We've all, at one time or another, seen more artistic movies mocked by the general movie-going public. Usually I'll chalk it up to the average viewer's lack of patience for more intense, intelligent cinema. However, in this case, any ridicule of artistic excess seems just.
This is a film where nothing much happens and not much makes sense. Why does Veronique have an exact double half-way across Europe? The film introduces this idea and then simply lets it float about without explanation. Of course the viewer is left perplexed and frustrated. What was the director trying to say? Did he even know what he was trying to say? There's plenty of symbolism throughout the film that is very cryptic, not offering the viewer much help towards deciphering the story.
This film reminds me of a modern art gallery, where pretentious "art experts" endlessly debate the meaning of a black square inside a white square. Sometimes a piece of art can simply look interesting while saying nothing coherent or concrete. That is the case with this film. It's a collection of pretty pictures that don't add up in the end. I suppose one could re-watch this film a dozen times, trying to glean some sort of deeper meaning. However, I'll pass. It's brutally slow and tedious; the prospect of continually re-watching this dull tale is not very appealing.
Perhaps this film is highly regarded because many reviewers feel it's so cryptic and strange, it simply must be an artistic masterpiece. No one wants to be the uncultured everyman to stand up and say, "This film makes no sense. It's a pretentious mess. Nothing of interest happened and the characters are not at all compelling." The cinematography is beautiful and Irène Jacob is beautiful. Based on that, the film earns a 4/10.
This is a film where nothing much happens and not much makes sense. Why does Veronique have an exact double half-way across Europe? The film introduces this idea and then simply lets it float about without explanation. Of course the viewer is left perplexed and frustrated. What was the director trying to say? Did he even know what he was trying to say? There's plenty of symbolism throughout the film that is very cryptic, not offering the viewer much help towards deciphering the story.
This film reminds me of a modern art gallery, where pretentious "art experts" endlessly debate the meaning of a black square inside a white square. Sometimes a piece of art can simply look interesting while saying nothing coherent or concrete. That is the case with this film. It's a collection of pretty pictures that don't add up in the end. I suppose one could re-watch this film a dozen times, trying to glean some sort of deeper meaning. However, I'll pass. It's brutally slow and tedious; the prospect of continually re-watching this dull tale is not very appealing.
Perhaps this film is highly regarded because many reviewers feel it's so cryptic and strange, it simply must be an artistic masterpiece. No one wants to be the uncultured everyman to stand up and say, "This film makes no sense. It's a pretentious mess. Nothing of interest happened and the characters are not at all compelling." The cinematography is beautiful and Irène Jacob is beautiful. Based on that, the film earns a 4/10.