When I learned that Michael Gondry had directed this a few weeks ago, I became interested in seeing it. Perhaps a dozen of Gondry's videos are so clever and rich that I had hopes his movies would be too. The preview for his next one looks to be on the grating and precious side; something out of the 80s. I was truly surprised that this movie is such an overwrought trifle. Overwrought in that the relationship is barely even registers with a viewer before it requires saving, and a trifle in that many pivotal scenes and the resolution are so weakly written that any of three other relationship in the movie seem more dramatically interesting, and more scaled for the focus of a feature length movie. They don't bear the burden of having to prop up Gondry's rep with some gimmick. The Carrey/Winslet relationship tries to wrestle itself out from under the FX but it never has a prayer. The idea is too intrusive.

Videos seem to be Gondry's ideal format. Ideas that can bear five minutes of exploration are his forte. This is not an insult. Let forever be by the Chemical Bros is simply astonishing. As for movies, this is it? The only question Gondry's efforts in the cinema will be answering is how many times will he be allowed to remake Benny & Joon? Addiitonally he's been imprisoned by his age and thus must make something not too far afield from previously acknowledged high-watermarks by his peers. ESOTSM has one eye firmly glued to Being John Malkovich.

That said, I was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt up till about the one hour mark where the movies most awful scenes start flowing. Jim Carrey acting like a five year old hiding out under a table. It's just a cheesy, stupid, sphincter-tightening place I wasn't willing to go and thus began a fast forwarding workout. By coincidence this is also where the films poor structure becomes a real liability. As music videos don't require scripts, the movies major flaw is the structuring of the film over a long hour and 45 minutes, and the immature script.

Heaping insult on injury, the central relationship is composed only of childish moments, and Winslet is asked to portray nothing more than a b*tchy freak, a surrogate Bjork, the type of girl who should cease to intrigue after the age of 20. I can only see the marketing angles when I see movies now, and the damaged girl who is non-threatening to the target audience of straight guys with low self-esteem is not satisfying to a mature adult viewer. Oooh a misfit who creates her own world.... This is love? making snow angels, girls who dress up potatoes, Puh-lease...

There is room for good performances here. Kristin Dunst (who I don't care for) does OK in an adult role and looks quite fine. Mark Ruffalo who has generally been consigned to sensitive hunk perfs is allowed to play a fully-realized and well-acted goofball here. It turns out he has a range viewers haven't seen previously. Whether he's dancing badly in his underwear, or tripping over something and working with it, he's really committed to this character which makes it fun to watch. As supporting roles go, this is a good one and he does good things with it. A few line readings in the movie (from various actors) are really terrific.

Overall this precious trip through cheap, easy pathos and childish hogwash invariably reappears in french cinema. Seemingly only the french can stomach emotional lives that receive this treacly treatment. (Ma Vie en Rose, Subway, The Professional, etc.)