User Reviews

After reading so many complaints posted on the web about the lack of originality in modern movies, one would think there would be a lot of support and praise towards a film that tries to do something different and unique, but it seems that complex (or merely unconventional) narratives are loathed here on IMDb. But then again, this is the same website that gives extremely inflated ratings to a lot of generic superhero flicks. It is also the only website where a show like "Mr. Pickles" could be rated so high.

Anyway, "The Congress" is a wonderful film. Of all the movies that combined live-action with animation through the history of cinema, this might be my favorite. Plot-wise, "The Congress" might be closer to movies like "Inland Empire" rather than "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". And the balance between the live-action parts with the animation is simply excellent.

Some people say that it would have been better if the "Hallucination" parts were done in live-action, but I disagree: The animation sequences (Which make a marvelous combination of psychedelia with an art style reminiscent of the work of Max Fleischer) not only gives the story a proper dream-like feel to the story (Opposed to a dry and forgettable portrayal of dreams as it was seen in movies like "Inception") but also serve as a subtle commentary about modern-day obsession with escapism: It's something admirably subtle the way the thin line between fantasy and reality fades away as the plot of the film progresses, until the bitter reality is finally showed in a rather heartbreaking manner. Like at the end of "Waltz with Bashir", when the animation changes into live-action, we as viewers are forced to confront a harsh reality that cannot be ignored, and that reality is that living with our backs turned to the problems of today only will have dire consequences in the future, and we will have to deal with those consequences in one way or another. I guess that a message like that could be hard to swallow for many viewers, but I personally think that in this day and age, a message like that it's more necessary than ever.

I hope "The Congress" gets eventually vindicated by history. Maybe in the future, people will be able to appreciate more its daring qualities. For now at least, the future of cinema seems bleak, with all the same generic stuff making billions at the box office while the actually challenging movies are perpetually ignored. A shame, really.

The Congress explores a fascinating concept that I've always contemplated ever since my realization of technology's limitless advancement: how indispensable are actors, exactly, or any other worker for that matter? How much are we all worth to powerful corporations that use their affluence for improving efficiency and convenience, consequently attenuating and diminishing the workforce with the introduction of stunningly-adaptable and proficient computers/machines.

This is what Robin Wright faces (quite interestingly portraying herself in this role) as an actress whose best work is far behind her. Suddenly, a vastly impressive, yet potentially detrimental, new system has materialized as studio execs attempt to convince her into scanning her entire body, motions, and all sets of emotions so that they won't need her anymore, thus branding Robin as a merely expendable human being. In the future, they'll be able to use her likeness whenever they want in whatever film they choose. She's nearing her 70th birthday? No big deal; she's still 30 years old in her scanned form—on the big screen. While she's retired and spending the rest of her days either on vacation or miserably attending to her ill son (whose health—vision—is gradually deteriorating), her semblance is starring in some enthralling and intense action flick as a young, sexy spy.

With the way I described it, it seems like this newly-realized technology has many remarkable assets, but at the same time, it clearly possesses sizable flaws. The worker is therefore deprived of any right/ability of choice (in this case, especially), and one's identity— one's character—is no longer in their control. It is now in the hands of a possibly avaricious, manipulative, typically corporate Hollywood studio. Robin's under a lengthy contract, and there's nothing she can do about it from that point on. From the time of her signing, she is forbidden to act ever again—forbidden to express her talents. She is hence a nobody who isn't given any hint of attention and praise any longer.

As you can see, the film starts out with such a unique and original premise. The first hour of the picture continually fleshes this idea out to the fullest extent. And during that hour's duration, time really flies by and the movie's engaging quality persists throughout. However, all of a sudden, the film takes an unexpected and bizarre direction towards its last half, guiding us into an animated world as opposed to the prior live-action format. It's with this final act that the film unfortunately stumbles and loses its original vision. The plot becomes embarrassingly incoherent and escapes into hallucinatory and purely trippy chaos. This would be an accurate depiction of my reaction as the film progressed: "What? Huh? Oh okay, I get it. Wait, what? What's going on? Oh, okay…" It's a truly frustrating experience that amounts to a strange and unsatisfying climax that's swathed in ambiguity and confusion. The Congress is the exemplar of how unevenness can truly spoil a narrative, carrying a compelling concept at first but squandering its potential simply because the storytellers had no idea how to continue the tale after its concept had been fully explained.

I'm not sure I understood this film, but it is at once the most amazing and horrifying film I've ever seen.

The idea that we could end up in a world where we are drugged into "freedom" of a life without care, living in our own imaginations, while are bodies are hardly more than zombies is what I found horrifying. The realization of this through the mixture of animation and live action is what was amazing.

