Watch More For Free

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

"We were outcasts of our own micro-society" observes the doomed protagonist of Barbet Schroeder's 1969 cult curio. Specifically, he's talking about being a junkie, during an era when hash and LSD were considered more conducive to peace and love. But he could also be talking about More itself.Pink Floyd aficionados may know it, if at all, for the band's soundtrack (even then, the film manages to misspell Dave Gilmour's name); but compared with classic head fare like Easy Rider or Performance, More is something of a bejewelled footnote.Says Schroeder, it's "less a story of its time, more a timeless tragedy", and this contemporary staging of the Icarus myth is indeed an eternal tale of crash and burn. And yet this fascinating document positively reeks of the late-1960s from every pore. Exquisitely photographed (on location in Ibiza), and seductive and patience-testing by turns, it's a trip alright, but a smarter and more sober one than you'd expect.

What you see is the story of a demise. While this may have been interesting at the time when this movie was made, today it is somewhat dull to watch a young, clueless German guy go to Paris, then Ibiza with an ex-junkie girl who first turns him on to marijuana, then to horse (heroin). In between, they also try out LSD. The music by Pink Floyd is psychedelic, however, the drug experiences of the two protagonists are never visualized for the viewer, so you couldn't really speak of a psychedelic movie here. Also, there is no real plot, as the couple gets more and more irritable due to their drug consumption. For people who are not familiar with drug culture, it may be interesting to watch the authentic and detailed depiction of how various drugs are consumed. Also, there are some very beautiful shots of Ibiza.

Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.

Kind of a low-key "Days of wine and roses," this is hardly a standard 1960's drug film. Director Schroeder (whom one can deduce is represented by Charlie the good-natured street hustler) states initially it's about a friend who died of drug overdose, so we know it's going to be a story of psychic corruption rather than an exploration of the ideals of Timothy Leary. It might seem that Schroeder is really glamorizing drugs simply by example, as well as by showing the sex life of the characters, and by employing a real psychedelic band for the soundtrack. However, Schroeder doesn't show subjective scenes of drug use; the characters trip out in their own world, usually detached from another, and the audience watches like the only sober person at a frat party. Their sex life soon peters out as drugs take over their lives. Using Pink Floyd was probably to attract unwitting youth and drug-users to see (without being preached to) how drugs can kill.What probably does seem 'standard 1960s' to viewers today is the flat, realistic style of the film which doesn't grab the viewer (unlike the more recent "Sid and Nancy" or "Trainspotting") but was typical of independent and European films of that time. However it's still watchable, and a must for early-Pink Floyd (or "The Pink Floyd", as they're billed in the credits) fans.