Mood Indigo

My, my, my, what a sweet and sad movie. Gondry's penchant for colorful aesthetics and old school special effects not only reflects an auteur's unique artistic vision that suits the material splendidly, it also captures its protagonists' shifting emotional states through ingenious juxtaposition. While it occasionally comes at the expense of narrative momentum, I was totally enraptured by the film's wacky charm and spirited characters. Deserves to be seen in a theater.

Maybe this should serve as a warning - Do not attempt to make films about books who's only worthwhile substance is the metaphors contained within them. There is no real parallel image to each given linguistic stunt (Read Frege).

Interesting visuals but just didn't connect with me.

Despite the efforts to make every scene an explosion of visually striking tricks, scenarios and set pieces, his post-Green Hornet highly expected comeback feels lost between a low fantasy romance set in a collective fever driven by an intellectual best-seller called Jean-Sol Partre and a bloated tale of feelings, actions, movements and relationships ruled by a mechanized and functional industrial world. Often unnerving and barely saved by its dark finale.

Colin, an idle young bachelor (Romain Duris) falls in love with the free-spirited Chloe (Audrey Tautou), and they seem set for a happy life together. But she becomes ill (a flower is growing in her lung), and he must go to work to pay for her treatment. The story is mostly an excuse for whimsical happenings, like a piano that makes a cocktails, or a wedding-chapel go-kart race. It often looks great, but the frenetic editing and dull characters make for a detached, wearisome experience.

Critically somewhat derided, yet I found each little invention and visual trickery damn charming and drop-dead gorgeous. Not every idea "works" (something macabre finds its way into the joyous that feels out of place at first), but let it wash over you, and you'll find a mature work that justifies the quirks as a means to counter the darkness of sickness and death. And Gondry creates beauty even out of decay. 131 min.

Welcome back, Mr. Gondry! We've missed you. I can tell you are revisiting your old, lovely music video aesthetics and putting them to great use! Also, you relate closely to your French entourage, the movie is very Paris, even if a dystopian, psychedelic version of it.

Based on the first part of the film I would have ranked this 100 for creativity and originality. I was loving the madness of Michel Gondry and the lengths he will go to to put his wild imaginings onto the screen. The story trajectory is unapologetically relentless in its descent... and 80% of the best, funnest bits are in the first 20 minutes. In the end I felt this tragedy was a little bit one-dimensional and declined a lot in the effort put in. Kind of a shame, still a remarkable film though.

Sure it looks cool, but two hours of metaphors and fast-paced whimsy is a bit hard to take. Especially with the music blaring relentlessly. There are lots of visual gems, but the experience of watching it is pretty tiring.

It's pretty much a 2 hour Bjork video. I'm cool with that but I understand if you hate it

L'écume des jours is quirky, surreal, imaginative and downright depressing. The fantastical sped-up sequences, the superimposed frames, and the interspersed additions of graphic yet comic violence, all feel very Gilliam-esque on acid. The decay of colour, imagination and tone juxtaposing the main characters' happiness is done well, but perhaps at the expense of a strong narrative and script, leaving the film a little lacking. Tautou is delightful though. I also really want a pianocktail now.

Before seeing this film you'd better go and read the book first. Otherwise you may find the visuals very annoying because Gondry took every absurd detail in the book literal.

Quite good, very sweet, intricately designed movie.

It's very creative and inventive. But the first half is so full of creative inventive sights it harms the deepening of the characters. Making me not care about the tragic second part.

Feels like a French version of Pee-wee's playhouse... until it gets super depressing.

Gondry tem que encurtar os filmes

As a big fan of Boris Vian's book and work (been loving it for 15 years), this was quite an amazing achievement. It captured the surreal style and absurdism perfectly and the transition from whimsical to suffocating was done slowly and with beautiful cruelty. But can it be too much of a perfect adaptation? Where it falters is the characters, they're not really grounded, but Colin and Chloe of the book weren't really characters to begin with. So maybe too much fidelity to the source.

A dull movie that thinks being quirky doesn't make it dull.

A grande vantagem desse filme ter sido lançado foi a reedição do excelente livro de Boris Vian no Brasil, porque esse filme é muito chato na primeira metade! Gondry errou a mão tornando tudo muito exagerado, quando o surrealismo do livro era bem amarrado à narrativa e passava incólume em sua estruturação, a segunda metade mais soturna é indubitavelmente superior.

I wanted to like this film, but I didn't connect with it. Might have to give it another watch.

(130 minute version) To the quote the film itself, 'too much form makes it feel crowded'. Gondy sort of lets his surreal whimsy get the better of him here, to the point where it threatens to overwhelm the emotional core of the film (which is definitely there), especially during the frantic first half. It ultimately does find it's footing, and if nothing else at least inadvertently serves as a necessary darker counterpart to Amelie. I feel like it could definitely grow on me with rewatches.

Yes, this is Gondry as you know it, ever full of life and inspired by it! Unbeliavable amount of detail crammed into a single shot, over and over. It's as if god is at work here, a diligent artisan creating his life's work. But beware of the second half lads! I never would have imagined "Godry" could venture into the "dark" this deep, both visually and emotionally (the rain marks the spot). I guess Gondry has grown, and does not feel like he is 12 any more...

What a brag!

Bad? Good? Forget it, Adorable.

Really hard to see LSD nonsense when you are not high

Just fantastic enough to not be terrible. Adorable acting in places, but just hated the direction too much.

It could have been such a great movie: Vian+Gondry+Beaucarne. But the frenetic editing of the first part ruins the experience of Beaucarne's photography of Gondry's whimsical universe. Because I was paying attention to all the visual delights, I did not engage enough with the characters to appreciate the second part. The same movie, with a slower editing and a 3-hour runtime would probably reach a 90/100.

Wild retro 70s fantastical film, including f/x (e.g., claymation, etc.). Think *Celine and Julie Go Boating*. I liked the first ten minutes, the fantasy just got too excessive. Worse, the film left me cold. In a way, the film felt autobiographical--specifically, film-as-therapy. This isn't so bad, but it felt like something that wouldn't be so meaningful or interesting beyond the filmmaker and their loved ones. ps65