It took quite a ways in before I began to warm up to this. But at some point things started to click and I began to recognize what a thoughtful, interesting, gorgeous movie this is. The constantly interjecting music theme was at first obnoxious, but I think there was a definite purpose for it. I also noticed at least three shots where we can see the reflection of the film crew; in any other movie I chalk this up to a production goof, but here I have a feeling it was intentional. Neat movie.
It takes Ulysses 10 years to return home because he doesn't want to. Ulysses doesn't rush home to Ithaca because he was unhappy with Penelope even before he went off. Had he been happy, he'd have stayed home. He used the Trojan war to get away from his wife.
Godard's most conventional offering, and my favorite of his films so far. A love story that appeals more to the intellect than the heart, and though it doesn't have great emotional leverage, these are among Godard's most comprehensively realized characters. He takes an objective perspective in the disintegration of a marriage: as Paul and Camille wage psychological warfare, neither is completely guilty or innocent. For all its turmoil, these are a smooth three acts with very natural progression.
Down from 95 on rewatch. Still fantastic, but the drop from first half to second half is even more noticeable. NB: fuck studio canal for this awful Blu ray. The criterion DVD I saw it on the first time looked better!
A film depicting a destructive cyle that is itself anything but destructive. Godard's usual sense of expansiveness shines through, illuminating the struggle of lovers Bardot and Picolli with evocative passion, ably assisted by leads portraying one of cinema's most compelling couples with soul and sophistication. Tales of an unpleasant creative process abound but the creation itself -- a vivid celebration of artfulness over commercialization, dipped in Raoul Coutard's rich palette -- abides.
I LOVE Godard, but I can't see why this is his second most highly critically acclaimed film. Its accessibility hints at how it lacks much of what makes Godard great. It feels so simple (the frequency with which I see it called intellectually stimulating is baffling), its comments on the film industry are obvious, and the relationship drama gets a tad repetitive. Admittedly I'm focusing on the negative: it is still very good, and gorgeously shot, but it isn't invigorating like his best films are.
An unbearable, totally unrealistic, meaningless, utterly dysfunctional and god-awfully boring film. The best thing about it (except Brigitte's bottom) is - HUGE SPOILER ALERT! - the death of Camille and Jerry; although Paul and Francesca should also die and Fritz should retire. I mean, this film he was supposedly shooting seemed even worse than "Le Mépris" itself! Picture that!! And I can now hear the intelligentsia of cinema spitting on me: "It's all symbolic, you brainless cretin". Yeah, sure.
I don't know, there should be so much to appreciate in this - sometimes it kind of felt like Antonioni mixed with Varda's Happiness somehow if that makes any sense. I just don't care much for Godard I guess, except Vivre sa Vie - I liked that.
Damn, I really need to play catch up with Godard's oeuvre. "Contempt" may be end up as one of his most admirable efforts, a seemingly unfilmable tale of fading love that seems to inhabit the realm between painful reality and luscious fantasy, like an uncharted journey into the unconscious that seeks to defy critical analysis. Great direction and cinematography all around, with the limited casting and sublime soundtrack giving the film a very intimate feel.
Starts with rich promise, with astonishingly beautiful photography and interesting dynamics. It quickly wastes this potential, however, on a boring relationship melodrama that's so insipid, uninteresting and even irritating that I almost fell asleep. Has some interesting elements, but doesn't know what to do with them.
Very rich and challenging flick. Lots of symbolism and odd color sceme builds up a special meaning if you dive into it. Story is about a couple who's been living together so long than they can read each other more than enough. Excellent acting and cinematography, and poetic lines and quotes.
On fate and reason. It is also the greatest movie ever made about the process of filmmaking, and a reflection on individual and collective Western disorders of desire. There is more to say about this film than can possibly be fit into this space here. Suffice to say that, along with 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Thin Red Line, it is one of the three great works of philosophical cinema. A singular achievement.
Simply one of the greatest works of the nouvelle vague and a true evidence of godards love to cinema. Coutards cinematography is just amazing, and he really is one of the greatest photographers ever and maybe the most innovative in film history. Not to forget the music which is so affecting that you feel part of this film from the first to the last minute.
I LOVE Godard, but I can't see why this is his second most highly critically acclaimed film. Its accessibility hints at how it lacks much of what makes Godard great. It feels so simple (the frequency with which I see it called intellectually stimulating is baffling), its comments on the film industry are obvious, and the relationship drama gets a tad repetitive. Admittedly I'm focusing on the negative: it is still very good, and gorgeously shot, but it isn't invigorating like his best films are.
Loading Products from Amazon and Ebay
