I really enjoyed “Run Lola Run” from what I can remember. I hadn’t seen that many movies back then, but was captivated by the flashy tricks, the sidestories through pictures, the fast zoom-ins, the idea of multi-fates. There was a tension that reached deep into something visceral. It was flashy, surprising, and fast-paced.
I was expecting something similar with this. But it didn’t come through.
Take notice in how this is structured. It works with previous movies to weave its own movie. Most movies do just that nowadays, but this one is more interesting, because it works as a hommage, as well as a self- conscious exercise in style and execution. It is much less manipulative.
Kauffman and Carax work in similar fashion. They have visual ideas which they use as base blocks to build a story. It is crafty, smart, and elegant. But Tykwer has it somewhat easier, because he does not think up visualities. Instead, he simply quotes moods. And his narrative is engaging.
Kieslowski worked with a much more realist stylization. It was believable because he was a genius. Tykwer has to work twice as hard here to make the story probable. That’s why everything seems like a sober caricature of something else. It may come off as absurdist if you take it too seriously. But be indulgent, this works, although it may seem a bit dated now that we’ve been through five years of MTV luscious bubble gum tones.
You don’t need to see this. Look for his other movie with Blanchett instead.