User reviews

Greetings again from the darkness. This is no typical movie, so these will not be typical comments. In 2004, Shane Carruth became something of a cult hero with the Sundance Festival crowd when his debut film PRIMER won a Grand Jury Award. Nine years later, we get his follow-up ... the ultimate artsy, indie film for those who thrive on analysis and prefer to avoid a story ending wrapped up with a neat bow.

These comments will not give you much, but I can tell you the screening had many viewers who left frustrated and confused. The fragmented narrative can be a bit disorienting and it avoids the usual staple of a resolution at the end. The audience knows more than the characters, yet the audience is baffled while the characters just continue on.

The first segment of the film is when it's at its most traditional. We see Thief (Thiago Martins) perform some type of worm/parasite procedure that slowly brainwashes Kris (Amy Seimetz) or leads to mind control or loss of personality ... just depends how you prefer to describe it. We then see The Sampler (Andrew Sensenig) help her overcome thanks to a blood transfusion on his pig farm. Yes, really. Finally, Kris bonds with Jeff (Shane Carruth) as they seek to reassemble their lives and re-discover themselves. Watching them bicker over who belongs to what memory is frightening and fascinating. It makes you question the definition of personal identity, and what if we lost that (or it was stolen).

Nature plays a huge role here, along with the connection to Thoreau's Walden. Many will use the term pretentious. Some will call it boring. Still others will be drawn in by the imagery and sound (or sometimes lack thereof). Shane Carruth does not fit Hollywood and neither do his films. He is a writer, producer, director, co-editor, cinematographer, and actor. He clearly has a love of the material and his choice of Amy Seimetz really makes the film work. She is outstanding (and also a filmmaker). The tired phrase "it's not for everyone" certainly applies here, but if you are a Terrence Malick fan or just enjoy being challenged by somewhat abstract themes, this one is worth a look.

UPSTREAM COLOR is already baffling the hell out of the world and will especially draw disapproval on IMDb.

The plot is not delivered in a way that is traditionally comprehensible, only to those paying close attention to the themes that unite it all. If you're already rolling your eyes THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR YOU.

If however you have experienced or would like to experience films where you have to dedicate your ability to assess and determine the underlying idea that is linking a series of enigmatic actions and subtle scenes, UPSTREAM COLOR will intrigue and probably charm you. It very much plays to the TREE OF LIFE crowd.

For me, it's undoubtedly a massive artistic accomplishment. Hugely evocative and if you unearth those ideas, the ability to have human connection, abuse, hope and language among them, you'll have no problem following along and the ending will be very satisfying.

If you want to say "you're not supposed to understand it, just feel it" that's fine. I think that if you stop and ask yourself what idea is driving moments, you can follow along just fine. The story is in the themes. Details are abstract to drive home this point.

I took off two stars because I found the serious tone and sombre score to be so focused and constant, the atmospherics became a little more monotonous than I think was intended. The briefest of levity here and there might have offset the heaviness.

If you're still reading, check it out.

After this movie ended, I was dumbstruck. I sat looking at the end credits, searching through what I had just watched, remembering the film vividly, and yet having it still be a blur.

Upstream Color is not a literal movie. The plot is never explained directly to the viewer, and the actions taken by the characters are unclear in reason and motivation. The most obvious things I could say about the movie are that it is filmed very well, and it has a nice musical score.

But the movie is not about literal plot. It's not about literal characters. It's about feelings and thoughts. It's a movie about broken people trying to fix themselves. There are things everybody in the movie will understand, and there are things nobody will.

It's a lot like music. When you put on music, you know the mood, and you know the melody, and you know the tempo and the harmony, and it can be a beautiful experience, even though you have no idea what the lyrics mean. And upstream color is a lovely, almost meditative movie about the lives of everyone being interconnected, and about how when people form companionship they start to become one, and yet someone else may say totally opposite things than I'm saying, and they wouldn't be wrong.

It's not a movie for people that think a film must have a literal story. It's not a movie for people who won't watch an hour and a half of meditation. It's not for people who see movies to see stories. And there is no shame in disliking this movie. But if you can appreciate an abstract story and can sit through an hour and a half of meditation, this is the movie for you.

