Watched it in my arts movie theatre yesterday and thought that it was absolutely brilliant. Jean-Pierre Jeunet and most his chronies of Amelie and City of Lost Children fame are back together and I must say I was very impressed with every aspect of what they managed to achieve. The movie has a touching love story, a decent mystery, lots of quirky humor and it manages to tie them to a gruesome WW1 trenches background with ease and style. Right after watching it I was just about ready to become a pacifist, the movie really made me forget every single good reason to fight a war. 
For me, the film as a whole is less than the sum of its parts. There’s no doubt that there are some extraordinary moments–visually arresting and emotionally powerful. But the film still runs long, and the central mystery isn’t as engaging as it should be, so no matter how many great moments on the periphery there are, you never forget that the central plot is the one with the least resonance.
And I’d say the fault lies largely on the shoulders of Audrey Tautou, who is lovely and winsome but just does not have the acting chops necessary to pull off the main conceit–that her steely resolve isn’t mere pig-headed denial. Jeunet is a very visual director, so he relies on faces and compositions and moments that don’t involve dialogue, so his casting of many of the small parts is superb, but Tautou is simply incapable of conveying the complex emotions that Mathilde must surely be feeling; instead, we get lots of stoic vacancy (with the occasional pout or twinkle) and we’re left to fill in the blankness ourselves. It’s not enough.
Still, it’s a remarkable achievement on many levels and a film well worth seeing. It certainly deserves the Art Direction Oscar over anything else released last year (stunning doesn’t even begin to describe it), and there are many moments that will sear themselves on your brain (though none of them w/Tautou). Great evocation of the period and a war that gets only occasional screentime. Overall, good but not great (though it obviously yearns to be).
I was just gonna let this sink since not enough people have seen it, but ArchiveGuy you leave me no choice. So here are the debunkings of your baseless accusations so as to prevent confusion for the potential viewer
- The mystery part seemed a little silly - That was done on purpose, after I saw the way the killer dispatched her first victim I didn’t expect much from that part of the plot aside for some wisecracks
- Audrey Tautou not looking enough like someone who genuinly believes her MIA fiancee is still alive - We are never supposed to find out if she believes it, or if she looks for him in order to get closure, or because she feels she owes him that much be he dead or alive.
- Movie being less then the sum of its parts - My uni has a great math tutoring center.
Sorry you didn’t enjoy it as much as I did, but with this one just like with City of Lost Children and Amelie every part was designed and created with so much care and effort, and all of it just to please little old me - makes me feel special(the good kind).
:rolleyes:
That’s not the mystery I’m referring to. I’m referring to the “Is her fiance dead or alive?” mystery.
If we are never supposed to know her motivation, than I would argue that’s an inherent weakness in the story and that character’s development. Still, a better actress could convey this sense of ambiguity effectively. AT is not such an actress (and I’ve seen her in plenty of other things to confirm this).
FTR, I think The City of Lost Children remain’s Jeunet’s masterpiece, and I’m certainly glad VLE was a stop up from the tediously oh-so-precious Amelie. There’s no question as to the film’s ambition–I’d just argue that it bites off more than it can chew. Still, I look forward to his next film…
I’ve seen the film and I loved it.
To me it had many great moments both about and not about the central story.
For those who haven’t seen it let me compare a more popular film. In Field of Dreams there is a scene that just connects to your gut and it is magic. I’m speaking of the moment when James Earl Jones first says “Moonlight Graham”. When he says that you are shocked and excited and it is not completley unlike being electocuted.
A Very Long Engagement, for me, had many such moments. It works in the same way, you think the quest is coming to an end and then suddenly a new clue is discovered or a new person comes forth with more information. (example, when the German woman erases part of the menu)
Of course a movie needs more than moments. For me, the central story worked. It was a story of faith. Or has Robing Williams said in some movie “It’s about NOT giving up.” Each time she tried to divine the truth by peeling an apple or racing a car, I was moved. Of course I also love Paris and the scenes there were like seeing a photo of a lost love. (I think I ate in one of those restaurants)
But yes for set design, and art direction, this film is a masterpiece. For me it is one of the best war movies. It showed the front and the people left behind and the way that even the peace after war may, or may not be all that you hoped.
And hey it had Jodie Foster!
We, the audience do not know if Tatou’s lover is still alive. And she does not know, but she thinks she does. I was convinced she wholeheartedly believed it. Like so many others before. Some right, some wrong.
Major spoiler approaching(sorry, not adept at spoiler boxes.)
The most poignant moment in the film is when she finally finds him.
But no huge hug, or deep kiss. Just the reaction of a lover who knew that moment was inevitable. He was always still in the world somewhere, alive. They were just together again as before. And her new resolve was to patiently help him regain his identity.