why??? just so as he can keep having nightmares?), and then meets his neighbor (Charlotte Gainsbourg, only good thing that ever happened to the film - i mean her performance). Only people who do not dream at all on their own or people who have started going to the cinema a fortnight ago and only watch post- let's say - 2000 films can enjoy this film and find it captivating or convincing or whatever... "c'est dommage"... Not that I particularly cared for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind or that I am a fun of the Kauffman cleverest-intrigue-possible idea of cinema, BUT, at least, in that one there was all this idea of low-tech camera and decor manipulation that worked and made everyone believe it was post-production...

Sometimes I wish that film could be whisked back to the days of growing and learning and experimenting, such as it was during the 60s and, for the most part, 70s. I want to see real directing, not this stereotypical a-little-bit-for-everyone stuff that most filmmakers excel at these days. I want uniqueness, I want to see chances taken, I want risks. And the only thing worse than not being the opposite of that is to mock it, to play with it a little bit and throw it back into the heap consisting of every other misbegotten tactic of cinema.

Sometimes I hope and yearn that film could go back to the way it used to be, but seeing A Science of Sleep I realize now that that hope can permutate into the dream it really is and die along with all my other fantasies. This is a story about love, is it not? At least that's what I got out of it. So then where the hell is it? I never once saw a connection between the main characters, Stephane and Stephanie (and isn't that ironic, their having similar names). Is the average person that ignorant that they can be bought and sold over a few sentimental stop-motion animation scenes? The characters spend an entire hour and a half screwing around, doing this and that, making some sort of a craft that makes no sense, they (on cue the third act commences) break apart and then complain about it the entire time, failing to mention that they never had anything going in the first place. The only one of them actually feeling anything is Stephane and I still have my doubts as to whether that character is sane or not (he spends the entire movie in these little capricious dream sequences where he "truly" is allowed to interact with his artistic abilities). He's like a child forced into a relationship. Anyway, Stephanie plays with him, toys with his emotions, why? How should I know? The screenwriter never bothered to delve into that lake of complication. So man and woman meet, have fun, argue, and then part. Very basic. Someone may say that that is love. Well, I think I have a moderate idea of love, in "real" life anyway, and I think I remember there having something to do with rational thought and communication, not just me waking up with a freezer on my bed.

The script lacks, that's the obvious problem. But what instigates my anger even more so is how people actually have the audacity to compare this film with "Eternal Sunshine." "Well, that script was a little better than this ones's." Hmmm, I wonder why. Could it be because the former was written by Charlie Kaufman, one of the greatest contemporary screenwriters out there? Perhaps that's why the characters in "E Sunshine" have personalities and the conflicts are pursued realistically while still maintaining that sense of surrealism.

And yeah, the animation was good. But not that good. Slow down on your exultant praising for a moment and allow a quick coherent thought to flash through your mind. First, the animation in this film is basic. Don't get me wrong, it's perfect. A dream is not better personified than with cut-out corrugated cities. But its not remarkable, its not a breakthrough to technology.That's why cgi is so prominent, because it appears on screen to be more realistic. One movie in a while can get away with old school antics but don't expect awards. They were already handed out in the 60s.

OK, I've badmouthed the writing, the "amazing" animation, now what. Ahh, the directing. Michael Gondry, could you please pick one: a film for art fanatics or a film for the masses because a combination of the two is such an erroneous decision. The only film I've ever seen complete such a task is Napoleon Dynamite. I don't know how it happened, apparently neither does Jared Hess (check out Nacho Libre, or rather, don't), and we don't have enough time available to delve into that particular subject.

The formula is set up, everything falls into place, it's a serendipitous love film set in France. It's so professional. Finally, a comeback of serious artistic filmmakers. Or so I thought. Turns out, Gondry was just pulling our chains. Truthfully, he has no more creativity. He's a one-idea kind a guy. A one-trick pony. Like so many other modern directors (Shyamalan, Singer, etc.) he's out of tricks. He likes to put up facades for his films, make them look avant garde or something, and then pull the cloth down, revealing...another average flick. Almost like a joke. And everyone laughs. But me.

Why? Why can't you keep a straight face the entire time, Gondry? No. Old cinema isn't a joke. It's magic. It's a different world. It's surreal, not corny and tempting surrealism like this weekend-capitalism fostered garbage. Is that it? Is he afraid that if he tries something new, attempts nonconformity, something actually differing from the last piece he made he'll be ostracized? Cut off from the other big-shots, rolling in all that "box-office" sludge ripped out of theatre payer's pockets? The key is to not let the name grow bigger than the work. There's a line to be crossed and I think we, the inexorably decreasing few who actually care for film as an art, just lost another potential candidate.