Stanley Kubrick said in his later years: "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later." If Stanley Kubrick were alive today, I think he would have liked this movie a lot.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have rated this a 7. Not going to go into why. I don't see any 9&10 reviewers calling the 1&2 reviewers names or degrading them. So what's with the anger? I love lots of different styles of books, music and films. I played in a death metal band and screamed and growled almost impossible to understand lyrics. One of my literature teachers heard one of our songs and asked me why so aggressive, messy and incoherent the music was. (It wasn't at all to me or our fans). I asked him to look at the water colour painting he had on the wall, it was one of his. I asked why the lines were blurred and colors mixed insrmtead of clear, sharp and defined lines; wouldn't that make the shapes and motives be easier to understand? He just smiled and nodded. If you don't like it, that's tooootally understandable. I don't like all the movies I watch either. And I might leave a comment about my experience. But I really don't think those who did enjoy it have ANY need to lie or pretend as some of you have said, nor have anything to gain by writing an anaymous review here. Hope we are more friendly here.

I knew this film was going to be weird. Shane Carruth's debut film - Primer - was an oddity as it was, lacking in straightforward answers or explanations, but presenting a very intriguing and sturdy piece of hard science fiction. Be warned that Upstream Color is also something that lacks a straightforward explanation. In fact, Primer was something rather cold, with its strong basis in the scientific method; UC is far warmer and artistic, but is also more abstract.

The film may come off as slow and dull to certain viewers, especially if you're expecting a strong narrative structure or plot. I'm usually adverse to movies that have no real plot or conflict, but with this film, it's the experience that matters. Watching this film is a strangely mesmerizing, lucid, and smooth experience, given the exquisite imagery, nuanced performances, and quality music score. The film's first fifteen minutes are probably the most straightforward, most interesting, and most disturbing aspect of the whole thing, and it serves as an important fulcrum point. This much I understand: the film starts off with the freaky notion that there's a man injecting grubs into people, which makes them susceptible to mind control. From then on, the film tracks two such victims who inevitably come together and discover the secrets of their latent trauma.

What makes the film so weird, so cerebral, and potentially frustrating, is that things happen, and characters will say things that won't make total sense. And most scenes are intercut with such footage as a farmer tending to pigs, and flowers growing in the wilderness. The movie draws stark parallels between such images, to unearth some rich thematic territory. Could such scenes reflect on life and death? Is it all about nature? Is it about love? Is it the human condition overall? The film never really tell you outright, and it gets very surreal when scenes overlap. If you struggle to find logic behind this story, you might write it off as messy. If you take in the experience and open your mind to interpreting the film, it'll keep your brain going and haunt you indefinitely. It's an experience comparable to such films as Mulholland Drive.

This film is very stylish, with some beautiful photography and ingenious editing. All actors put on decent performances, and they show a good blend of nuance and emotion. Writing is pretty weird, given the amount of strange and unusual dialogue. This production uses excellent sets, props, and costumes. The music score is very exquisite.

While Primer was a film that appeals on an intellectual level, Upstream Color appeals best to the artistic side of the brain. If you're susceptible to strange, abstract films that require lots of brainpower to interpret and understand, then this one is a perfect puzzlebox for you. Casual audiences might want to approach this with caution.

5/5 (Experience: Very Good | Content: Very Good | Film: Perfect)

Baffling. Extraordinary. Pigs. Barely any dialogue. Beautiful looking. Directed by Shane Carruth (Primer), It's very challenging - so much so that I'm not even sure repeat viewings will shed any more light on it. It's definitely one for cinema purists who like to watch cerebral movies. In that respect it's more of an experience than a movie aligned with Terence Malick and Darren Aronofsky material. What's it about? The cycle of life? genetics? religion? morality? ethics? Probably all these things. What's clear is that Shane Carruth operates on a level that is different to most of us!

