Stars: Tim Roth, Paul Rhys
Best Quote: Watching this two hour and twenty minute abomination left me, and my wife, stunned by its wretchedness. From the nonexistent narrative, to the indulgence of every artistic cliché imaginable, to possibly the worst soundtrack ever used in a film - it's a wonder Altman ever crawled his way out from under the odium of this horror-show, the nadir of his career - IMDB Review
A more realistic, art-house version of Lust for Life - it was also incredibly boring.
In Lust for Life we get Van Gogh-Kirk Douglas over-acting with Gauguin-Anthony Quinn. Here, we get a sordid Van Gogh with stained teeth interacting with his dull, art-dealer Brother. Probably more realistic, but who cares? There are some wonderful shots of Van Gogh's paintings and some beautiful landscapes - but that's the only plus.
Which brings up the question: Can you make a *true* and interesting movie about a painter? After all, what do painters do? They sit and paint. Not exactly cinematic is it? And while really smart, artistic people, can look at a painting and talk for hours about the lines, the colors, what the artist was trying to do, etc. I think most movie-goers are like me, and can only look at a painting for a while, think its beautiful or interesting, and then have to move on.
Summary: I'm not a big fan of Lust for Life but it did have an intense Kirk Douglas, Anthony Quinn .and some marvelous Wide-screen views of Van Gogh's Art. OTOH, Vincent and Theo seems more like a low budget made-for-TV movie. Unless you're an Altman or Van Gogh obsessive, I'd skip it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.