Textbook artsy-fartsy trash. I think I'm giving this so-called film more exposure than it deserves by just criticizing it.

But David Fincher and Spike Jonez attach their names to this flick and deserve to share in the embarrassment.

Tarsem is the director. There is a story but no script. There are actors but no acting, at least not the kind you can point to with any pride. His travel agent cum cinematographer managed to find a few sterling postcard views which Tarsem proceeds to show an erotic camera-love for. The sand dunes and hideously ornate Hindu temples speak far better than any hominid on screen, including the monkey.

Wow. There are two types of criticism that I typically find to be useless. The gushingly positive ones and on the other end the overly critical ones. It seems we have the latter here.

Clearly this film isn't for everyone. The "artsy-fartsy" set clearly would enjoy it, though that word is meaningless. What does that mean to you? My guess, and I don't meant to be insulting, is that you have seen the trailer and that's it. Here is why:

The film has two sections, that which happens in reality and that which happens in the heightened fantasy section. In the former, the scenes are shot very realistically and, contrary to the claim that it is "all wide shots" it is in fact very intimate. Scenes are shot tight on both the girl and Pace as they huddle in his hospital bed surrounded by the curtain as he tells his tale. Heck, this was even apparent in the trailer. Most of these scenes in the hospital were shot tight on the actors except the for usual establishing shots. Nothing artsy about them.

The acting in these scenes were very much something to be proud of, too. It is rare to get such an honest performance out of a child actor. At best we get a Haley Osmet who captures a fine, creepy kid so well but even with him it was obvious he was "acting" and knew he was. On the other hand we get the self-aware acting with no talent, such as young Anakin Skywalker in the Phantom Menace, a kid so mis-cast that fans still grimace when watching the movie in re-runs.

The young girl in this was honest without being too self-aware or fake. Maybe you don't have children or know any but her crying was far from whining (I have two young girls so I know whining) and was dreadfully honest. Ask any parent. That was some good stuff. Pace was dead-on as the stuntman trying to end his life and his gentle yet initially dishonest relationship with the young actress was some of the finest adult-child scenes in a movie in a long time.

Now, yes, the fantasy (story) sequences were shot with wide angle lenses as it should be. It was essentially a pulp tale writ large. These scenes were meant to be overdramatic as it was a tale told to a child to capture her imagination (and ours). Its use of exotic locales...in this day and age of CG substitutions...was refreshingly old-school and beautiful to behold.

I am not sure what it means to have a story and no script. This might be the case for some of the scenes in the hospital but this isn't the first movie to shoot off the cuff for some scenes and regardless they told a very easy to follow and compelling story about hope, friendship and redemption. Even this was apparent in the trailer where Pace's stuntman asks, "are you trying to save my soul?" and it is clear that, even without knowing, she is.

I felt I needed to comment in case anyone took such an overly negative review too seriously. I think a more accurate review was in The Onion when it was called a "glorious mess." It isn't a perfect film by any means but in this day and age of reboots and remakes and soulless cash-in movies it is hard to imagine a more personal and passionate vision of filmmaking on this scale.

I'm not going to go into it now, but this is now my new favorite movie (barring the test of time of course).