The film opens up with a mystery, a subtle yet powerful imagery that focuses on the senses of seeing, hearing, and touching. A lavish score by writer/director/star Shane Carruth lays mindful and precise to capture the enigmatic nature of the film. A hybrid of science fiction that keeps the viewer at a distance but intrigued enough to stay on the ride, Carruth develops and writes a model of storytelling that will be appreciated in years to come. Hypnotic, and often places you into sensory overload, but its imaginative and intoxicating nature are completely unconventional and will inspire a new age of filmmakers to come forward. The synopsis of Upstream Color is as vague as the film itself. From IMDb: A man and woman are drawn together, entangled in the life cycle of an ageless organism. Identity becomes an illusion as they struggle to assemble the loose fragments of wrecked lives. I couldn't have come up with a better, more ambiguous line of description. Amy Seimetz dives head first into her role of Kris; first as a woman under the spell of sorts by the dominant yet awkwardly charming thief. Later, Seimetz, who reminds me of a more seasoned Brit Marling, envelops the essence of loss and disorientation. Her constant puzzlement that only heightens and becomes more clear as the film progresses, goes hand- in-hand with the film's obscure and melancholic ambiance. It's a brilliant breakthrough for the actress that will hopefully get her noticed by more high-profile projects. The multi-talented Shane Carruth also lends his hand as the Director of Photography and has a keen eye for angles that captures the bold and poignant temper. Carruth is a visible factor of success for the film. Taking cues and narrative notes from screenwriters like Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and even more recently Zoe Kazan, Upstream Color plays like a lucrative blend of Memento (2001) and Ruby Sparks (2012) for the first half before making a dramatic switch. There are even moments where you can find hints of The Human Centipede (2009) believe it or not.

Sound mixing on the film is the first technical marvel of the year. Blends the fusion of music and the sounds of life, Upstream Color sets a new standard for independent cinema and with Shane Carruth's benchmark for science fiction screen writing, a dynamic dragon of sorts is created. Colorful, creepy, and poetically ingenious.

Shane Carruth is a talent to watch in the near future.

Read More at The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com)

I attended this film solo (only one other person in the theater) which turned out to be a good thing as distractions were nil. Carruth has a lot of respect for the viewer. He doesn't do exposition. And if you pay close attention to this film, you wont need it. Unlike other reviews I've seen, I found Primer much harder to suss out than Upstream Color. There was a clear narrative here and the main protagonists arc is clear to see. I loved it. It was intense, beautifully shot, scored, and of course acted, especially by Amy Seimetz, the lead. She was amazing. If you like your films delivered to you on a silver platter, then this is not for you. But if you like to think a little bit, you will find the 90+ minutes of Upstream Color thoroughly enjoyable. I hope it does very well. And I hope Carruth doesn't take another 8 yrs to do his next one.

Upstream Color begins as a puzzling but reasonably coherent movie; much of the beginning is a disturbing and unpleasant but somewhat interesting sequence in which a woman is kidnapped and kind of hypnotized. While some of it doesn't make much sense, I could think of explanations for why things happen they way they do, and the odd, distanced, no-affect acting is appropriate to what is going on.

Unfortunately distanced characters and no-affect speaking are the rule even after that scene, and puzzling goes to flat out senseless as the movie progresses.

The movie is very much a pretentious art film in which the viewer is supposed to do the work of filling in the gaps of the movie. It is full of strange transitions, inter-cutting between scenes that seem to have nothing to do with one another or between different versions of the same thing. The movie is for people who feel things like story and character development are simple catering to the masses. It is the sort of movie that, if you hate it, you think the people who like it may just be pretending to like it to seem cool, because it is so hard to imagine anyone could genuinely enjoy this. It is a movie that resolutely makes less and less sense as it goes along, so while early on I still thought the elements might somehow be at least vaguely tied together, by the end it appeared that the director himself probably didn't even know how it all connected.

This is not to say there are no interesting ideas in the film, because there are a couple. In fact, you could take parts of this movie and make something vaguely interesting out of them. But this movie fails to use its ideas to good effect. It also never connects you to its characters, leaving you alienated and alone in a confused landscape.

