There seems to be a trend in arthouse films this year. Directors are using broad metaphysics to tell intimate and personal stories.

“Tree of Life” contrasted the life of an ordinary family in the 1950s with the creation of the universe. 

“Another Earth” used parallel universes to focus on redemption.

Now, we have “Melancholia,” a very strong effort from Lars von Trier that uses the apocalypse to focus on sisterhood and depression.

Kirsten Dunst has received a lot of buzz for her role as Justine, a newlywed to Michael (Alexander Skarsgard). Their reception party at an isolated estate of her brother-in-law John (Kiefer Sutherland) falls on the same day as the discovery of the planet Melancholia, which has been hiding behind the sun.

That’s Part I of the film. Part II switches to her sister Claire’s (Charlotte Gainsbourg) point of view, when Justine returns to the estate after ruining the marriage at the Reception party to stay with her sister. As the sisters’ relationship strains, the likelihood of Earth and Melancholia colliding increases.
I’m not too familiar with von Trier’s work.

I know he caused an uproar after making Nazi-favorable comments at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, where Kirsten Dunst also won the Best Actress Award for her role as Justine. 

Von Trier’s last work, “Antichrist,” has a similar look to “Melancholia.” He uses a strange slow-motion technique that has become his trademark. “Melancholia” has a very distinct look. It’s a film about the apocalypse, but it’s not an over-produced blockbuster. It’s slow, meditative and great to look at.

For example, the prologue to the film, which actually just shows you what to expect in the rest of the film, is hypnotic to watch. Everything plays out in painstakingly slow-motion: a horse falls down, Kirsten Dunst floats down a stream in her wedding dress (the heavily-publicized image) and gravity shifting to allow rain flow from Dunst’s fingertips. It’s bizarre but neat to look at.

Dunst is worthy of all of her praise. She uses a range of emotions, so although she’s melancholy, she’s not infinitely sad (sorry, I had to reference The Smashing Pumpkins at least once). Why she’s actually so depressed is actually directly connected to the aforementioned prologue. But she plays a depressed woman with emotions rather than dialogue. This is easily her best performance because “Melancholia” gives her greater range as an actress. It’s very similar to what “Black Swan” did for Natalie Portman. The film allows us to see a side of an actress we never see.

Justine’s story is more of the human elements, and then Claire’s second-half deals with some interesting scientific musings as her husband (Sutherland) realizes that Melancholia may actually ricochet back to collide with Earth. There’s a scene where Claire starts choking because Melancholia gets so close it hogs up our atmosphere that’s convincing. And then another scene where she uses her son’s homemade instrument to measure the distance of Melancholia is the best “damn, that sucks” moment I’ve seen in a film in quite some time.

I don’t want to give away the ending, but if you’ve seen the promotional material you probably have a good idea as to what happens. It’s an ending that sticks with you for some time. Not just for what happens, but for how the characters respond to it. The non-verbal actions of Claire in the last few seconds of the film make you pity the characters for what’s forthcoming.

I don’t know if “Melancholia” is for everyone. It’s a well-acted, gorgeously-filmed mood piece with a spectacular ending. I liked it a lot because of all of those reasons, and because the film itself is a unique experience.

And guys, if you simply just don’t think there’s anything for you to benefit out of seeing “Melancholia,” let me remind you that Kirsten Dunst is completely nude about a third of the way into the film. I sincerely hope that’s not the deciding factor for some to see this film, but whatever.