Mind you, I did find Harvey Keitel sounded a bit stilted - as if he was uncomfortable in the part. However, there was one scene with him, however, that made all his stiffness forgivable, when he talks to Robin while she's being scanned. Just perfect!

From what I can see, people aren't terribly happy that only the essence of the book has made it to the screen, but that's nothing new - and those who are cult fans of Stanislaw Lem's dystopian novel "The Futurological Congress" would never be happy with any film version. Not having that disadvantage, I think makes it easier to look at this film subjectively. And while the story isn't terribly unique - a tale of rebellion by one person who is looking for something that the new world they're living in can't give them - there is a twist to the classic ending.

This won't win any awards, simply because its probably far to avant-garde to be judged alongside any other films. That's Ari Folman for you! Did I like it? I'm not sure. For the artistry, it certainly deserves high ratings. As for the story, the concept is a scary one, making it something you won't easily forget, that's absolutely certain. I'm just a touch wary that the realization was just a touch too restrained in spots, but when he takes off, you'll just want to take flight with him. I only wish he did so more consistently throughout the film.

I hope others here see it, because I'd like to know if I'm totally off base or not in my humble assessment.

After his Oscar-nominated animation film Waltz with Bashir, Ari Folman did mostly writing work for the last five years, for Israeli, Serbian and even Argentinian TV shows. But now, he's back with an incredibly innovative take on how movie industry will emerge in the coming decades and what decisions actors will have to make as a consequence.

I think the one thing which makes this film so impressive is how Folman managed to link the live action and animation sequences which may have been unmatched in history so far (not that there are too many films that tried it). The film lasts roughly 2 hours. The first 45 minutes or so are exclusively live action and everything afterward is animated (with small exceptions right towards the end). It centers on actress Robin Wright who plays herself in a very emotionally stripped and disarming performance reflecting on her career choices and future in the profession as an actress. While she's clearly the center of attention we also get decent supporting performances from Danny Huston, Harvey Keitel and Jon Hamm. Giamatti, Smit-McPhee and Gayle's parts are too insignificant to really make an impact. Huston, however, has quite the money scene when he, as a ruthless agent, reflects on Wright's career choices and delivers an equally convincing speech just like Keitel when he talks to Robin about his way into the industry while she's in the box unable to continue. Mad Men star Jon Hamm only does voice-work (sorry ladies!) in the animated sequences, but pretty much nails the part as well.

As emotionally investing as the first half was, I had some struggles with the story when the film entered the animation part. They could have probably cut 10-15 minutes there and it would not have decreased the film's overall quality. The Steve-Jobs-reference felt out of place too. But it was still extremely well-made. I have to say I wasn't as moved by the plot of Wright in relation to her son as I would have liked to (except the final meeting of Wright and Giamatti's character which was truly emotional) and as the whole film pretty much turned around this storyline, I mainly enjoyed the brilliant animation without really thinking much deeper about the plot there and it may have been a good decision. It's done with incredible dedication to detail and I believe Folman topped his work from "Waltz with Bashir" with this one. So it was certainly worth the five years he made us wait. Very much recommended and, without a doubt, one of the most creative and innovative movies of the decade so far.

For me this film has more negatives than positives about it. The start of the film raises interesting and important issues about identity, life choice, regret, the right to choose how you are portrayed, if it should be possible to completely sell your image and then why we make the choices that we make (even if they go against our beliefs). The second part is excellently animated, colourful, imaginative, psychedelic and funny. The final part explores the implications of living in a fantasy world and denial of the truth.

The biggest niggle I have is that it feels like two films that don't belong together. Very few of the juicy questions of the first act where expanded upon or explored in the second. Or if they are, they are obscured by the mixed metaphors and confusing tangents in the animated world.

What the plot effectively puts forward is this: We invent a way to replace actors by scanning and animating them, and then in the future people live in a drug induced fantasy world, finally we loose touch with what is real and while living in a utopia in our heads we live in squalor in real life. The film does a very bad job of justifying how these points were reached. Of course sci-fi uses far fetched ideas and would be pointless without the wilful suspension of disbelief. But honestly they lost me as soon as she took the drugs to enter the animated world. (In fact it was so random and over the top that I thought we were just watching a short dream sequence or spoof sci-fi film the likes of which she specifically said in her contract that she did not want to be in!)

