This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

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.

There is a disconnect between the gravity and violence of the events depicted and the sleek, shiny, over-stylish packaging. Moreover, the story is so complicated that it becomes difficult to understand. It is one thing to expect the viewer to pay attention, it is another to pour a bottle of champagne in the viewer and let him loose in a maze-shaped hall of mirrors.The story concerns the disappearance of an unusually ominous painting by Goya called "Witches in flight". There is a rich vein of symbolism here that might have been better mined than is the case. (But then, I suppose that the makers of the movie realized that the stark horror of the painting would not go well with the glossy, stylish look.) At one point in the movie - I'm trying to avoid spoilers - it becomes clear that the Goya has been kept hidden under tragic circumstances. These circumstances were also deeply deleterious to the painting. As a result one would expect the painting to be damaged, possibly even damaged beyond recognition. But no, it remains just as beautiful as ever. And to think that there are crown jewellers, art historians, restorers,... etc who would only approach such a masterwork according to a strict protocol. The fools !All of the above is pretty sad, since the movie also boasts some fine performances, especially from the two protagonists. There are also moments of whimsy and (very dry) wit. So. Did I ever tell you how I forgot my Rubens at the tobacconist's ?

Excellent thriller very reminiscent of Shallow Grave (1994) but better! It is full of twists, revelations and a shaven haven (but it fits the story so it's not gratuitous). The style is as brilliant as you would expect from Danny Boyle, punchy, fast, music is excellent. Love a crime thriller.

Four semi-naked figures are writhing in thin air. Three of them wear thin, pointed hats, and are holding the fourth against his will. His face is twisted into an agonised grimace as his captors suck and gnaw at his flesh. Beneath this gruesome foursome, a fifth man cowers under a blanket, his fists extended in a vain attempt to ward off the torment hovering above – or perhaps inside – his head. No, this isn't a scene from Trance, the cheerfully discombobulated new thriller from Danny Boyle: it is in fact the scene depicted in Witches in the Air, a painting by the Spanish artist Francisco Goya, which is the target of the art heist around which the film revolves. At around the halfway point, however, you may well be able to sympathise with the chap who has the sheet over his head. I think it's worth mentioning that Boyle was hanging on to this script since he made "Shallow Grave" and at filming he was also pulling off the Olympics Opening Ceremony. Not to detract from the reviewer's critical observances and Boyle certainly applies his style to his movies. It was a fun movie that you can enjoy once, like Christopher Nolan's Memento. Every so many years someone pulls off a heavy plot twist film really well. I think this one counts.It has the sort of manic energy that makes Boyle's movies so interesting; unfortunately, it also has many of the flaws that make them so frustrating. It's no coincidence that most iconic moments in Boyle's work — the "Choose life…" monologue from "Trainspotting" (1996), the zombie attacks from "28 Days Later" — involve the characters running. Boyle is a sprinter: His movies start out fast and energetic, but can't sustain the pace for too long. His career is full of films that are great for the first hour and then devolve into generic blandness ("Sunshine" (2007) and "The Beach" are two of the most obvious examples).While "Trance" never falls apart, its closing stretch involves several shifts in emotional perspective that the movie doesn't really pull off. To make matters worse, Boyle ends the whole thing on a sentimental note which doesn't jibe with the nihilist tone of the final act (this is also a common Boyle problem). The awkward shoehorning of Big, Serious Themes into the pulp premise doesn't help, either. However, if you can look past the sputtering conclusion — or the pseudo-intellectual banter about memory, modern art, and other assorted nonsense — what you'll find is a brisk, breezy, style-heavy crime flick that happens to be one of the most purely entertaining movies Boyle has made in a long time.

Danny Boyle is one of the industry's most innovative, versatile and inventive modern directors. He has a solid track-record of great films, but I don't think Trance is one of them. Trance is one of those movies that shouldn't be a movie. When there is so much filler and unnecessary scenes that it may as well be an episode from a TV show or TV movie. My hopes for a solid piece or entertainment were high during the first act, but from then on, the movie takes a sharp turn down a road of mediocrity that really doesn't end anywhere.The first act of the film were charming and witty. We see a cast of familiar and talented faces as James McAvoy's character lays it down for us. It at first reminded me of a Guy Ritchie film, with it's energetic camera movements, witty narration and character introductions familiar to Snatch, but sadly this is not nearly as enjoyable after the first act.The problem with Trance is that the story is so muddled with unnecessary scenes and filler that it almost feels unfinished and very rushed. Like they needed more scenes to fill a feature-length run time but were running out of ideas. The story itself is very linear but is never simple or focused. The movie never follows it's narrative clearly and it leads to some confusion during viewing, which was eventually frustrating because it seemed Trance never really cared about telling a cohesive story, let alone even finish it.One of my biggest issues is the exploitation of themes within the film. Rosario Dawson goes fully nude for the film and the scene in which this occurs was meant to be sexy and enjoyable for the audience. But it just felt super exploitative and unnecessary to the story. It felt like it was shoved in to actually get people to talk about the film but it was just awfully executed and felt awkward to watch. The same goes for the violence. Trance is surprisingly graphic at times but I was having a hard time trying to figure out why. The brutal violence strayed so far away from the original tone of the movie that it as well felt unnecessary and overdone. Trance really doesn't understand it's audience and it led to a generally displeasing viewing experience.The hypnosis sequences are really the only interesting part of the film but by the end they get tiring and overdone. There were way too many of these scenes and it felt as if Boyle was including all these trippy sequences to make up for the awful "love story" occurring in the secondary story arch as the relationships and feelings these characters share are never clear.In total, Trance is a messy, bloated, unfinished skeleton of a film. With some more work and editing done to it, Trance could've been a lot better but as it stands now it is only a fraction of Boyle's real talent behind the camera. Trance is the kind of movie that you want to love because of the cool concept and narrative style, but can never get into because the movie doesn't really seem to care. The choppy and exploitative story is predictable and certainly not viewer-friendly. If you're looking for some mindless and forgettable entertainment then Trance will do you well. Just don't expect to come out happy and satisfied.