Critic Roger Ebert said something like: One 'settles into' this movie and the characters, even though not much else 'happens.' He, and perhaps some others, seemed to like "Va Savoir" and its "settling-in" requirements of the audience. I DID see what they meant--- one does kind of settle-in to the thing, and find a bit of texture, even a bit of depth and fleeting, moderate interest from time to time. Overall, I kind of, almost, liked it. But I also found the movie dull superficial. I was more bored and impatient with the story than intrigued. Contrast this movie with the superior Italian movie "Bread and Tulips."
"B&T" is equally "non-eventfull," in that film style that somehow is supposed to convey reality and "art" to us, but "B&T" is vastly more interesting than "Va Savoir." "Va Savoir" was tiresomely thin and drawn out, like a Rotary Club luncheon speaker who just takes forever to make the most trivial of points. "B&T" was innocent and fresh. It not only embodied the vaunted artsy "anti-movie" naturalness, it also vibrates with sexuality, beauty, charm, and grace. I truly LOVED "B&T," and plan to buy my own DVD copy when I can afford it. "Va Savoir," on the other hand, is "OK," but I wouldn't even want to SEE it again, let alone own it.
"B&T" is equally "non-eventfull," in that film style that somehow is supposed to convey reality and "art" to us, but "B&T" is vastly more interesting than "Va Savoir." "Va Savoir" was tiresomely thin and drawn out, like a Rotary Club luncheon speaker who just takes forever to make the most trivial of points. "B&T" was innocent and fresh. It not only embodied the vaunted artsy "anti-movie" naturalness, it also vibrates with sexuality, beauty, charm, and grace. I truly LOVED "B&T," and plan to buy my own DVD copy when I can afford it. "Va Savoir," on the other hand, is "OK," but I wouldn't even want to SEE it again, let alone own it.