While the movie looks like a puzzle to be solved, I think it is like the famous riddle from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, "Why is a raven like a writing desk," in which when she admits she cannot solve it she is told there is no answer. There is no answer to this movie either, although someone may eventually cobble one together, in the same way that, years later, someone answered the Raven riddle (because Poe wrote on both).

The frustrating thing is, I can't stop mulling over what it means, and yes, I am thinking of connections and possibilities. But these connections do not themselves connect. You can make some of this make sense, at least in terms of allegory, but there are always loose ends, like leftover screws in Ikea furniture. And while fans of this movie will watch it over and over, looking for clues, I would never put myself through this again, because the movie is quite boring and just plain tiring to sit through.

In looking at reviews, trying to figure out why critics love this movie, I found comments that it was brilliantly and beautifully filmed. I don't understand that reaction. From the first moment I thought it was a flat- looking, low budget movie. Competently filmed within its limitations, certainly, but that's about it.

I have a friend who will only watch indie films, and after she rejected my first three choices, we settled on this. She soon apologized for rejecting my choices (she kept complaining and apologizing, in fact, until someone in the theater told her to shut up) and promised that next time I could choose the movie.

Here's a film which ponders suffering and celebrates beauty and meaning, so at least on this count I am firmly behind it.

The point is how to have the lesson, for instance that love redeems, which we know in words but often eludes us in life as experience that needs no explaining beyond itself, as actual insight, as something which wrapping it around us we will know its warmth by simple feel.

Well, most serious films try something of the sort.

Usually how it works, is that there is an interplay of 'hard' and 'soft' elements. Hard would be all the stuff that particularize and discriminate, the more of these we have the harder it is to have unmediated insight because what happens in the story registers in a topical way, for instance a story of female Irish workers in the sewing industry of 1915. Soft is the flow of urges and self as one space for reflection, Malick's latest seems to be the pinnacle at around this time. Wong Kar Wai does it.

Usually, we start with some 'hard' particulars and open up in a 'soft' way, shedding self. But now and then, we get a major blunder like Cloud Atlas where the point is the soft insight of interconnected life but that is fenced on all sides by hard impositions, conspiracies, gunfights etc.

This is a weird, complicated narrative, unnecessarily so for my taste but once you see past the complexity, it is a simple thing. The idea is that there is something in nature which worms its way into the soul and is the cause of all suffering. Seemingly this is producing the anomalies that manifest in the narrative, if suffering sounds overly religious call it an existential dissatisfaction or malaise. We get to see the effect of this in a relationship between a man and woman, how what is eating them keeps tossing them apart and together again.

The 'soft' portion of the film is this tumultuous relationship, the point is it could be yours. We have digress, dissonance, reluctance, knowing and knowing the other so well you can't tell his memories from your own. Some marvellous birdwatching, love as agreeing on the same birds.

Kar Wai is king of this 'pure' emotional space, because he traces particulars faintly into the night, the yearning and alienation as something elusive in the air. Malick which this film reminds of, renders them as huge, abstract forces that buffet us, war or loss.

Here, the entire framework is schematic and 'hard' in the extreme, an actual worm, hypnosis, a sinister surgery of some kind, more clearly the man who keeps the pigs fenced and wanders around trying to 'capture' on tape the manifold sounds, which stands for a broader human endeavor.

I find that this approach cheapens and reduces. Suddenly it is about technology and greed, a clumsy set of metaphors.

So overall, this comes heavily on the side of a silly eccentricity. Next to Malick who is an influence in the solemnity of atmosphere, I was reminded at times of Synecdoche, Wax: Or the Invention of Television among the Bees, Southland Tales, even Begotten, all of them ambitious ventures constrained by a symbolic notation on the ideas.

The ending is so silly it has to be seen, the choice of metaphors is the most ludicrous since Cremaster which all but destroys the film.