On top of this disconnect between the two stories, the narrative thread falls apart in the animated world. There are so many conflicting ideas introduced that its hard to tell what actually means anything and what anything actually means. Perhaps this is the point the film is trying to make? There is of course the narrative thread of the actress who has to make difficult decisions to survive and protect her family, she gets caught up in a revolution, (goes mad?), wakes up in a dystopian future and then tries to find her lost son. But again the impact of this thread is almost completely lost in the mess of confused ideas.

I cant help feeling like the film would have been better off if it had just focused on the main protagonist in the present. The affects of being digitised could slowly unravel and we get to see the emotional toll that that took on her and her family leading finally to a real conclusion. Perhaps it could climax in some decisive action to regain her identity, or hopeless resignation to the unfairness of it all, or a revelation that there are some things that cannot be bought and can never be taken away from you. Its such a shame it had to fly off on an incoherent tangent after such a sober and well constructed beginning.

Now this is a great movie. Thank you holiday season. If they had named this "Being Robin Wright" that would have just been too spot on. This has got so much going on, and there is just so much great movie here. The basic story is a jumbled mess that you need to watch all the way through to really get the pay off, but there are so many wondrous things to see, and fantastic ideas put in play. The actors are all great, and the voice acting is just as emotionally gripping as the live performances. What a cast. You will have to suspend all your reasoning, and just let the movie take you through this Alice in wonderland sensation that just never seems to stop. There is a lot of the first time you ever saw the Matrix in here, and half the movie is like A Scanner Darkly drawn by Don Bluth back in the Last Unicorn days, and I loved this art. You will feel like you just stepped into the Cool World version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and it will take you some time to adjust. There is very little wrong with this movie, and so much has been done "Wright" that I really Enjoyed it, and would recommend this movie to anyone looking for something new. Great ending, so perfectly complete. There is a really new experience here, and you will enjoy most if not all of it as much as I did. Find a way to see, then support "The Congress".

See this review on the Bath Film Festival blog:

http://bathffblogger.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/the-congress/

The Congress was 4 years in the making by director Ari Folman (Waltz with Bashir). The film is based on the book The Futuroligical Congress by Polish Stanislaw Lem, first published in 1971. Though Folman doesn't follow the book to the letter, the main character is female rather than male and the story of chemical dictatorship is changed to that of the film studio running the world, it does stay true to its core.

Robin Wright (played by herself) is approached by her agent Al (Harvey Keitel) for a lucrative role that will make her career. After going over all the poor choices she made over the years, he tells her how she can reap the rewards with never having to work again. Mirramount studios in the form of gnarly film boss Jeff Greene (Danny Huston) wants to buy her image and use it to make movies without the need for her to be present. After much deliberation, and swayed by realising what treatment money can buy for her son Aaron (Kodi Smit McPhee) who has a rare condition, Robin signs the 20 year contract.

20 years later when Miramount studios wants Robin to renew her contract she travels to the Abrahama hotel, which is also hosting The Futurist Congress. To get there she breaks open a cartridge sniffs it, and is taken into the strange animated world. This is where the film gets wacky and surreal with around 50 minutes of the film in the quirky animation. Here Robin Wright looks like a cross between "Cinderella on heroin and an Egyptian queen on a bad hair day" as she describes herself. Details of the new contract unfold not only do they want to keep the image and personality of Robin Wright, but now also want to own the chemical of Robin Wright so that people can swallow a pill and become her. So not only can you watch your favourite celebrity, you can become them. Later Robin returns to the present day after being frozen in the animated world for an unknown length of time where the world is unrecognisable.

The film looks into many areas such as sexism, ageism, capitalism, identity and the human condition. It gives a view of a dystopian future where people can escape reality and become who they want to be by just taking a pill, fueling the celebrity obsessed culture and where reality is secondary and the world they have programmed and built is preferred and worshiped.

So I had high expectations of this film before I went in, and I left a little disappointed and a bit confused. Yes, it looks amazing and it talks about lots of interesting themes, but I think it lost itself in parts and made it over complicated. At first I thought that maybe I just didn't get it and it was too intellectual for me but I found other reviews that had the same viewpoint. Equally there are other reviewers who love it, so it's proving to be a bit of a Marmite film. I wouldn't dismiss the film totally though, I can see that there has been loads of work on the script - the film itself has a lot to say as well as being visually stimulating. I definitely think I would watch it again, and would urge you intrigued cinema goers to seek it out and make up your own minds. I suggest you take a look at the web page www.thecongress- movie.com, which has lots of visuals, behind the scenes and an interview with the director Ari Folman.

I love the concept of this film but its major problem is that it never truly defines the parameters of the world(s) it creates, which is something that every film like this needs to do. She is digitized, but then it's implied that her digital 'copy' and the real world are separate entities.