This film isn't unique, it isn't new, it's cliché. Everything about it is cliché. It's all just hidden with indie-style hand-held cameras and cheap french accents to catch your attention for a brief moment, just enough to take your nine bucks and kick you back out onto the curb, seduce you into that apartment and reveal the man within the closet. And that man wants a drink.

Gondry's latest quirk is in many ways a furthering of themes he touched in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, a film i enjoyed immensely. As in 'sunshine' the movies narrative follows a male perspective in a love-story, but the difference is that where the latter traced the break-up of a couple in "real life" and "dreaming", 'science' follows the clumsy courtship of Bernal's character. I found the premise of the character intriguing. He suffers from a sleep disorder that makes it difficult for him to separate dream from reality. Thus, when we follow his perspective, Gondry has to make the flow of the movie natural as he jumps from dream to reality. This is achieved with many of the same techniques he used in "sunshine". Break-ups in logic dialog, established characters showing up in places they don't belong, as well as using dreamlike settings as a contrast to the normal "real life" environs. The pure directorial skill required to make these shifts plausible and natural, without losing the viewers connection with the plot is baffling. The story covers a six-month period, this necessitates, of course, some jumps in time. Again i find the film close to perfect as the editing is fantastically timed. I found myself accepting everything as the flow of the movie kept me prepared for anything.

Add to this that the film is beautiful. Aestetically stunning in some parts. It uses a wide variety of kitsch to keep the images and narrative spiced to perfection. As for the acting, Bernal makes his character come to life as the sympathetic, but slightly annoying, young artist in love. He becomes all the more believable because he in no way tries to seduce the audience (like some other leading men), but trusts that the script is strong enough to make us identify with and care about the character. He does a splendid job. As for the rest of the cast (Gainsbourg in particular) they all have to vary their roles for the "real life" scenes (in which they play natural characters) and the "dreaming" scenes (in which they play characters orchestrated by Bernals subconscious) and not one of them falter in doing this. All in all phenomenal work. All that said, i take make hat off, as i salute one of the masters of modern cinema.

I saw this film at the world premiere up at the Sundance Film Festival. The film is beautiful in storytelling and with visuals. It would be considered an R rated film due to language, very little nudity, and sexual comments.

When I arrived in the theatre, I didn't know what to expect. I was thinking along the lines of Eternal Sunshine, but this is different. The acting is wonderful. I was sucked into the story and wanting everything to go right for the main characters. This film is great and everyone needs to see it. Though it's french with subtitles at different times, English is also being spoken by the actors in the film. And if you have a problem reading subtitles, train yourself to get better.

As a brief summary, Stephane has a vivid imagination and is mostly caught up in his alternate world: sleep. Out of nowhere, there is a thin line that separates dreams and reality. The only problem, where is the line? Anyway, this film is one to see.

La Science des rêves starts off interesting where you're wondering where the plot will take you because of the strange things that seem to be going on in Gael Garcia Bernal's dreams (or is it in fact reality?). Some of these dreams are so absurd they made me smile, but for me this wasn't enough to keep the movie interesting. As filmman79 stated, the movie is pretty plot less and this started to annoy me after an hour or so. I was pretty much sitting out the last half of the movie, waiting for a climax that didn't come.

In my opinion, the movie loses itself in 'artsy' an weird scenes with no real purpose for the 'story' whatsoever. So for me definitely a 'hate it'. However, if you don't mind this and you're into art-house movies where appearance is more important than content I think you can appreciate and enjoy this movie.

This was quite simply the most painful movie I have ever sat through. I have never taken hallucinogenics but I can imagine that watching this movie is akin to overdosing. The premise sounded interesting on paper, but the execution was completely absurd. Within 10 minutes of the movie's opening, my fiancé and I were looking for knitting needles to stick in our eyes. The ridiculous dream sequences practically took over the entire movie and should have been reduced to total about 10 minutes so that the REAL characters and relationships could have been explored. I could not identify with or care for any of the characters -- they were as humane as plastic puppets and as dimensional as a piece of paper. Perhaps if you are one of those people who hates life and wants to escape everything that this world is made of by suspending yourself in a ridiculously executed cartoon fantasy where water is made of cellophane, cars are made of corrugate and stuffed animals talk and dance, you might enjoy it. But if you are accustomed to smart movies with realistic characters who draw you in and bring out your emotion, then do yourself a ginormous favor and run, run fast away from this train wreck.