Although I didn't really get Primer, I definitely admire the ambition of the low budget and the idea. Here, on Curruth's long awaited followup, he certainly has a bigger budget for a slicker effect. On an aesthetic level, Upstream Color is beautiful. The photography is elegant with its great muted colour palette. The editing is precise, cutting like a Terrence Malick film and emulating his style very well. The sound design and music are wonderfully crisp and ethereal. It's really unfortunate that the story doesn't have the same mystifying effect. The characters aren't developed in the slightest so the shards of drama and conflict I did catch are completely lost on me and feel quite ridiculous. The film doesn't offer opportunity for investment in the characters, caring more for the technicals. But that's okay, with "montage" films like these, it's usually the themes that prevail. Unfortunately they're not concise enough to work and I ended up not getting much more out of Upstream Color than a pretty picture.

7/10

As you all know, with PRIMER, Shane Carruth announced himself to the world as a naturally gifted talent, one who could rival the likes of James Cameron. Of course, it never happened as he struggled to get his second film off the ground.

Nine years after PRIMER Shane Carruth's long awaited second film is as dense as expected, with an impossible to understand third act that still manages to intrigue due to its sheer technical mastery. With UPSTREAM COLOR Carruth proves he is not a one-shot wonder. He also proves he is the ultimate NYC and L.A. art-film director incapable of adapting to more mainstream story telling.

Much has been written about the plot so I will not get into the specifics here. What I will say is that I think Carruth purposely holds critical information from his films as a way to challenge viewers and force them to think. This is admirable. But in the end, a bit frustrating because with just a few answers both PRIMER and now UPSTREAM COLOR would be fit for the masses without compromising artistic integrity.

The film made sense to me for about an hour and then it started to slip away. Like with Primer, I just lost my footing and could not gain hold. Amazingly enough, I still enjoyed the experience and was never bored, In fact, at times I was held in genuine suspense.

The third act has been described as 30 minutes without dialog and that simply is not true. There are numerous sequences without dialog and about halfway through we get a major sequence of events told with visuals and music. Then we have some more conventional filmmaking (conventional is really not the right word) followed by what I think might be around 15 minutes of dialog free visuals. The ending makes no sense to me, but I will see the film again and hope to sort it out.

Carruth designed the sound and composed the music and let me tell you, he hit both out of the park. The man could work scoring films and make a great living. The same goes for his sound design.

I watched the film at IFC in New York City and they have a pretty good sound system. What they don't have is a great screen. It might be the proper widescreen aspect ratio, but the images appeared darker in sections and that harmed Carruth's amazing visuals, rumored to have been captured with a hacked $700 Pansonic DSLR (the GH2). The image is akin to a RED or Alexa and throughout Carruth plays with shallow depths of field. This results in some shots missing the sharply focused mark, but for the most part the visuals shine. This film proves you do not need Hollywood style lighting and equipment to make Hollywood level films.

The Blu-Ray will be out in May and I have already put it on order at Amazon. There is no question in my mind that by year's end I will have sat through UPSTREAM COLOR numerous times.

I look forward to Carruth's next film, but with the hope for a little more clarity in his narrative.

This had a fantastic idea in it... but then languished in interrupted thought and drawn-out emotions. I felt like I was watching a mystery, then a sci-fi, then a relationship drama, then an abstract art film, then an animal rights movie. There was so much disparate communication and cut-scenes I felt like there was supposed to be some kind of narration going on or I was just supposed to "know" and "feel" everything that was happening, like I'm some kind of psychic.

I enjoy a movie that doesn't say everything, that leaves some mystery or lets the mood tell the story, but this felt very pretentious and naval- gazing, like someone that has heavy thoughts but can't put the words together to form a sentence. I felt by the end like the writer didn't have a clear understanding of what he was trying to get at.

The premise is amazing, but I think the writing and directing just couldn't pull it off. There were several moments where there could have been real clarity and a convergence of all of the abstract moments, but this just kind of walked off in a starry-eyed gaze. You can put the pieces together without it being over-exposed, but this was just over- blown and underdone.

By the way, I saw Primer years ago, and I didn't even realize this was made by the same person, but that movie is far better, even though it is much harder to understand. I felt like I got a better story told out of that one even though I don't fully understand it and this one I did understand. I just wanted more story told, in a better way, with less abstract stops and starts that frustrate the flow.

