Watch Phantom Love For Free

You won't be disappointed!

A Masterpiece!

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Andrei Tarkovsky tells us that a teacher wrote the following about his film Mirror (1974): "The film itself lifts the spell of silence and enables one to free one's spirit from the anxieties and trivia that weigh us down…showing the true, instead of the false, values of the world; making every object play a part; making every detail of the picture into a symbol; building up to a philosophical statement through an extraordinary economy of means; filling every frame with poetry and music." (p. 11, Sculpting in Time) Thirty-three years later, this also describes the power of Nina Menkes' new feature, Phantom Love. Combining the real and surreal in daring ways, the film blurs the distinctions between the two to tell the story of an alienated woman's inner, spiritual awakening. Structured to reflect the main character, Lulu's internal conflicts, one experiences Phantom Love the way one experiences life—going in and out of dreams and nightmares to assemble one's own reality.The film merges human and animal worlds in with great focus and heart, mesmerizing us by a dream about a swimming Octopus, and imprinting in our memories other wise creatures like a clairvoyant Cat, mysterious Snake, swarm of Bees, magical Horses, and fragile Moth clinging to a lampshade. The black and white style symbolizes the transcendental approach of the film—primal, stripped to the bone, and made bare to take us deeper into Lulu's story with light, shadow, and grain. Synthesizing documentary shooting with dream-like, fairytale imagery, Menkes roams through the psychic closets of her characters, and in the process asks us to do the same for ourselves. Phantom Love is pure cinema, reminiscent of the transformative films of Bergman, Antonioni, Cocteau, and Tarkovksy.Tapping into the metronome of Lulu's everyday encounters, Phantom Love plunges into its heroine's subconscious to expose the narratives that strangle and trap her—narratives that concern the destructive aspects of Lulu's relationship with her mother and sister, which consequently affect her ability to love and be loved. Few filmmakers have depicted mother/ daughter and sister/sister dynamics with such depth. Nina Menkes artfully presents these relationships as intense ties, which are difficult to cut, impossible to erase, ridden with guilt, and are an endless cycle of resembling reflections. These internal struggles confront and relate to the images of war and destruction on Lulu's television. The distance between Lulu and her TV begins to disappear as the film progresses, eventually culminating in a levitation sequence where Lulu's body explodes, much like the bombs she sees devastating the Middle East. She floats above her bed then looks right at us through the film screen—asking us, if we too feel the same way. Directly following this chilling, but totally courageous moment, Lulu's own nightmares are mirrored in the TV, with the image of a little girl running for her life in a vacant battleground. Phantom Love moves through darkness to find a light so strong it consumes the last frame of the film—we see visions of serenity, fluidity, and strength as Lulu begins her journey to a new, renewing place on the other side of a mystical bridge.

As a fan of Ms. Menkes' films, I didn't quite know what to expect from her new feature film, Phantom Love. I have been a fan since seeing her six previous works--Soft Warrior, Great Sadness of Zohara, Magdalena Viraga, Queen of Diamonds, Bloody Child, and Massakre. What I love about Nina's work is that it is utterly brave, bold, and original! Nina dares to tap into something spiritual, mystic, subconscious...something undefinable, something magical... Her new film, Phantom Love, a stunning feature shot in black and white 35MM, seems even more daring and unique. From the opening frame, Nina steadies her shots with a hand-held, "raw" edge. She abandons some of her more formal static shots in favor of a roaming eye...an eye that seems to dig down into her subject, dig a hole...pierce and burrow into the depths of the alienation and repression of her female characters. Her central character, a blackjack dealer living in Los Angeles, is somewhat reminiscent of Firdaus from Queen of Diamonds; but unlike Firdaus, this protagonist struggles with "family problems" such as an overbearing mother and psychotic sister. At one point, the "sister" disappears and seems to fuse into the psychic space of the protagonist/blackjack dealer. Typical of Nina's work, specific elements can be debated...and often the literal is less important than the subconscious space or the internal sensations awakened from a particular sequence... In the end, it seems a weight had been lifted as butterflies encircled the main character and she stood naked in the window of her medieval-style apartment. Perhaps this is a sign of hope...perhaps Nina will simple leave it up to the viewer to decide... No matter, I have rarely been so moved from viewing a film... Way to go girl!!!

Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.

I caught this 'movie' on the last day of the Sundance Film Festival. I caught this 'movie' like one catches a cold- unwanted, and cursing the propagator of such filth. This garbage is the excrement of self-hating emo cutters with nothing to outlet irrational anti-emotion but a camera- suffering from a visual stagnancy of thought, this 'movie' drives through one overly-long shot devoid of any discernible art or cinematography to the next. The 'clever' lack of dialog for the first third of the film establishes the consistency of vacant material. I 'believe" it was the directors motive (because there is nothing to tie anything together, and no rational thought or clues given as to what is happening or why anyone would care) to make viewers feel the same nothingness and self-propelled despair as the wooden characters. Of course see this film will leave viewers wondering, I wonder why it was accepted into the theater, I wonder why the whole theater did not leave with the other half. Nothing in the movie was coherent enough for one shot, let alone establishes continuity between two.I must beg the director to answer one question: Was anything thought out before production?This movie is painful to watch- not for the subject matter- for the un-motivating characterless characters- the excruciating long shots attempting at some rejected student art- the poor camera angles- the amateurish zooming in and out incrementally- the lack of story- the lack of detail- the lack productive dialog- the un-relatable situations without explanation or reason.I have never seen anything this bad attempt to be a movie or art.*Spoiler alert* The synopsis has NOTHING to do with this film- none of those purported events could be interpreted by anyone who has not read the synopsis- the soundtrack was 'masterfully' accomplished by placing a mic on the road and various machinery, there was no score-The only positive commenter shares the same first name as the director, a coincidence or shameless self promoter with a not so clever pseudonym?