Meanwhile (III) (2011) User Reviews

I really like Hartley's films but...

[seanmeggesonrp · 6/10 · 30 December 2018]

It seemed like he ran out of money with this one. A very good half-film.

A real gem

[rrogers-spain · 9/10 · 13 November 2013]

I found this film by accident, had it for a while and watched it today while I had a little time to myself. I was not sure what to expect, never having seen the trailer or reviews, so I guess I came to it with an open mind. I'm glad I did. This is an extremely well crafted piece of work. The low-key but brilliantly delivered acting, together with an intriguing lead character provides a delightful change from the mainstream Hollywood offerings. In a way I found myself thinking of another understated film I saw recently; Sparrows Dance. Both films are character, rather than plot- based. Both provide thoughtful and insightful engagement with the protagonists, and lead the viewer to empathise with their vicissitudes of life. At just an hour long, Meanwhile provides a challenge to other film makers; tell your story in the time it needs, not the time it takes. An excellent film - one of my favourites.

A Perfect Little Film

[endymion82 · 10/10 · 25 December 2014]

I loved this film, and upon watching it, turned to my partner and said, "That just made me happier than anything I've seen all year." I've been a fan of Hartley's for years, (my favorite of his films is FLIRT) and this movie was a welcome return to form, the best aspects of his early work combined with the visually slick and fluid style of his later years. Excellent dialogue, gorgeous use of colors and camera angles, well paced and just the perfect mix of quirky humor, contemporary philosophy, and drama. Almost perfect in every way, with a truly excellent performance at the center, and as Hartley films go it is abnormally accessible to boot, though still entirely Hartley, and so perfect for fans and for folks looking for a door into the world of one of America's most talented but underrated modern film makers.

Is this meant to be a serious movie?!

[DeadDread · 2/10 · 28 October 2012]

It is difficult to describe this movie, because there is really NOTHING good about it! Story is plot-less with bunch of unnecessary scenes, actors are painfully bad, and dialogues are even worse!

I like trashy movies, but this movie is unfortunately meant to be serious, so I couldn't even laugh that much, on the opposite - I was ashamed!

I watched this movie at the Viennale film festival, and wonder what the director had to do to get into program selection. Obviously it were not the beginners mistakes in directing, which are plenty!

I gave this movie 2 points only because it is not longer than one hour!

No, this is not a "return to form"

[cherold · 4/10 · 9 May 2017]

"Return to form," which is used in one of its variations by some of the user reviews here, is an interesting phrase that raises the question of, what is the form being revisited.

For example, if I were to say a Hal Hartley movie were " a return to form," I would mean he had recaptured the magic of early films like Trust and Surviving Desire.

On the other hand, some of those are lauding this film as a return to the form of movies that I consider among Hartley's worst, like Flirt and Book of Life. And yes, if that is your gold standard for Hartley, then Meanwhile is a return to form.

Not much happens, the dialogue is forgettable, there are many moments that don't add anything or even make sense. It's just the story of a guy wandering around interacting with people, and while the lead actor is quite good, the interactions are rarely interesting.

While not as execrable as Book of Life, this is in no way a return to what I consider Hartley's proper form. To see my idea of a return to form, go watch Ned Rifle. It's pretty good.