While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Woozy, Dreamy, and Beautifully Shot, this Soggy and Sloggy Melodrama about Life is a Lifeless Contemplation about an Accidental Death that takes a Heavy Toll on those Involved.Heavy, to say the Least. The Burden is Barred by a Struggling Writer, a Mother and Her Surviving Son, and a Women Attached to a Now Detached Writer.This makes for a Movie that makes a Terence Mallick Movie seem High-Voltage. The Screen is Filled with Fallen Faces and Circumstantial Consequences that Manifest as Clinical. The Writer (James Franco) does eventually Move from Under the Guilt and the Mother Makes Art by Contract, but Refuses to call Herself an Artist because of it.Her Surviving Son Carries the Early Life Tragedy with Him through His Teens and is Decidedly Disturbed. The Film Spans more than a Decade and Leaps Two and then Four Years at a time.It's Mostly Mood as the Characters make Their Way through the Muck Mostly Moving in "Slow Motion", Reciting Dialog that is Pedestrian and Rarely Profound or Insightful.It's a Still Life, both Visually and Metaphorically and the Early Accident that Set Things in this Slow Motion now Becomes a Substantial Weight, Carried not only by the Characters Involved, but the Audience as well.Wim Wenders Directs and also Stars Rachel McAdams and Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Its a movie that has many levels of interpretation and depth. Franco was great....abit flat, but I think his character would be, naturally. McAdams is great, but her "French" accent was not so good. Her "normal" voice came out and her french accent seemed a bit forced and unnatural. Sorry...I love her acting, otherwise. The female characters were all a bit pushy....like they expected Franco to be different than his true self. The "Artsy" people in this world are more misunderstood than your everyday person. I completely understood each character. I've been where they have been. A very relatable movie to me. A bit slow....but I liked the slower pace......The kid, Christopher, an odd kid...The mom was kind of odd too, but small town people ca be more odd, due to isolation...etc.....she was a stay at home mom with a very simple job.

The movie takes us through part of the life of a writer who goes through a traumatic experience. That's the only exciting moment of the movie. The rest is just seeing time pass and nothing really happens. Part of the story driving is even the cliché "we can not be happy because we can't have children".The camera management was alright, and so is the acting(mostly), but the script is all over the place at the beginning and when it finally seems like the plot is going somewhere, it's really not. Calling it "art film" is not an excuse for such a poor movie. I had high hopes because James Franco was in it, but even he did could not redeem this.

For reviewer in1984, you don't get out much do you, or rather you haven't traveled the world much....You know just because your parents have an accent (no matter where from) while speaking the English language does not mean they're children will possess those accents. Both my parents are British, I have 5 brothers and sisters, none of us have a British accent, there's a reason for this, hopefully you can figure it out. Your observation on this detail of the movie was not only unimportant, it was a complete lack of knowledge and experience with such ideas on your part. The film lacked some substance but overall was watchable. Although I would not spend money to own it.