We jump forward 20 years to her in her car. Is this her digital 'copy'? If so, have all of the other animated characters (mostly the insignificant ones) been scanned as well? This part takes a jump to it being all about chemistry. Why did they need to have the 'congress' in the animated world in either case? If in the future it changes to a chemical catalyst, how are they interacting with the digital copies they were implied to be?

I really wanted to like this movie, the trailer made it sound like such an interesting concept. Kind of like mix between Inception, Roger Rabbit, Transcendence, and Cool World... but ended up being just disjointed and uninteresting. I kept waiting, baiting my breath, thinking that the next scene would bring everything together and things would start to make sense, but they never do. It just became odder and more strange as the film continued, pushing it further away from any baseline it may have set.

Perhaps I'm too dense to appreciate this film but I always believed that a storyteller has to set parameters for the world they create. We can watch films like Roger Rabbit because they set the limits for the world the characters interact with. We allow for Space Sci-fi because they let us know the limits. We love superhero movies as long as they adhere to the limits of the universe the characters live in. If the characters don't, we can't relate on any level and lose interest and become confused.

That's where this film lost me. Where did the real world end and where did the animated world begin? And if it's all a hallucination... what's the point in the end? I couldn't find any moral center or real motivation to her character aside from wanting to see her son again... which in the end just seems obtusely selfish. Oh well.

Edit: I see a lot of people describing this film as different things. Some say she died and the animated world was her afterlife or re-incarnation or whatever. Some are saying the 'congress' and the 'rebellion' were like the Matrix or some alternate world. All of these individual descriptions of what is actually going on just re-enforce my point that if you don't at the very least define the parameters of your world there is really no point to telling the story... this is especially true in sci-fi.

Toward the end of the film we see her cross over into the dystopian 'real' world via (presumably) chemical process. OK, did she have a body waiting to receive her consciousness? Was it the same body she crossed over with in the desert? What the hell was the 'congress' about anyway? Why would everyone want to be Robin Wright in the first place (I mean she is beautiful, but come on!)? We see that her 'scanned' self has obviously made some movies, but in the end, the whole scanning dilemma at the beginning of the film amounts to nothing!

The other guy who just happens to look like Tom Cruise says they're the only ones who survived... why is that even important??? Why should we care??? People are obviously crossing over all the time using the chemical process! I mean they have an checkpoint system set up in the desert just for crossing over and coming back apparently!!! Her son crossed over willy-nilly. Her boss crossed over. Her 'animator' who fell in love with her crossed over! If crossing over is a euphemism for dying... how is she able to talk to her daughter from the other side... much less 'cross over' not once but twice after the 20 year jump.

Again... what the hell is going on in this movie???

"I like French films. Pretentious, boring French films. I like French films. Two tickets ce beau ple." -Jay Sherman.

It is an absolute shame this movie didn't just stick with it's original premise. Great actors in this! Robin Wright is steady, graceful, beautiful, emotionally vulnerable and thoughtful. You really bond with her as almost everyone in personal sphere says very intrusive and unflattering things about her. Things that she obviously feels about herself. Harvey Keitel gives a great performance as Robin's agent, long time friend, confidant and champion. Danny Houston is smarmy and easy to detest as the crass studio head. Paul Giamati is also here and good as usual.

This movie promises an emotional and intellectual catharsis about the nature of art, individuality, mortality and immortality. I thought at first it might be an Able Ferrara picture and paused it to check. It wasn't and it's a damn shame. If the movie had stayed with it's emotional core and thought provoking theme it could have been something special. Instead, with no set up, it takes this bizzaro, forced and unnatural turn into Toon Town, without the live action. I'm mean it actually throws out all the big questions and the real Robin Wright is replaced with an animated one in an animated environment. There is no amount of suspension of disbelief that can save this ham handed transition. And the incredible level of pretentiousness that happens after this 'twist' is nauseating. I mean like bad community college creative lit class bad.

The resolution of it all may just as well be, 'And then she woke up... It had all been a dream...' This is the type of movie where YOU KNOW if you were involved your hand would be up and you'd be screaming 'STOP! Let's just keep with the original premise!!!' and you wonder how someone didn't. I saw a production cost of 34 million which is very hard to believe. I can understand the the budget for the actors but for the animation??? Though some of the imagery is good, the animated sequences are incredibly average in quality and they totally take you out of the movie. This should of and could have been a great character piece. As it is, it's a mess and looks like all the big name actors were doing a very untalented filmmaker a favor. He sure didn't do them or us one. Damn shame. SMDH...