Enjoy it for its beautiful music and scenery (and the actors are great too), but don't expect a consistent movement in the story-telling.

One may be saddened that both 'a topiary' and 'modern ocean' will never be made, but this sad state of Hollywood politics gave birth to 'upstream color', and for this, i'm grateful.

Shane drops the muddled dialog of 'primer' but keeps the gritty realism despite the fantastic subject matter. It's a technical masterpiece on a budget of 50k, using a GH2 and a couple of commercial lenses. It rivals the best of what von Triers and Noe produced.

But where upstream color pulverises all other 'low do sci fi' efforts, it's in its unique, brilliantly executed allegory of a three tiered yet cohesive ecosystem. The script in itself is a masterpiece, a one of a kind, genre busting, convention defying work of genius.

I certainly understand that this may be the last movie from Mr carruth, but it will live forever as my favorite of all times.

What begins as a crime story about abduction and the Stockholm Syndrome, melds into a science fiction tale that includes the struggles of modern love. Visually artistic, with an emphasis on soundtrack. Similar in many ways to Andrei Tarkovsky's 2 hour and 41 minute masterpiece "The Stalker" about the discovery and exploration of a mysterious world comprised of ordinary objects.

Make no mistake about it: Shane Carruth makes Christopher Nolan look like Jerry Bruckheimer. If you're not the type who relished figuring out what was going on in MEMENTO (and in its untold backstory), if you haven't spent countless pleasant hours debating INCEPTION, do yourself a favor and skip this movie. As you can tell from the other reviews here, this will just make you mad. If, OTOH, you're someone (like me) who felt let down by LOOPER because it didn't live up to its billing as mind-scrambling and was in fact too easy to get, then this may be just your thing.

Key take-home points:

-- For fans of this sort of storytelling, there's plenty of stuff that's reasonably easy to get, and hence the basic storyline is not hard to follow.

-- OTOH, there are bits that are clearly important and that just as clearly will take three or four viewings (and probably liberal use of pause and rewind) to get. That's Carruth's narrative aesthetic: rather than give you one big "OMG I think I understand this" experience, like in VERTIGO, or two, like the first and second times you see THE PRESTIGE, he wants those bombs of comprehension to explode in your skull gradually, over many viewings.

-- At all points in time I felt that every shot was important, every shot contained information. It never felt like art for art's sake. That of course is partly my trust of Carruth, but I also think I got that feeling because *it's true.* This isn't LOST, folks. This is all designed to eventually cohere completely, leaving holes only where Carruth intends, and leaving the viewer knowing quite a bit and knowing precisely what is unknowable.

-- It's exquisite. Carruth has a directorial and editing (and composing) style that I find transfixing (YMMV, of course). Unlike PRIMER, it's at times beautiful and emotionally resonant. My friend was reduced to tears. It has thematic weight already and I know it will acquire more as the story coheres with repeat viewings.

-- Speaking of which, even though I'll be watching the Blu-Ray on May 7 on a great home theater, my friend and I will see this again at the theater next weekend. That's how blown away we were.

This is an abstract film. I guess that's the right way to describe it. Does it have a point in being abstract? That's a bit tricky question. The film's free-flowing visual structure is captivating. I think the process of constructing a story or an idea starts with images in your head. You're shifting through these random frames in your head as you are knitting a story, and you would try to arrange them in a manner that would serve to be a concrete narrative--and that isn't the case here. Shane Carruth preserves those jumbling abstract frames and presents to you just as they are. The result is a film that's wildly interesting but fairly isolating. You're in the moment, and you are not. You can observe things and try to make a sense out of it, but it would be hard to empathize with the characters. The film has a visual structure that seems to be of this world, and it feels alienating. I think I'll just have to admire the cinematography for that.

Does a film have to have a point in order to be admired? I don't think so. Immersion is the key to enjoy a film, and Upstream Color fairly succeeds in creating a world that stays with you long after you've left it. But there is still a hollowness. A bitter test at the end of a very fine cocktail. But I would be lying, if I said I didn't enjoy the cocktail for most of the time.

Watch it.