Upstream Color

Upstream Color, kind of falsely classified as a Science Fiction, is a fantasy drama about two people affected by a mysterious blue substance which allows them to be manipulated in a trance like state. They are fed a ringworm which leeches of the consciousness of its human hosts. The victims are manipulated into handing over their valuables.

The mastermind behind all this is called "The Thief". There's an interloper though: a person called "The Sampler". He figured out how to manipulate these people as well, and does so for his own pleasure.

At a higher level this movie addresses free will, connectivity with each other and nature. It's about two people who try to better themselves. At tangible level you won't receive any answers.

It's unknown what the blue substance is, which transforms the worm into a conscious-leeching insect. It's unknown how The Thief got hold on that knowledge, it's unclear how both The Thief and The Sampler control the minds of the infected people. It's unclear what The Samplers motivation is to aimlessly play with his victims. Again, at metaphysical level I could think of a few reasons, but metaphysics is not what I'm questioning. Not providing any of these answers in the slightest is cheap in my book. Especially when the director tags it as "Science Fiction" he's misinforming his crowd.

At deeper level, things do make sense to me. I understand the metaphor of the conscious leeching worm. The pigs and their piglets, as connectors for our protagonists to behave like distressed parents when the piglets are murdered. I recognize the life cycle from water to plant to mammals to death to water again. Rinse and repeat and the mysterious blue substance is a vessel for that cycle. And I do recognize The Sampler for what he is: a binding entity between all the elements, spiritual and natural. Our protagonists are bettering themselves by freeing themselves from their antagonists.

This movie, though unnecessarily slow, could have been very watchable for more viewers if only it would have been executed decently. The beer budget of $50,000 is not it. Even on that budget Shane Caruth (yes, him) could have purchased a few camera stabilizers. He didn't, so we're stuck with shaky-cam footage; very annoying and for me largely unwatchable, mostly because I simply don't want to. Then there are the cuts: supposedly artistic, but I rather call it frantic. For example too much zooming-in (along with shaking), cutting halfway through objects, and the usual cliché art-house pretentiousness.

Shane Caruth himself didn't improve on his acting since Primer either: it's the way he talks. Doesn't finish sentences, stops halfway and then restarts, lots of "uh", "ah" - which is his trademark by now I'm sure - and then finally he finishes the sentence (or simply doesn't). This is what art students do with their iPhone. It doesn't belong in a movie I'm supposed to pay for.

So there's that. The shaky-cam and idiotic zooming is the worst culprit of them all.

In Primer, Shane Carruth admittedly made things unnecessarily complicated by leaving the origins of some parallel dimensions unclear and introducing a red herring. In this film, however, the complexity stems more from an awkward technical execution. As suggested earlier, the film's sluggish pacing presents another challenge. Nor is this slowness handled in a particularly artistic way: we're left staring at things for far too long, while much of the dialogue feels pointless.

My rating of 4 out of 10 means it needs two full notches before it becomes decent to look at. Story wise it's nice though, but it won't save the movie. Not to me that is.