Gondry's film tries very hard to be poetic and uplifting. Alas the absence of story makes it a very boring movie. Young guy arrives in Paris from Mexico, a bit of a dreamer, wants a creative job, gets a boring job making calendars. Meets girl next door, falls in love, she does not respond. Eventually they kiss. The dream sequences are supposed to be impressive. The first three sequences are OK, although you have to adhere to the sixties hippie low budget "super 8" look. Then it becomes incredibly repetitive, the same cardboard stop-motion animation over and over again, with cotton bowls for clouds and cellophane for water. That's as poetic and imaginative as it ever gets. When the end credits finally roll, you're left wondering... was that an ending? Did I miss something? You didn't. Bernal and Chabat are very good, not much of a revelation.

At first glance this film may seem fluffy, and maybe a bit frou-frou silly like a bad Magical Mystery Tour. But then, if you think about it, remember the fact that it is all from the protagonist's view except for a few scenes other than the very last scene - then you see the beauty of the film as an exposition of what a schizophrenic sees. In that sense, it's much like Donnie Darko except that it is clearer that the events are really not some weird mystical SF-fantasy happenings (I always hated that interpretation of Donnie Darko).

The accuracy of the portrayals is amazing. My wife occasionally sleep-talks and sleepwalks and I can get her to describe her dreams to me exactly the way Stephane does and the distortions in names, reality and personality are eerily similar to what is shown in the film. I've had close friends with paranoid schizophrenia and the unclear divide between reality and delusion depicted is absolutely spot on.

However, it is the heartwarming and heart wrenching story and strong performances that lift this above a mere documentary. By the end we do understand Stephane and appreciate Stephanie and how she is able to connect with him. By using the unfiltered fanciful POV of Stephane to tell the story, we don't see him as some weird creepo but as someone not that much different from ourselves. This is one of the best and most intelligent films I have seen in a very long time and merits repeated viewings.

Dear users, this movie reminds me Federico Fellini's "8 e mezzo". A good writer should have quite a good knowledge of his life and Mr Gondry seems to have it.

Now, as a producer, I would cut some minutes (especially between the 30th and the 75th). As a writer, I would cut more than a half of it. As a director, I would show more Stephanie.

I realise that my comment doesn't seem to suit my vote. The only explanation I can give is that I loved this movie. But I lost the plot at least three or four times.

Sincerely

Iacopo Destefani

Those looking for the intriguing complexity of "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" may be disappointed. Directed (and written) by the same director Michael Gondry and exploring the same premise of what goes on in the mind, "SOS" (I kinda like this) is nevertheless simple and familiar. You'll recognize right away a lovable, introvert individual with difficulties in expressing his emotions. You'll also likely embrace the familiar theme on reaching out, empathizing and connecting.

The plot is simplicity itself, about a young man who since childhood had difficulties in differentiating dream from reality. We see him returning home, after growing up in Mexico, to Paris where his mother has arranged a job for him, to start a new life. He still sleeps in his old room, with his feet protruding form the end of the bed from calves down. In the work front, there's the usual group of supporting cast made up of boss and co-workers, serving as a diversion. The focus however is on his relationship with a quiet girl who, although not as introvert as he, needs to do a little reaching out herself. That relationship, as recited in my summary line, is short and sweet, for the most part.

Stephane and Stephanie (yes!) are played by two wonderful actors, with equally wonderful chemistry. Gael Garcia Bernal, Pedro Almodovar's favourite actor, has become even more popular globally since "The motorcycle diaries". Charlotte Gainsbourg is essentially French although she has appeared in "21 grams". Not a conventional ravishing beauty, she has a very attractive quiet charm that you are unlikely to forget if you have watched any of her movies, such as "Lemming". Their roles in SOS might have been tailored-made for the two of them.

One interesting thing is that while this is a French movie, happening in Paris, 90 per cent of the dialogue is in English, as Stephane's mother tongue is Spanish and he speaks little French.

Although SOS does not have the complexity and soaring imagination of "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind", it does have some nice touches of its own. The one I like best is a scene when she throws up to the ceiling some light, cotton-like substance, imagining them to be clouds. For a puzzling moment, he dashes towards the piano and bangs out various chords, very purposefully. It's not easy to suppress a smile when he finally hits upon the right chord, when you see all the "clouds" suspending from the ceiling.