I am a great fan of Gerard Depardieu and I purchased this film based on the fact that he was in it. However, I'm sure that Mr. Depardieu was disappointed in the final product. Did most of his scenes end up on the cutting room floor? Was I just "out to lunch" when I was watching this film? What a lot of nonsense this movie is!
Depardieu's character was never allowed to be developed. I am convinced that he gave his usual stellar performance, but there was just not enough screen time to give dimension or depth to the character. One could wonder what was the purpose of having him in the film. His character was supposed to be one of many catalysts in the life of the character that Ms. Rowlands played. The contrast of these two was never fully realized.
I am not acquainted with Ms. Rowlands' work, but she seemed competent in this role. The film was, I suppose, too much like a slice of someone's life - boring, and with no impetus toward an end. There was no continuity in the film - it merely meandered like a sluggish stream.
Ms. Tomei was acting? Perhaps not. Perhaps she was just being herself. She did not invoke my sympathy, or even my interest. She was supposed to have brought about a change in the lead character, or the lead was supposed to have brought about a change in her character. Neither was apparent.
I found it very difficult to remain watching this movie. I kept longing for the end, or else for something to be of value so that I would not have wasted my time or my money. The woman (Rowlands) is leaving her best friend (the little JJ who gave the best performance in my opinion) for what? -for Miami, that Depardieu's character briefly mentioned and never developed or planned out the idea? Is the point supposed to be that she's being a martyr? That was never developed. The whole movie was never developed! It was vague and disjointed, with no feeling of closure or of even wondering what would become of the heroine. Who cares!
I love a good cerebral movie, but this wasn't it. I'm not sure what it was, except forgettable!
Depardieu's character was never allowed to be developed. I am convinced that he gave his usual stellar performance, but there was just not enough screen time to give dimension or depth to the character. One could wonder what was the purpose of having him in the film. His character was supposed to be one of many catalysts in the life of the character that Ms. Rowlands played. The contrast of these two was never fully realized.
I am not acquainted with Ms. Rowlands' work, but she seemed competent in this role. The film was, I suppose, too much like a slice of someone's life - boring, and with no impetus toward an end. There was no continuity in the film - it merely meandered like a sluggish stream.
Ms. Tomei was acting? Perhaps not. Perhaps she was just being herself. She did not invoke my sympathy, or even my interest. She was supposed to have brought about a change in the lead character, or the lead was supposed to have brought about a change in her character. Neither was apparent.
I found it very difficult to remain watching this movie. I kept longing for the end, or else for something to be of value so that I would not have wasted my time or my money. The woman (Rowlands) is leaving her best friend (the little JJ who gave the best performance in my opinion) for what? -for Miami, that Depardieu's character briefly mentioned and never developed or planned out the idea? Is the point supposed to be that she's being a martyr? That was never developed. The whole movie was never developed! It was vague and disjointed, with no feeling of closure or of even wondering what would become of the heroine. Who cares!
I love a good cerebral movie, but this wasn't it. I'm not sure what it was, except forgettable!